Let me be clear, I think that many of us in the gaming industry are gullible. We are often times blinded by the need to have the escapism we once had in whatever title brought us to love MMORPGs. Whether it be Ultima, EQ, whatever.
These promises that people like CR are making are having hard working men and women part with their money simply for the hope that it will satisfy their desire to have the same escapism they once had.
Crowdfunding is a means to exploit people in this industry and I just don't like it. There needs to be more control and protection. Even the stock market has more protection and laws governing it.
The reality is, anyone with a video or spreadsheet can make a Kickstarter and promise the world. People will happily give up their money for it.
Some things I feel should be in place for crowdfunding legality would be providing reasonable proof that you can create the product you claim to create. Have it broken down into charts showing where funding will be used, projections of how long it will take, and some sort of evidence that you can bring this product to market.
"Just take my word for it" and getting paid seems wrong.
I don't believe many of us are gullible based on because we play video games. I don't believe that many of us play video games for "escapism" either.
No one ever with a video and a spreadsheet has managed to launch a successful crowdfunding campaign. 2/3 of the campaigns fail and the ones that have succeeded have provided more than that. Have you ever pledged to a successful campaign?
Well of course stock market has more protection, stock market is the financial pillar of the world and it has been there for nine centuries. There are traders that have made more than the whole crowdfunding campaigns altogether.
Since backers are making pledges (or pre-orders! it doesn't matter here) and are not investors are not entitled to receive any financial reports. And who is eligible to review these reports? You give your household financial report to 200 people and you will receive 200 different reviews. Government can't review each campaign anyways. They can't review the quality and they can't use tax payers money to make seasonal reviews of private businesses for their private customers whom not all are even their citizens. I'm not sure if anyone can provide any evidence in advance that they can deliver a video game besides what they have been doing on their campaigns.
Your concerns where they might be creating a campaign as a fraud are legit. You have to prove your identity, your bank account and your company first in Kickstarter.com. Kickstarter informs proper authorities that how much you have received in funds regarding what campaign, in full details.
So it comes down to legit developers with legit companies creating false campaigns. How to prevent that besides what they have been doing so far?
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
To frame my response, in reply to the subject: I consider non-delivery of a product as 'failure'. If a delivered product isn't to my personal tastes, I don't necessarily consider that a failure.
That out of the way, I don't think SC is going to fail and, if you are looking for a project to crucify in front of the masses, I don't think SC is the best candidate. (In my opinion) There is no end of material that has been produced to show that a reasonable effort has been/is being made to complete the project. Additionally, changes in scope seem to be widely communicated with the community and refunds seem to be available when people don't support a scope change.
I would think that, since you believe 'crowdfunding is a means to exploit people', you would have no trouble finding an actual project that took money with no intent to deliver or intent to 'bait and switch'. That would make a much stronger case if you are looking to push a legislative agenda. Sure, SC is high profile because of the money they took in through KS (and the vast amounts they've taken in after KS), but that doesn't mean they are your best case against crowd funding.
Simply put... I don't want to see ANY crowdfunded games become a success. It's a bad precedence. We, the consumers, should not be writing the paychecks of the game developers et al in advance of any product shipping. You don't send Ford $24K and tell them to make a car for you, you buy one off a lot and drive home with it... pretty much the same day. This whole pay in advance, sight unseen, crap is utterly stupid. It benefits NO ONE but the developers. You think you are getting something for your money, but you really aren't... nothing more than you would have if they did it the old fashioned way, only in that case, you can play the game that day not years down the road.
People think F2P is expensive... crowdfunding is the MOST EXPENSIVE option ever created. I guess people have money to burn. I sure don't and I won't support any game made this way, ever.
Let me be clear, I think that many of us in the gaming industry are gullible. We are often times blinded by the need to have the escapism we once had in whatever title brought us to love MMORPGs. Whether it be Ultima, EQ, whatever.
These promises that people like CR are making are having hard working men and women part with their money simply for the hope that it will satisfy their desire to have the same escapism they once had.
Crowdfunding is a means to exploit people in this industry and I just don't like it. There needs to be more control and protection. Even the stock market has more protection and laws governing it.
The reality is, anyone with a video or spreadsheet can make a Kickstarter and promise the world. People will happily give up their money for it.
Some things I feel should be in place for crowdfunding legality would be providing reasonable proof that you can create the product you claim to create. Have it broken down into charts showing where funding will be used, projections of how long it will take, and some sort of evidence that you can bring this product to market.
"Just take my word for it" and getting paid seems wrong.
I don't believe many of us are gullible based on because we play video games. I don't believe that many of us play video games for "escapism" either.
No one ever with a video and a spreadsheet has managed to launch a successful crowdfunding campaign. 2/3 of the campaigns fail and the ones that have succeeded have provided more than that. Have you ever pledged to a successful campaign?
Well of course stock market has more protection, stock market is the financial pillar of the world and it has been there for nine centuries. There are traders that have made more than the whole crowdfunding campaigns altogether.
