Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #28: Logistics Update

[Harg Harfardarssen]

When you give money to an artist so that he or she will produce a specific piece it is often called "comissioning" the piece. Supporting an artist generally would be referred to as "sponsoring" I was under the impression that patronage of the arts generally meant providing any kind of financial assistance to artists, with this assistance taking various forms ranging from commissioning distinct pieces to sponsoring the artist in order to support his or her general endeavors.

Patronage in the Renaissance took a specific form because power and wealth were held by aristocrats and the church. Capitalist societies have a different distribution of power and wealth, so patronage would take a different form; in addition to wealthy individuals, support will come from charities and the public purse, both of which are essentially ways to collectivize financial support for the arts. Kickstarter donations are supporting the arts via collective action, analogous to a charitable donation to an organization which supports artists.

EDIT: Patronage of the arts, or cultural endeavors generally, has rarely been purely altruistic. Throughout history, it has been used to justify the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of particular people. Thats why the Medicis and Borgias were as eager to support the arts as Carnegie, Rockefeller and Frick. When their ill-gotten gains are used for art, it provides a form of legitimacy by "showing" that there is a useful social purpose to their rapaciousness.

 

[ironyuri]

When you give money to an artist so that he or she will produce a specific piece it is often called "comissioning" the piece. Supporting an artist generally would be referred to as "sponsoring" I was under the impression that patronage of the arts generally meant providing any kind of financial assistance to artists, with this assistance taking various forms ranging from commissioning distinct pieces to sponsoring the artist in order to support his or her general endeavors.

Patronage in the Renaissance took a specific form because power and wealth were held by aristocrats and the church. Capitalist societies have a different distribution of power and wealth, so patronage would take a different form; in addition to wealthy individuals, support will come from charities and the public purse, both of which are essentially ways to collectivize financial support for the arts. Kickstarter donations are supporting the arts via collective action, analogous to a charitable donation to an organization which supports artists.

Only in this case, your charitable donation will be used to take a product to mass market in order to generate millions of dollars (potentially) in profit for a corporate entity (Obsidian Entertainment Incorporated).

By the way, corporations are not people, whatever Mitt Romney wants you to believe.

 

[tuluse]

ironyuri, if you don't see that there is a huge difference between giving someone money with the expectation of getting more back, and giving them money with the expectation of getting a product back, I don't think we can have a conversation about this.

Also, arguing about what art is will go no where. Books, movies, and music are also made to be mass distributed and no has a problem calling them art.

there is a return for this patronage it is not altruistic in any way shape or form.

Agreed, that's why it's patronage and not charity.

 

[ironyuri]

ironyuri, if you don't see that there is a huge difference between giving someone money with the expectation of getting more back, and giving them money with the expectation of getting a product back, I don't think we can have a conversation about this.

Also, arguing about what art is will go no where. Books, movies, and music are also made to be mass distributed and no has a problem calling them art.

there is a return for this patronage it is not altruistic in any way shape or form.

Agreed, that's why it's patronage and not charity.

Actually, there is a huge problem in calling a mass market product 'art'. That's where Adorno kicks off the whole field of critical theory, but please feel free to ignore that.

Please also feel free to ignore that your patronage will generate profits which will be returned to the stock holders of Obsidian and not the 'artists' who will be paid a contractual wage for their work by the Corporate entity they work for.

Edit: And please feel free to continue misunderstanding me (deliberately or not). Kickstarter funding cannot be called patronage, it is a new model and requires a new, discreet terminology.

It lies in a grey area between actual patronage and actual capital investment, leaning more heavily toward capital investment, but with none of the financial rewards for the investor.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

When you give money to an artist so that he or she will produce a specific piece it is often called "comissioning" the piece. Supporting an artist generally would be referred to as "sponsoring" I was under the impression that patronage of the arts generally meant providing any kind of financial assistance to artists, with this assistance taking various forms ranging from commissioning distinct pieces to sponsoring the artist in order to support his or her general endeavors.

Patronage in the Renaissance took a specific form because power and wealth were held by aristocrats and the church. Capitalist societies have a different distribution of power and wealth, so patronage would take a different form; in addition to wealthy individuals, support will come from charities and the public purse, both of which are essentially ways to collectivize financial support for the arts. Kickstarter donations are supporting the arts via collective action, analogous to a charitable donation to an organization which supports artists.

Only in this case, your charitable donation will be used to take a product to mass market in order to generate millions of dollars (potentially) in profit for a corporate entity (Obsidian Entertainment Incorporated).

By the way, corporations are not people, whatever Mitt Romney wants you to believe.

