Game News Kickstarter Drama: Conquistador, Shadowrun and Eisenwald

[Monty]

If kickstarter were a bank, no one would qualify for the loans. Arts, crafts and videogames are way too risky and unprofitable for the loan officer to approve it.

The whole point of kickstarter was to provide funding for things that couldn't otherwise be funded because they are terrible ways to make money or the possible reward wasn't high enough to compensate for the risk.

True. Although kickstarter backers aren't looking to make a profit or even get their money back so it's perfect funding for a risky project. All they ask in return is for the promises made in the pitch to be met and to get a game out of it. So they rightly complain if these promises are broken just because a company sees a better opportunity come around.

Whether a game is 'good' or not is subjective, and even a delay is fine if adequately explained. But stuff like promising not to use DRM and then releasing on Steam is rather different.

 

[Mangoose]

Pretty much this. Kickstarter has no intrinsic control other than the trust between the consumer and the Developer.

And with few exceptions, so far it worked really well. If KS were a financial institution, they would have to do really a lot. But I think it's their deliberate policy to reduce amount of paperwork and I think it's a rather functional way. If they did it differently, who knows what would have happened. Right now this platform is seen as a big success and that should not be underestimated. I think other projects like hardware etc. carry more risks than computer games. Making a prototype is pretty much a must to get any funding for relative unknowns and big names can get funding just for an idea. Overall, it's seems like a sort of a self-regulated platform.

The question is, how to improve it from this state? Not, things are okay how it is, carry on. Even if you think it works well as it is, doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Stop being so apologetic.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

If kickstarter were a bank, no one would qualify for the loans. Arts, crafts and videogames are way too risky and unprofitable for the loan officer to approve it.

The whole point of kickstarter was to provide funding for things that couldn't otherwise be funded because they are terrible ways to make money or the possible reward wasn't high enough to compensate for the risk.

True. Although kickstarter backers aren't looking to make a profit or even get their money back so it's perfect funding for a risky project. All they ask in return is for the promises made in the pitch to be met and to get a game out of it. So they rightly complain if these promises are broken just because a company sees a better opportunity come around.

Whether a game is 'good' or not is subjective, and even a delay is fine if adequately explained. But stuff like promising not to use DRM and then releasing on Steam is rather different.

Oh, I totally agree with that. I think the people doing the kickstarting are definitely obligated to meet their promises, or at least do as much as they can to meet their obligations. I was thinking about kickstarter generally. If kickstarter had to be involved in the accountability process, then they would have to do alot more screening etc. That would make it much harder for individuals to get a project up and running.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

The question is, how to improve it from this state? Not, things are okay how it is, carry on. Even if you think it works well as it is, doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Stop being so apologetic.

Adding tons of hurdles or paperwork is definitely not a way to improve it. There are definitely good ways to do something but I have yet to hear a meaningful proposal. Adding layers upon layers of bureaucracy is not the solution.

 

[Mangoose]

The question is, how to improve it from this state? Not, things are okay how it is, carry on. Even if you think it works well as it is, doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Stop being so apologetic.

Adding tons of hurdles or paperwork is definitely not a way to improve it. There are definitely good ways to do something but I have yet to hear a meaningful proposal. Adding layers upon layers of bureaucracy is not the solution.

You criticize the suggestions of others yet you don't offer any suggestions yourself. Why do you have to wait to hear a meaningful proposal? What are your own possible thoughts of such a proposal?

I didn't ask you how not to do things, I specifically said, "The question is, how to improve it from this state?"

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

As much as I would like to agree with you, having to struggle with bureaucratic bamboozles all my life, I will say that Sometimes, the cost justifies the outcome. Let us not sacrifice what ensures quality so that we have convenience.

Well, let's say KS had a system where it involved much paperwork and legal documents. I think many devs wouldn't go there not because they are dishonest or want to break their promises but simply because it's too compilcated or takes too much effort. I am not sure if I am right but I have an impression that this "trust based" approach is a conscious choice of KS founders. They probably considered many different options and chose the way it is now. Without this, KS would be completely different plaftorm. It might be interesting though if someone else tries something with more rules and accountability, there is definitely room and demand for it. But they have KS to compete with and it takes a lot of time to develop a new platform. I doubt that KS will drastilcally change their approach.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

You criticize the suggestions of others yet you don't offer any suggestions yourself. Why do you have to wait to hear a meaningful proposal? What are your own possible thoughts of such a proposal?