Since backers are making pledges (or pre-orders! it doesn't matter here) and are not investors are not entitled to receive any financial reports. And who is eligible to review these reports? You give your household financial report to 200 people and you will receive 200 different reviews. Government can't review each campaign anyways. They can't review the quality and they can't use tax payers money to make seasonal reviews of private businesses for their private customers whom not all are even their citizens. I'm not sure if anyone can provide any evidence in advance that they can deliver a video game besides what they have been doing on their campaigns.
Your concerns where they might be creating a campaign as a fraud are legit. You have to prove your identity, your bank account and your company first in Kickstarter.com. Kickstarter informs proper authorities that how much you have received in funds regarding what campaign, in full details.
So it comes down to legit developers with legit companies creating false campaigns. How to prevent that besides what they have been doing so far?
The government does review most investment companies thoroughly with an entire entity formed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. I wish we had a similar entity for Kickstarters.
" The Act mandated a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud, and created the "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board," also known as the PCAOB, to oversee the activities of the auditing profession "
ok. That pretty much makes my point. If you have cases that are much clearer examples of deceit, then run with those. If SC were to fail, I think they would be able to show intent to deliver and just reinforce that a KS project is 'allowed to fail'.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
The government does review most investment companies thoroughly with an entire entity formed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. I wish we had a similar entity for Kickstarters.
" The Act mandated a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud, and created the "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board," also known as the PCAOB, to oversee the activities of the auditing profession "
Correct me if I'm wrong but Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 applies to public companies. A very different scale compared to even the biggest companies with crowdfunding campaigns.
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
Simply put... I don't want to see ANY crowdfunded games become a success. It's a bad precedence. We, the consumers, should not be writing the paychecks of the game developers et al in advance of any product shipping. You don't send Ford $24K and tell them to make a car for you, you buy one off a lot and drive home with it... pretty much the same day. This whole pay in advance, sight unseen, crap is utterly stupid. It benefits NO ONE but the developers. You think you are getting something for your money, but you really aren't... nothing more than you would have if they did it the old fashioned way, only in that case, you can play the game that day not years down the road.
People think F2P is expensive... crowdfunding is the MOST EXPENSIVE option ever created. I guess people have money to burn. I sure don't and I won't support any game made this way, ever.
The difference is when a game is F2P you don't have any other options to play it. Even if you pay for the optional sub the cash-shop is still there. Crowdfunding is a choice, not lack of. Don't pay them, wait till they are released and then take the regular option that does exist for every single crowdfunding game ever made and will be made in future.
You can't say "we, the consuers, should not be writing...". You can't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do.
By the same logic you shouldn't do charity as well, because it doesn't benefit you instantly.
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
The government does review most investment companies thoroughly with an entire entity formed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. I wish we had a similar entity for Kickstarters.
" The Act mandated a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud, and created the "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board," also known as the PCAOB, to oversee the activities of the auditing profession "
Correct me if I'm wrong but Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 applies to public companies. A very different scale compared to even the biggest companies with crowdfunding campaigns.
You're right but in order to take peoples money for stock you have to be a public company. You can't trade on the US Stock exchange as a private company.
In the case of kickstarters, they are taking peoples money for rewards/promises and I feel a similar oversight should be established. After all, we're talking MILLIONS of dollars in the case of CIG. It's not like some guy making a 100k on a Monopoly game.
I was comparing that an entity taking the money from people for investments/stocks is governed by special auditing commissions: Securities and Exchange Commission
I don't know why you'd be against a company having to be subjected to audits and independent accountants if its taking millions of dollars from people. If anything, it would just further guarantee the game gets made right and has what it says.
Let me be plain... Someone is selling pictures of spaceships for ten thousand dollars. Don't you think that's a little bit crazy without any oversight?
Simply put... I don't want to see ANY crowdfunded games become a success. It's a bad precedence. We, the consumers, should not be writing the paychecks of the game developers et al in advance of any product shipping. You don't send Ford $24K and tell them to make a car for you, you buy one off a lot and drive home with it... pretty much the same day. This whole pay in advance, sight unseen, crap is utterly stupid. It benefits NO ONE but the developers. You think you are getting something for your money, but you really aren't... nothing more than you would have if they did it the old fashioned way, only in that case, you can play the game that day not years down the road.
People think F2P is expensive... crowdfunding is the MOST EXPENSIVE option ever created. I guess people have money to burn. I sure don't and I won't support any game made this way, ever.
The difference is when a game is F2P you don't have any other options to play it. Even if you pay for the optional sub the cash-shop is still there. Crowdfunding is a choice, not lack of. Don't pay them, wait till they are released and then take the regular option that does exist for every single crowdfunding game ever made and will be made in future.
You can't say "we, the consuers, should not be writing...". You can't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do.
By the same logic you shouldn't do charity as well, because it doesn't benefit you instantly.
Can't it just be an informed choice? Instead of a 100% risk without any proof thereof?