Sorry, missed this before my edit - art patronage is not necessarily altruistic. I will also point out that the most prominent artists today generally run a shop, where they manage a dozen young artists doing most of the work and sell pieces for millions of dollars (Jeff Koontz springs to mind). Art has never been a spiritual endeavor wholly divorced from the selfishness of commerce.

 

[ironyuri]

When you give money to an artist so that he or she will produce a specific piece it is often called "comissioning" the piece. Supporting an artist generally would be referred to as "sponsoring" I was under the impression that patronage of the arts generally meant providing any kind of financial assistance to artists, with this assistance taking various forms ranging from commissioning distinct pieces to sponsoring the artist in order to support his or her general endeavors.

Patronage in the Renaissance took a specific form because power and wealth were held by aristocrats and the church. Capitalist societies have a different distribution of power and wealth, so patronage would take a different form; in addition to wealthy individuals, support will come from charities and the public purse, both of which are essentially ways to collectivize financial support for the arts. Kickstarter donations are supporting the arts via collective action, analogous to a charitable donation to an organization which supports artists.

Only in this case, your charitable donation will be used to take a product to mass market in order to generate millions of dollars (potentially) in profit for a corporate entity (Obsidian Entertainment Incorporated).

By the way, corporations are not people, whatever Mitt Romney wants you to believe.

Sorry, missed this before my edit - art patronage is not necessarily altruistic. I will also point out that the most prominent artists today generally run a shop, where they manage a dozen young artists doing most of the work and sell pieces for millions of dollars (Jeff Koontz springs to mind). Art has never been a spiritual endeavor wholly divorced from the selfishness of commerce.

No, it has not always been a spiritual endeavour, and I have not suggested that whatsoever. Posters who claim themselves to be patrons of Obsidian, seem to believe it to be a completely altruistic endeavour on both parts, however. They have patronised Sawyer to produce a magnum opus of pure artistic vision. They have not, and he will be beholden to the same market forces as he always has been because he is working under the umbrella of a corporate entity.

I would also argue that you cannot call Koontz an artist per se anymore, the modern changes in art toward mass production of art (which started as parody with Pinot-Galliizio's industrial painting) mirror the current context of economic and social production. This is precisely why I would say we need to chart a definition of crowdfunding which is usable, because patron is improperly fitting.

 

[tuluse]

ironyuri, if you don't see that there is a huge difference between giving someone money with the expectation of getting more back, and giving them money with the expectation of getting a product back, I don't think we can have a conversation about this.

Also, arguing about what art is will go no where. Books, movies, and music are also made to be mass distributed and no has a problem calling them art.

there is a return for this patronage it is not altruistic in any way shape or form.

Agreed, that's why it's patronage and not charity.

Actually, there is a huge problem in calling a mass market product 'art'. That's where Adorno kicks off the whole field of critical theory, but please feel free to ignore that.

Please also feel free to ignore that your patronage will generate profits which will be returned to the stock holders of Obsidian and not the 'artists' who will be paid a contractual wage for their work by the Corporate entity they work for.

I am going to ignore all arguments about whether this is art or not because it's really irrelevant. Libraries are not works of art and yet are support by patronage.

Also, by patronage will not generate profits for a corporation. It pays them to make something, if what they make is good enough that people want it, then they'll make profits. This is an important distinction. I'm contributing so that a thing will be made, not so that the artists will be properly compensated. What happens after the thing is made is also irrelevant.

 

[tuluse]

No, it has not always been a spiritual endeavour, and I have not suggested that whatsoever. Posters who claim themselves to be patrons of Obsidian, seem to believe it to be a completely altruistic endeavour on both parts, however. They have patronised Sawyer to produce a magnum opus of pure artistic vision. They have not, and he will be beholden to the same market forces as he always has been because he is working under the umbrella of a corporate entity..

Unless you are calling everyone at Obsidian liars, they said this game would not have been made without kickstarter. So they are already not beholden to the same market forces. They are beholden to market forces yes, but they are clearly different ones, and they have been freed to a degree.

 

[ironyuri]

No, it has not always been a spiritual endeavour, and I have not suggested that whatsoever. Posters who claim themselves to be patrons of Obsidian, seem to believe it to be a completely altruistic endeavour on both parts, however. They have patronised Sawyer to produce a magnum opus of pure artistic vision. They have not, and he will be beholden to the same market forces as he always has been because he is working under the umbrella of a corporate entity..

Unless you are calling everyone at Obsidian liars, they said this game would not have been made without kickstarter. So they are already not beholden to the same market forces. They are beholden to market forces yes, but they are clearly different ones, and they have been freed to a degree.