I didn't ask you how not to do things, I specifically said, "The question is, how to improve it from this state?"

You are right about me criticizing things without offering any suggestions - I hate when someone is doing this. However, my suggestion is not to do something that can possibly break the whole system. In a way, I want developers to have a chance to ask for funding on the current "easy" terms while fulfilling their promises to backers.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

One solution would be to not give money through kickstarter unless you are willing to give it and receive nothing. I think its perfectly reasonable to be upset with people to don't do what they promised to do. But, sometimes there is a level of risk that cannot be reduced without disproportionate costs.

The problem isn't just that there would have to be more paperwork, its that the kind of screening the paperwork would be used for would greatly increase the operating costs of kickstarter (meaning their cut would be even higher) and, more importantly, they would have to reject projects whose creator's couldn't substantiate their capability to meet their promises. Which means there would be many worthy projects rejected for each shitty one.

Theoretically, there's nothing stopping anyone from suing HB for this. It would just be stupid, because even if you prevailed, your damages would be miniscule. Basically the court would subtract the market value of what you received from what you paid them. How much less valuable is the game because of DRM (using FMV, not your subjective value)? Like a dollar?

 

[Monty]

I think something could be done while still remaining within the spirit originally intended for kickstarter.

For example, how about a % of the funds held back until delivery - say 20% for example, so the company could still spend most funds upfront. Then when the project is completed a vote is held as to whether the promises were met within reason.

It would be a majority vote weighted by pledge so the few dissatisfied people you'd get on any project can't derail the whole thing. But if the vote is in favour of the company they get the 20%. Otherwise it is given to charity, or something like that (could be returned to backers but wouldn't want to encourage them to vote just to get cash back).

20% is a guess and possibly this could be varied, or even agreed in the initial kickstarter application. If the company reneged on their promises they would still get 80% and have to produce all the games, boxes etc they promised to backers. But if a publisher came along and said "hey, forget those backers, what can they do anyway, I can get you extra cash if you go with DRM" they will have an incentive (besides their honour) to stick to their promises!

Ideally this sort of penalty shouldn't be needed but going by what is happening with these games it sadly seems to be needed. At the very least it would make developers improve their communication with backers to keep them informed of any problems.

Just an idea.

 

[tuluse]

One solution would be to not give money through kickstarter unless you are willing to give it and receive nothing. I think its perfectly reasonable to be upset with people to don't do what they promised to do. But, sometimes there is a level of risk that cannot be reduced without disproportionate costs.

The problem isn't just that there would have to be more paperwork, its that the kind of screening the paperwork would be used for would greatly increase the operating costs of kickstarter (meaning their cut would be even higher) and, more importantly, they would have to reject projects whose creator's couldn't substantiate their capability to meet their promises. Which means there would be many worthy projects rejected for each shitty one.

Theoretically, there's nothing stopping anyone from suing HB for this. It would just be stupid, because even if you prevailed, your damages would be miniscule. Basically the court would subtract the market value of what you received from what you paid them. How much less valuable is the game because of DRM (using FMV, not your subjective value)? Like a dollar?

Well they're delivering DRM free copy to the backers, the only thing you could get them for is false advertizing since it sounds like they would release a DRM free version to the public at large.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Even with false advertising/deceptive practices (at least in the states I know about), you still have to prove you were actually harmed. So if you pay money and receive a DRM-free copy, you don't have a compensable injury.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

I think something could be done while still remaining within the spirit originally intended for kickstarter.

For example, how about a % of the funds held back until delivery - say 20% for example, so the company could still spend most funds upfront. Then when the project is completed a vote is held as to whether the promises were met within reason.

It would be a majority vote weighted by pledge so the few dissatisfied people you'd get on any project can't derail the whole thing. But if the vote is in favour of the company they get the 20%. Otherwise it is given to charity, or something like that (could be returned to backers but wouldn't want to encourage them to vote just to get cash back).

20% is a guess and possibly this could be varied, or even agreed in the initial kickstarter application. If the company reneged on their promises they would still get 80% and have to produce all the games, boxes etc they promised to backers. But if a publisher came along and said "hey, forget those backers, what can they do anyway, I can get you extra cash if you go with DRM" they will have an incentive (besides their honour) to stick to their promises!

Ideally this sort of penalty shouldn't be needed but going by what is happening with these games it sadly seems to be needed. At the very least it would make developers improve their communication with backers to keep them informed of any problems.