Can't someone be auditing them, applying pressure, ensuring its all legitimate and someone isn't paying their rent with all of the money or doing something ridiculous? What about bonds?
I was comparing that an entity taking the money from people for investments/stocks is governed by special auditing commissions: Securities and Exchange Commission
I don't know why you'd be against a company having to be subjected to audits and independent accountants if its taking millions of dollars from people. If anything, it would just further guarantee the game gets made right and has what it says.
Let me be plain... Someone is selling pictures of spaceships for ten thousand dollars. Don't you think that's a little bit crazy without any oversight?
I am not against it. I'm pro it. What I meant was because of the scale of them it can't be done like that. Derek Smart is willing to pay for SC audit because of his personal reasons. We can't be sure if he will. But who will pay for the rest? Yes we like to see a cop in every corner, on every bus, in every school, but government can't simply afford it.
I believe if your campaign is asking for more than a certain amount of funds you should go through more loops before being able to launch. Not anything impossible or direly crippling, but hey if you want to receive $5m you should be ready to spend some funds yourself and spare a few months.
And as I stated previously I believe crowdfunding should only be done via crowdfunding sites, not when it has ended just transfer it to your own site and host it as a shop to sell pictures of spaceships. That doesn't necessary mean fraud or anything. But I believe that is a bad decision business wise, and that's what I am personally good at it. I have worked many years for a giant business incubator and no one could ever secure a penny from us by asking an ongoing flow of funds to create their ongoing flow of ideas. There should be a limit.
This exact reason is why I have emphasized various times that making a pledge is not pre-ordering. I never said that to secure a getaway for developers. Because when this happens people see those pledges on dev's personal sites as products to buy. They are not running a campaign anymore, they have set up shop. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it to rob people. But they have changed the concept for their own benefit.
I respect many of them and I have pledged toward their goals, I'm not questioning their ethics but I do question their business strategies.
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
I was comparing that an entity taking the money from people for investments/stocks is governed by special auditing commissions: Securities and Exchange Commission
I don't know why you'd be against a company having to be subjected to audits and independent accountants if its taking millions of dollars from people. If anything, it would just further guarantee the game gets made right and has what it says.
Let me be plain... Someone is selling pictures of spaceships for ten thousand dollars. Don't you think that's a little bit crazy without any oversight?
I am not against it. I'm pro it. What I meant was because of the scale of them it can't be done like that. Derek Smart is willing to pay for SC audit because of his personal reasons. We can't be sure if he will. But who will pay for the rest? Yes we like to see a cop in every corner, on every bus, in every school, but government can't simply afford it.
I believe if your campaign is asking for more than a certain amount of funds you should go through more loops before being able to launch. Not anything impossible or direly crippling, but hey if you want to receive $5m you should be ready to spend some funds yourself and spare a few months.
And as I stated previously I believe crowdfunding should only be done via crowdfunding sites, not when it has ended just transfer it to your own site and host it as a shop to sell pictures of spaceships. That doesn't necessary mean fraud or anything. But I believe that is a bad decision business wise, and that's what I am personally good at it. I have worked many years for a giant business incubator and no one could ever secure a penny from us by asking an ongoing flow of funds to create their ongoing flow of ideas. There should be a limit.
This exact reason is why I have emphasized various times that making a pledge is not pre-ordering. I never said that to secure a getaway for developers. Because when this happens people see those pledges on dev's personal sites as products to buy. They are not running a campaign anymore, they have set up shop. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it to rob people. But they have changed the concept for their own benefit.
I respect many of them and I have pledged toward their goals, I'm not questioning their ethics but I do question their business strategies.
I'd like to see some government entity divulging the burn rate, sample salaries, and estimated funds on hand in the very least.
I bet those three pieces of information would DRASTICALLY effect whether or not someone bought a space ship picture.
Simply put... I don't want to see ANY crowdfunded games become a success. It's a bad precedence. We, the consumers, should not be writing the paychecks of the game developers et al in advance of any product shipping. You don't send Ford $24K and tell them to make a car for you, you buy one off a lot and drive home with it... pretty much the same day. This whole pay in advance, sight unseen, crap is utterly stupid. It benefits NO ONE but the developers. You think you are getting something for your money, but you really aren't... nothing more than you would have if they did it the old fashioned way, only in that case, you can play the game that day not years down the road.
People think F2P is expensive... crowdfunding is the MOST EXPENSIVE option ever created. I guess people have money to burn. I sure don't and I won't support any game made this way, ever.
The difference is when a game is F2P you don't have any other options to play it. Even if you pay for the optional sub the cash-shop is still there. Crowdfunding is a choice, not lack of. Don't pay them, wait till they are released and then take the regular option that does exist for every single crowdfunding game ever made and will be made in future.
You can't say "we, the consuers, should not be writing...". You can't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do.
By the same logic you shouldn't do charity as well, because it doesn't benefit you instantly.