Just an idea.

Forgive me for using ourselves as an example, but I think that will illustrate how this idea would have played out in our case.

20% of funds is held off. We got 75k from KS, so 20% is 15k. We ran on those 75k for 10 months. It means that instead of looking for new funding in March we would have to do it in January or even December. In December we went to Greenlight. Now, when I know we don't have the money and those 20% of funds are not going to be released to us, I would stop production, and not go to Greenlight because that stops being a priority. And then who knows, but we might have end up like Logic Artists and go to a publisher because we wouldn't be able to continue working even to our origninal estimate of releasing in April. I don't think anyone would have liked this scenario. Well, at least not us.

What happened in reality - our Greenlight process and its (relativ) success attracted this new executive producer who is helping us out. It's easier to get funding when things are going well. When your KS project earns over 1m it is one thing, but for us every dollar counts. And this approach of holding off 20% is not something I can support not because I don't like it but because other devs might (and probably will, judged by statistics) end up in a situation like ours.

 

[Infinitron]

I think something could be done while still remaining within the spirit originally intended for kickstarter.

For example, how about a % of the funds held back until delivery - say 20% for example, so the company could still spend most funds upfront. Then when the project is completed a vote is held as to whether the promises were met within reason.

It would be a majority vote weighted by pledge so the few dissatisfied people you'd get on any project can't derail the whole thing. But if the vote is in favour of the company they get the 20%. Otherwise it is given to charity, or something like that (could be returned to backers but wouldn't want to encourage them to vote just to get cash back).

20% is a guess and possibly this could be varied, or even agreed in the initial kickstarter application. If the company reneged on their promises they would still get 80% and have to produce all the games, boxes etc they promised to backers. But if a publisher came along and said "hey, forget those backers, what can they do anyway, I can get you extra cash if you go with DRM" they will have an incentive (besides their honour) to stick to their promises!

Ideally this sort of penalty shouldn't be needed but going by what is happening with these games it sadly seems to be needed. At the very least it would make developers improve their communication with backers to keep them informed of any problems.

Just an idea.

Forgive me for using ourselves as an example, but I think that will illustrate how this idea would have played out in our case.

20% of funds is held off. We got 75k from KS, so 20% is 15k. We ran on those 75k for 10 months. It means that instead of looking for new funding in March we would have to do it in January or even December. In December we went to Greenlight. Now, when I know we don't have the money and those 20% of funds are not going to be released to us, I would stop production, and not go to Greenlight because that stops being a priority. And then who knows, but we might have end up like Logic Artists and go to a publisher because we wouldn't be able to continue working even to our origninal estimate of releasing in April. I don't think anyone would have liked this scenario. Well, at least not us.

What happened in reality - our Greenlight process and its (relativ) success attracted this new executive producer who is helping us out. It's easier to get funding when things are going well. When your KS project earns over 1m it is one thing, but for us every dollar counts. And this approach of holding off 20% is not something I can support not because I don't like it but because other devs might (and probably will, judged by statistics) end up in a situation like ours.

Hmm. How about this? Instead of having to complete the game with 80% of the funds, you could release an alpha version instead.

(Just an idea - personally I don't think Kickstarter should change. The terrible PR will weed out those who can't fulfill their promises.)

 

[Monty]

Yes, I'm sure that there could be situations where any of these ideas would cause difficult situations. But my idea was simply to turn a small part of the kickstarter amount into a bonus, not a certainty. If you keep your backers happy you still get it. But, just like you never planned to spend the 10% which kickstarter keeps, from the outset you would plan around the guaranteed portion not the bonus.

It's just a speculative idea anyway, and as I said the 20% could be varied or adjusted upfront. Maybe 10%? 5%? I just think putting an incentive in place not to obviously shaft your backers is a good thing.

I'm sure those devs who don't keep their promises will be weeded out. My fear is just that backers who get shafted will also be weeded out and then deserving projects will miss out.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

Hmm. How about this? Instead of having to complete the game with 80% of the funds, you could release an alpha version instead.

Do you mean to release to backers or to all? I had an impression from Monty's idea that 20% are held of until a commercial release. Or do you want to say that these 20% is held off until alpha? Then it's easy but it doesn't solve the issue like with DRM because after alpha it still can be changed.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

Yes, I'm sure that there could be situations where any of these ideas would cause difficult situations. But my idea was simply to turn a small part of the kickstarter amount into a bonus, not a certainty. If you keep your backers happy you still get it. But, just like you never planned to spend the 10% which kickstarter keeps, from the outset you would plan around the guaranteed portion not the bonus.