Can't it just be an informed choice? Instead of a 100% risk without any proof thereof?
Can't someone be auditing them, applying pressure, ensuring its all legitimate and someone isn't paying their rent with all of the money or doing something ridiculous? What about bonds?
The question is why? Who are they answering to? They have 1 million people to "please" so, inevitably, their spending will piss someone off. What if they were doing weekly team building exercises? What if they were offering snacks to employees? What if they were paying moving costs for some incoming employees? What if they ARE paying someone's rent with the money? Do you find that acceptable? Or do you find that ridiculous?
Simply put... I don't want to see ANY crowdfunded games become a success. It's a bad precedence. We, the consumers, should not be writing the paychecks of the game developers et al in advance of any product shipping. You don't send Ford $24K and tell them to make a car for you, you buy one off a lot and drive home with it... pretty much the same day. This whole pay in advance, sight unseen, crap is utterly stupid. It benefits NO ONE but the developers. You think you are getting something for your money, but you really aren't... nothing more than you would have if they did it the old fashioned way, only in that case, you can play the game that day not years down the road.
People think F2P is expensive... crowdfunding is the MOST EXPENSIVE option ever created. I guess people have money to burn. I sure don't and I won't support any game made this way, ever.
The difference is when a game is F2P you don't have any other options to play it. Even if you pay for the optional sub the cash-shop is still there. Crowdfunding is a choice, not lack of. Don't pay them, wait till they are released and then take the regular option that does exist for every single crowdfunding game ever made and will be made in future.
You can't say "we, the consuers, should not be writing...". You can't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do.
By the same logic you shouldn't do charity as well, because it doesn't benefit you instantly.
Can't it just be an informed choice? Instead of a 100% risk without any proof thereof?
Can't someone be auditing them, applying pressure, ensuring its all legitimate and someone isn't paying their rent with all of the money or doing something ridiculous? What about bonds?
The question is why? Who are they answering to? They have 1 million people to "please" so, inevitably, their spending will piss someone off. What if they were doing weekly team building exercises? What if they were offering snacks to employees? What if they were paying moving costs for some incoming employees? What if they ARE paying someone's rent with the money? Do you find that acceptable? Or do you find that ridiculous?
As I've said, I'd like to see some government entity divulging the burn rate, sample salaries, and estimated funds on hand in the very least.
They have their "November Anniversary Sale" coming and that will be another major cash grab. Lets see how they've spent the last 90 million.
Simply put... I don't want to see ANY crowdfunded games become a success. It's a bad precedence. We, the consumers, should not be writing the paychecks of the game developers et al in advance of any product shipping. You don't send Ford $24K and tell them to make a car for you, you buy one off a lot and drive home with it... pretty much the same day. This whole pay in advance, sight unseen, crap is utterly stupid. It benefits NO ONE but the developers. You think you are getting something for your money, but you really aren't... nothing more than you would have if they did it the old fashioned way, only in that case, you can play the game that day not years down the road.
People think F2P is expensive... crowdfunding is the MOST EXPENSIVE option ever created. I guess people have money to burn. I sure don't and I won't support any game made this way, ever.
The difference is when a game is F2P you don't have any other options to play it. Even if you pay for the optional sub the cash-shop is still there. Crowdfunding is a choice, not lack of. Don't pay them, wait till they are released and then take the regular option that does exist for every single crowdfunding game ever made and will be made in future.
You can't say "we, the consuers, should not be writing...". You can't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do.
By the same logic you shouldn't do charity as well, because it doesn't benefit you instantly.
Can't it just be an informed choice? Instead of a 100% risk without any proof thereof?
Can't someone be auditing them, applying pressure, ensuring its all legitimate and someone isn't paying their rent with all of the money or doing something ridiculous? What about bonds?
The question is why? Who are they answering to? They have 1 million people to "please" so, inevitably, their spending will piss someone off. What if they were doing weekly team building exercises? What if they were offering snacks to employees? What if they were paying moving costs for some incoming employees? What if they ARE paying someone's rent with the money? Do you find that acceptable? Or do you find that ridiculous?
As I've said, I'd like to see some government entity divulging the burn rate, sample salaries, and estimated funds on hand in the very least.
They have their "November Anniversary Sale" coming and that will be another major cash grab. Lets see how they've spent the last 90 million.
Their burn rate would be something of use in making a purchase decision, but only for new purchasers. Also, what does sample salaries tell you? What do you think a fair salary would be for a developer coming in to write code that has been said to be impossible, for a company who is run by assholes and bigots (allegedly)? Who do you need in order to do that? By the way, I believe that glass door reviews have mentioned salary as being moderate, for anyone actually willing to do some research and take a break from evangelizing.
I'd love to see this stuff, but there's absolutely no reason for them to do so and people backing the project have already said in forum posts that they don't care to see it. So what's their motivation? External pressure from random forum folk? Even the FTC haven't investigated anything, because there's simply nothing going on that they consider to be wrongdoing. This simply won't happen unless it's voluntary. That being said, you could always shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills up first.
Simply put... I don't want to see ANY crowdfunded games become a success. It's a bad precedence. We, the consumers, should not be writing the paychecks of the game developers et al in advance of any product shipping. You don't send Ford $24K and tell them to make a car for you, you buy one off a lot and drive home with it... pretty much the same day. This whole pay in advance, sight unseen, crap is utterly stupid. It benefits NO ONE but the developers. You think you are getting something for your money, but you really aren't... nothing more than you would have if they did it the old fashioned way, only in that case, you can play the game that day not years down the road.
People think F2P is expensive... crowdfunding is the MOST EXPENSIVE option ever created. I guess people have money to burn. I sure don't and I won't support any game made this way, ever.
The difference is when a game is F2P you don't have any other options to play it. Even if you pay for the optional sub the cash-shop is still there. Crowdfunding is a choice, not lack of. Don't pay them, wait till they are released and then take the regular option that does exist for every single crowdfunding game ever made and will be made in future.
You can't say "we, the consuers, should not be writing...". You can't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do.
By the same logic you shouldn't do charity as well, because it doesn't benefit you instantly.
Can't it just be an informed choice? Instead of a 100% risk without any proof thereof?
Can't someone be auditing them, applying pressure, ensuring its all legitimate and someone isn't paying their rent with all of the money or doing something ridiculous? What about bonds?
The question is why? Who are they answering to? They have 1 million people to "please" so, inevitably, their spending will piss someone off. What if they were doing weekly team building exercises? What if they were offering snacks to employees? What if they were paying moving costs for some incoming employees? What if they ARE paying someone's rent with the money? Do you find that acceptable? Or do you find that ridiculous?
As I've said, I'd like to see some government entity divulging the burn rate, sample salaries, and estimated funds on hand in the very least.
They have their "November Anniversary Sale" coming and that will be another major cash grab. Lets see how they've spent the last 90 million.
Their burn rate would be something of use in making a purchase decision, but only for new purchasers. Also, what does sample salaries tell you? What do you think a fair salary would be for a developer coming in to write code that has been said to be impossible? Who do you need in order to do that? By the way, I believe that glass door reviews have mentioned salary as being moderate, for anyone actually willing to do some research and take a break from evangelizing.
I'd love to see this stuff, but there's absolutely no reason for them to do so and people backing the project have already said in forum posts that they don't care to see it. So what's their motivation? External pressure from random forum folk? Even the FTC haven't investigated anything, because there's simply nothing going on that they consider to be wrongdoing. This simply won't happen unless it's voluntary. That being said, you could always shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills up first.
Whether or not the FTC are investigating them or beginning an investigation is yet to be seen. There's also other entities that can be investigating them.
The FTC would likely only come out publicly when they have come to an argreement/settlement, fined them, or charged them with some misconduct. They don't just sound a siren and tell us there's an investigation underway.
We didn't know they went after Erik Chevalier until the settlement was already reached.
I can't see any benefit to SC failing. I'm sure everyone who has put money into it would be quite upset if it all comes to nothing, I know I would be.
Regardless, if SC did fail it wouldn't really matter too much if any kind of legislation was put in place to protect future contributors or not. What is far more important is public perception of crowdfunding. If we lose confidence in crowdfunding as an option for games development then it dies, it won't matter what legislation is in place.
Crowdfunding can only succeed as a viable option for games developers if those games succeed in being made and don't turn out to be utter shite. Public perception and confidence in crowdfunding is far more important than any form of legislation.
SC failing would be a huge kick in the teeth for crowdfunded games development.
I've been watching this train-wreck from far away without really ever commenting. but as far as I'm concerned, I want it to fail, and it will regardless of whether or not they manage to launch any sort of game (or part of a game). Gamers need a huge wake-up call when it comes to funding projects, pre-order games for bonuses, etc. This will likely be one of the biggest slap in the face this industry will have ever seen and I cannot wait to see it happen. They are the reason behind the current state of the gaming industry and it needs to end.
I can't see any benefit to SC failing. I'm sure everyone who has put money into it would be quite upset if it all comes to nothing, I know I would be.
Regardless, if SC did fail it wouldn't really matter too much if any kind of legislation was put in place to protect future contributors or not. What is far more important is public perception of crowdfunding. If we lose confidence in crowdfunding as an option for games development then it dies, it won't matter what legislation is in place.
Crowdfunding can only succeed as a viable option for games developers if those games succeed in being made and don't turn out to be utter shite. Public perception and confidence in crowdfunding is far more important than any form of legislation.
SC failing would be a huge kick in the teeth for crowdfunded games development.
I can't see any benefit to SC failing. I'm sure everyone who has put money into it would be quite upset if it all comes to nothing, I know I would be.
Regardless, if SC did fail it wouldn't really matter too much if any kind of legislation was put in place to protect future contributors or not. What is far more important is public perception of crowdfunding. If we lose confidence in crowdfunding as an option for games development then it dies, it won't matter what legislation is in place.