It's just a speculative idea anyway, and as I said the 20% could be varied or adjusted upfront. Maybe 10%? 5%? I just think putting an incentive in place not to obviously shaft your backers is a good thing.

Well, it certainly would be an incentive But for project with modest goals it still going to create one sort of hardship or another. On the other hand, if this amount is calculated by developers before hand, than it could work. In this case I guess we would have asked not for 50k, but for 60.

 

[Infinitron]

Hmm. How about this? Instead of having to complete the game with 80% of the funds, you could release an alpha version instead.

Do you mean to release to backers or to all? I had an impression from Monty's idea that 20% are held of until a commercial release. Or do you want to say that these 20% is held off until alpha? Then it's easy but it doesn't solve the issue like with DRM because after alpha it still can be changed.

Backers only, obviously. And yeah, I was thinking more of general game quality, not about DRM.

Again, I think the terrible PR hit a developer gets from adding things like DRM to his game will weed them out naturally. I don't think Kickstarter really needs any new rules for that.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

Backers only, obviously. And yeah, I was thinking more of general game quality, not about DRM.

Again, I think the terrible PR hit a developer gets from adding things like DRM to his game will weed them out naturally. I don't think Kickstarter really needs any new rules for that.

Yup, I agree with you on this one! Moreover, there will be a huge influence on the reputation of a company for the future, it won't be easy to come off clean after cheating/misrepresenting things/outright lying to backers.

 

[Monty]

Backers only, obviously. And yeah, I was thinking more of general game quality, not about DRM.

Again, I think the terrible PR hit a developer gets from adding things like DRM to his game will weed them out naturally. I don't think Kickstarter really needs any new rules for that.

Yup, I agree with you on this one! Moreover, there will be a huge influence on the reputation of a company for the future, it won't be easy to come off clean after cheating/misrepresenting things/outright lying to backers.

Yes the company will disappear. So will some of the backers who got burned and who will in future stick to recognised projects from big names - a shame IMO.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

Yes the company will disappear. So will some of the backers who got burned and who will in future stick to recognised projects from big names - a shame IMO.

I think it's just though. In our personal life we always pay for consequences of our decisions, why business should be different? There is always a choice to stick to your promises.

 

[Monty]

Yes the company will disappear. So will some of the backers who got burned and who will in future stick to recognised projects from big names - a shame IMO.

I think it's just though. In our personal life we always pay for consequences of our decisions, why business should be different? There is always a choice to stick to your promises.

True. Anyway I'm obviously no legal expert on kickstarter, it was just an idea as I know a few people who were annoyed by some of the games in this thread and claim to be avoiding RPG kickstarters from now on. Maybe they will, or maybe they won't. I got the feeling from some situations (like Conquistadors) that when a better offer came along the promises made to the backers became lowest priority so thought a cash incentive could be useful!

Anyway, looking forward to the butthurt when those backing a single-player 'Ultima' game get Lord British's MMO

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I think the Monty - Infinitron solution, as it shall be called, is a good one. The only sticking point is on how you decide whether that alpha is sufficiently advanced to justify the release of the final incentive funds.

 

[Infinitron]

I think the Monty - Infinitron solution, as it shall be called, is a good one. The only sticking point is on how you decide whether that alpha is sufficiently advanced to justify the release of the final incentive funds.

Well, check out Wasteland 2's gameplay video. That's not even an alpha - it's pre-alpha. If it plays as it good as it looks like it plays, I would release funds for that.

 

[tuluse]

Yes the company will disappear. So will some of the backers who got burned and who will in future stick to recognised projects from big names - a shame IMO.

Kickstarter is a risky proposition. Only people who understand those risks and accept them should be contributing.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

I think the Monty - Infinitron solution, as it shall be called, is a good one. The only sticking point is on how you decide whether that alpha is sufficiently advanced to justify the release of the final incentive funds.

Well, check out Wasteland 2's gameplay video. That's not even an alpha - it's pre-alpha. If it plays as it good as it looks like it plays, I would release funds for that.

Hmm, then I am curious for examples that would fail Monty - Infinitron rule. I think both Conquistadors and our beta would pass it