Crowdfunding can only succeed as a viable option for games developers if those games succeed in being made and don't turn out to be utter shite. Public perception and confidence in crowdfunding is far more important than any form of legislation.
SC failing would be a huge kick in the teeth for crowdfunded games development.
Just out of curiosity how many pictures of spaceships did you buy?
They might have made a boatload of money, but they have darn little to show for it. I tried to play what they have but for some reason the game hated my mouse, and the joystick that I bought, and was forced to rebind a lot of keys. For me the game has already failed. My loss a couple of hundred bucks. As far as I am concerned it is vaporware, it will never be a completed game.
They might have made a boatload of money, but they have darn little to show for it. I tried to play what they have but for some reason the game hated my mouse, and the joystick that I bought, and was forced to rebind a lot of keys. For me the game has already failed. My loss a couple of hundred bucks. As far as I am concerned it is vaporware, it will never be a completed game.
There are games that have a fraction of SCs backers and have an actual playable alpha. The Repopulation comes to mind. It's pretty ridiculous that they have the funds to make 20 - 30 Repopulations but can't give the players something respectable to see.
IIRC the original backers release date has already come and gone.
LOL I said I was done with this subject, but then they pull me back in. < Love that line had to use it! More I think about it I do want it to fail, so kickstarter is forced to change how they are done. You take the money you open the books and show where said money is going. That would be a win for all involved in these type of transactions.
One thing that still amazes me is how the backers don't get a little upset that Roberts had to cover it up that he put his wife in charge of marketing! It really is a sweet deal to pad his and her bank accounts and it should of thrown red flags up right away. Now he brings his brother in and everyone thinks it is a good thing. Yet it sure looks like he is spreading the money around to family accounts.
Fail or succeed to me it already failed just for how the company seems to want to shut anyone up that attempts to look into how it is running the business. Which is just another red flag that Roberts clearly started by how he handled things right from the start when one small blog raised concerns. He should of just ignored it.
So here we are now asking who wants the game to fail or not. I have a feeling a book may be written about this when all is said and done. When it is the last question would be, will you or won't you buy it?
A Chinese farmer gets a horse, which soon runs away. A neighbor says, "That's bad news." The farmer replies, "Good news, bad news, who can say?"
The horse comes back and brings another horse with him. Good news, you might say.
The farmer gives the second horse to his son, who rides it, then is thrown and badly breaks his leg.
"So sorry for your bad news," says the concerned neighbor. "Good news, bad news, who can say?" the farmer replies.
In a week or so, the emperor's men come and take every able-bodied young man to fight in a war. The farmer's son is spared.
Good news, of course.
===
I don't know... I'd prefer not to say?
One way it might possibly be good news is if it allows smaller homegrown, grassroots devs greater opportunity to step up to the plate. As a believer in the laws of physics and that these also somewhat apply to the laws of finance, conservation of momentum-energy comes to mind. I'd hate to see another "WoW effect" take place, this time with space sims.
Plus I will shamefully admit the thought of hundreds of thousands of white knights with Accelerwraith leading their ranks hitherto trying to Keep Starcitizen Working running from the thermonuclear crater that once was the crowdfunding effort has a certain poetic appeal.
I just can't see myself playing with someone that sends dick pics across the internet thinking that's a good idea, while having spent close to $30,000 on a fleet of imaginary spaceships.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
A Chinese farmer gets a horse, which soon runs away. A neighbor says, "That's bad news." The farmer replies, "Good news, bad news, who can say?"
The horse comes back and brings another horse with him. Good news, you might say.
The farmer gives the second horse to his son, who rides it, then is thrown and badly breaks his leg.
"So sorry for your bad news," says the concerned neighbor. "Good news, bad news, who can say?" the farmer replies.
In a week or so, the emperor's men come and take every able-bodied young man to fight in a war. The farmer's son is spared.
Good news, of course.
===
I don't know... I'd prefer not to say?
One way it might possibly be good news is if it allows smaller homegrown, grassroots devs greater opportunity to step up to the plate. As a believer in the laws of physics and that these also somewhat apply to the laws of finance, conservation of momentum-energy comes to mind. I'd hate to see another "WoW effect" take place, this time with space sims.
Plus I will shamefully admit the thought of hundreds of thousands of white knights with Accelerwraith leading their ranks hitherto trying to Keep Starcitizen Working running from the thermonuclear crater that once was the crowdfunding effort has a certain poetic appeal.
I just can't see myself playing with someone that sends dick pics across the internet thinking that's a good idea, while having spent close to $30,000 on a fleet of imaginary spaceships.
For publishers it could be a really good thing if Star Citizen fails. Competition from crowdfunded projects in AAA title category would diminish if a high-budget crowdfunded project turns out to be a bubble. It would be highly unlikely that another high-budget crowdfunded project would emerge again. Developer and consumer preference might shift from crowdfunding back to the traditional model in which a publisher funds developers and they release a game.
For PC gaming enthusiasts it would be a bad thing. Return to the traditional publisher model could mean once again less innovation and risks in game development.
For gaming press it might be a good thing. They would get a lot of readers and viewers coming to their websites to read about the sensational news of Star Citizen failure. A return to traditional publisher model could also be beneficial for the gaming press because it uses less open approach to game development. In the traditional publisher model companies hold press conferences and then the mass media pass on the information to its readers and viewers. The crowdfunded model has seen rise in open development approach, when gamers can learn new information about a game directly from developers, bypassing the mass media.
For Derek Smart it might be a good thing. His legacy in space game genre
wouldn't become overshadowed by Chris Roberts's legacy.
Comments
No one ever with a video and a spreadsheet has managed to launch a successful crowdfunding campaign. 2/3 of the campaigns fail and the ones that have succeeded have provided more than that. Have you ever pledged to a successful campaign?
Well of course stock market has more protection, stock market is the financial pillar of the world and it has been there for nine centuries. There are traders that have made more than the whole crowdfunding campaigns altogether.
Since backers are making pledges (or pre-orders! it doesn't matter here) and are not investors are not entitled to receive any financial reports. And who is eligible to review these reports? You give your household financial report to 200 people and you will receive 200 different reviews.
Government can't review each campaign anyways. They can't review the quality and they can't use tax payers money to make seasonal reviews of private businesses for their private customers whom not all are even their citizens. I'm not sure if anyone can provide any evidence in advance that they can deliver a video game besides what they have been doing on their campaigns.
Your concerns where they might be creating a campaign as a fraud are legit. You have to prove your identity, your bank account and your company first in Kickstarter.com. Kickstarter informs proper authorities that how much you have received in funds regarding what campaign, in full details.
So it comes down to legit developers with legit companies creating false campaigns. How to prevent that besides what they have been doing so far?
http://www.polygon.com/2015/9/11/9310945/kickstarter-court-victory-attorney-general-washington-asylum-playing-cards
People think F2P is expensive... crowdfunding is the MOST EXPENSIVE option ever created. I guess people have money to burn. I sure don't and I won't support any game made this way, ever.
" The Act mandated a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud, and created the "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board," also known as the PCAOB, to oversee the activities of the auditing profession "
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
Correct me if I'm wrong but Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 applies to public companies. A very different scale compared to even the biggest companies with crowdfunding campaigns.
The difference is when a game is F2P you don't have any other options to play it. Even if you pay for the optional sub the cash-shop is still there.
Crowdfunding is a choice, not lack of. Don't pay them, wait till they are released and then take the regular option that does exist for every single crowdfunding game ever made and will be made in future.
You can't say "we, the consuers, should not be writing...". You can't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do.
By the same logic you shouldn't do charity as well, because it doesn't benefit you instantly.
In the case of kickstarters, they are taking peoples money for rewards/promises and I feel a similar oversight should be established. After all, we're talking MILLIONS of dollars in the case of CIG. It's not like some guy making a 100k on a Monopoly game.
I was comparing that an entity taking the money from people for investments/stocks is governed by special auditing commissions: Securities and Exchange Commission
I don't know why you'd be against a company having to be subjected to audits and independent accountants if its taking millions of dollars from people. If anything, it would just further guarantee the game gets made right and has what it says.
Let me be plain... Someone is selling pictures of spaceships for ten thousand dollars. Don't you think that's a little bit crazy without any oversight?
Can't someone be auditing them, applying pressure, ensuring its all legitimate and someone isn't paying their rent with all of the money or doing something ridiculous? What about bonds?
What I meant was because of the scale of them it can't be done like that. Derek Smart is willing to pay for SC audit because of his personal reasons. We can't be sure if he will. But who will pay for the rest?
Yes we like to see a cop in every corner, on every bus, in every school, but government can't simply afford it.
I believe if your campaign is asking for more than a certain amount of funds you should go through more loops before being able to launch. Not anything impossible or direly crippling, but hey if you want to receive $5m you should be ready to spend some funds yourself and spare a few months.
And as I stated previously I believe crowdfunding should only be done via crowdfunding sites, not when it has ended just transfer it to your own site and host it as a shop to sell pictures of spaceships. That doesn't necessary mean fraud or anything. But I believe that is a bad decision business wise, and that's what I am personally good at it. I have worked many years for a giant business incubator and no one could ever secure a penny from us by asking an ongoing flow of funds to create their ongoing flow of ideas. There should be a limit.
This exact reason is why I have emphasized various times that making a pledge is not pre-ordering. I never said that to secure a getaway for developers. Because when this happens people see those pledges on dev's personal sites as products to buy. They are not running a campaign anymore, they have set up shop. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it to rob people. But they have changed the concept for their own benefit.
I respect many of them and I have pledged toward their goals, I'm not questioning their ethics but I do question their business strategies.
want 7 free days of playing? Try this
http://www.swtor.com/r/ZptVnY
I bet those three pieces of information would DRASTICALLY effect whether or not someone bought a space ship picture.
The question is why? Who are they answering to? They have 1 million people to "please" so, inevitably, their spending will piss someone off. What if they were doing weekly team building exercises? What if they were offering snacks to employees? What if they were paying moving costs for some incoming employees? What if they ARE paying someone's rent with the money? Do you find that acceptable? Or do you find that ridiculous?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
They have their "November Anniversary Sale" coming and that will be another major cash grab. Lets see how they've spent the last 90 million.
Their burn rate would be something of use in making a purchase decision, but only for new purchasers. Also, what does sample salaries tell you? What do you think a fair salary would be for a developer coming in to write code that has been said to be impossible, for a company who is run by assholes and bigots (allegedly)? Who do you need in order to do that? By the way, I believe that glass door reviews have mentioned salary as being moderate, for anyone actually willing to do some research and take a break from evangelizing.
I'd love to see this stuff, but there's absolutely no reason for them to do so and people backing the project have already said in forum posts that they don't care to see it. So what's their motivation? External pressure from random forum folk? Even the FTC haven't investigated anything, because there's simply nothing going on that they consider to be wrongdoing. This simply won't happen unless it's voluntary. That being said, you could always shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills up first.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The FTC would likely only come out publicly when they have come to an argreement/settlement, fined them, or charged them with some misconduct. They don't just sound a siren and tell us there's an investigation underway.
We didn't know they went after Erik Chevalier until the settlement was already reached.
P.S. There was nothing "voluntary" about it.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/06/crowdfunding-project-creator-settles-ftc-charges-deception
Regardless, if SC did fail it wouldn't really matter too much if any kind of legislation was put in place to protect future contributors or not. What is far more important is public perception of crowdfunding. If we lose confidence in crowdfunding as an option for games development then it dies, it won't matter what legislation is in place.
Crowdfunding can only succeed as a viable option for games developers if those games succeed in being made and don't turn out to be utter shite. Public perception and confidence in crowdfunding is far more important than any form of legislation.
SC failing would be a huge kick in the teeth for crowdfunded games development.
IIRC the original backers release date has already come and gone.
One thing that still amazes me is how the backers don't get a little upset that Roberts had to cover it up that he put his wife in charge of marketing! It really is a sweet deal to pad his and her bank accounts and it should of thrown red flags up right away. Now he brings his brother in and everyone thinks it is a good thing. Yet it sure looks like he is spreading the money around to family accounts.
Fail or succeed to me it already failed just for how the company seems to want to shut anyone up that attempts to look into how it is running the business. Which is just another red flag that Roberts clearly started by how he handled things right from the start when one small blog raised concerns. He should of just ignored it.
So here we are now asking who wants the game to fail or not. I have a feeling a book may be written about this when all is said and done. When it is the last question would be, will you or won't you buy it?
Have a great day!
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2009/02/parable_of_a_chinese_farmer_ho.html:
A Chinese farmer gets a horse, which soon runs away. A neighbor says, "That's bad news." The farmer replies, "Good news, bad news, who can say?"
The horse comes back and brings another horse with him. Good news, you might say.
The farmer gives the second horse to his son, who rides it, then is thrown and badly breaks his leg.
"So sorry for your bad news," says the concerned neighbor. "Good news, bad news, who can say?" the farmer replies.
In a week or so, the emperor's men come and take every able-bodied young man to fight in a war. The farmer's son is spared.
Good news, of course.
===
I don't know... I'd prefer not to say?
One way it might possibly be good news is if it allows smaller homegrown, grassroots devs greater opportunity to step up to the plate. As a believer in the laws of physics and that these also somewhat apply to the laws of finance, conservation of momentum-energy comes to mind. I'd hate to see another "WoW effect" take place, this time with space sims.
Plus I will shamefully admit the thought of hundreds of thousands of white knights with Accelerwraith leading their ranks hitherto trying to Keep Starcitizen Working running from the thermonuclear crater that once was the crowdfunding effort has a certain poetic appeal.
I just can't see myself playing with someone that sends dick pics across the internet thinking that's a good idea, while having spent close to $30,000 on a fleet of imaginary spaceships.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
For PC gaming enthusiasts it would be a bad thing. Return to the traditional publisher model could mean once again less innovation and risks in game development.
For gaming press it might be a good thing. They would get a lot of readers and viewers coming to their websites to read about the sensational news of Star Citizen failure. A return to traditional publisher model could also be beneficial for the gaming press because it uses less open approach to game development. In the traditional publisher model companies hold press conferences and then the mass media pass on the information to its readers and viewers. The crowdfunded model has seen rise in open development approach, when gamers can learn new information about a game directly from developers, bypassing the mass media.
For Derek Smart it might be a good thing. His legacy in space game genre wouldn't become overshadowed by Chris Roberts's legacy.
* more info, screenshots and videos here