Project Eternity could not be made without kickstarter. Yes.

Obsidian Entertainment as a company could exist without kickstarter. Yes.

Troika went bankrupt because they could not find a publisher for their next game, due to market forces being what they were circa 2004-2005. Obsidian cannot rely on PE KS to pay their employees wages once the other team finishes Southpark. They will be looking for future projects and they will also be hoping (i'm sure) to turn a good profit on PE which might not cost them a cent of their own money (unless they misuse the budget significantly), but regardless, PE does not exist in some financial or market vacuum. It must be successful or all Obsidian will have achieved is paying their wages for 18 months at the end of which they'll need to go looking for a publisher for their next game. That's a hand-to-mouth existence. You cannot possibly believe that because of KS they are somehow free from all market considerations.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Project Eternity will get delayed and have bugs, and yet, I don't give a fuck.

 

[Dorateen]

...it will have two big cities, exploration areas, and a 15-level mega-dungeon.

Wait a minute...

2 city/town locations: Hommlet and Nulb
Exploration areas: the Moathouse and meadow
Massive mega dungeon: the Temple itself

This is a signal that PE will be structured like ToEE, only on a much grander scale.

Make it so!

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

No, it has not always been a spiritual endeavour, and I have not suggested that whatsoever. Posters who claim themselves to be patrons of Obsidian, seem to believe it to be a completely altruistic endeavour on both parts, however. They have patronised Sawyer to produce a magnum opus of pure artistic vision. They have not, and he will be beholden to the same market forces as he always has been because he is working under the umbrella of a corporate entity.

Fair point. Although, you can argue that the commercial entity, Obsidian, engages in many projects by spawning an ad hoc creative entity, one of which, the Project Eternity team, is being sponsored by the kickstarting hordes.

I would also argue that you cannot call Koontz an artist per se anymore, the modern changes in art toward mass production of art (which started as parody with Pinot-Galliizio's industrial painting) mirror the current context of economic and social production. This is precisely why I would say we need to chart a definition of crowdfunding which is usable, because patron is improperly fitting.

I agree re Koontz, specifically. Also because his work is shit.

However, since art production has always mirrored the context economic and social production of its time (which I think you may agree with?), wouldn't the form patronage of the arts takes shift accordingly as well? The renaissance masters had workshops in which unknowns would work in a similar manner to Koontz's minions, but under the artisanal workshop model of the time rather than contemporary mass production. I think capital investment is more problematic than patronage, because of the very issues you highlight - you receive no legally enforceable claim to anything of value. You take on all the downside risk, with none of the upside.

Also, so this thread doesn't get retardo'd, I'm going to say that I think content density will be crucial. I could live with less than optimal aesthics if the density is good.

 

[tuluse]

They are beholden to market forces yes

You cannot possibly believe that because of KS they are somehow free from all market considerations.

 

[Volourn]

"Although it's true that you don't have "consumer rights" in this case"

Yes, you do. You pay for x stuff you are supposed to get x stuff. Obsidian cna't now just turn around and keep the money for themselves, you dumb shit. They have to fukkin' deliver what's promised or face legal repercussions.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

"Although it's true that you don't have "consumer rights" in this case"

Yes, you do. You pay for x stuff you are supposed to get x stuff. Obsidian cna't now just turn around and keep the money for themselves, you dumb shit. They have to fukkin' deliver what's promised or face legal repercussions.

Not exactly. All you receive for a donation is a promise that they will make a good faith effort to deliver. If they just took the money and ran it might be fraud, but if they try and fail they don't owe shit.

 

[ironyuri]

H I think capital investment is more problematic than patronage, because of the very issues you highlight - you receive no legally enforceable claim to anything of value. You take on all the downside risk, with none of the upside.

That's why I was pointing out crowdfunding requires a formal definition in terms of where it falls, because it fits neither the patronage mode or the strict capital investment model. I imagine in a business school or commerce class somewhere, the definition is being worked out as we speak and that there will be articles circulating on the subject fairly soon (if not already), but I would like to get in on the ground floor here.

I forget now why I got into this argument, and how and what it was supposed to achieve. It's also four in the morning. please don't interpret a further lack of engagement as disinterest, it is simply that I'm going to go pass out.

 

[Volourn]

"Not exactly. All you receive for a donation is a promise that they will make a good faith effort to deliver. If they just took the money and ran it might be fraud, but if they try and fail they don't owe shit."

You are an idiot.

 

[LeStryfe79]

What happened to Volourn's "Pretty Princess" tag?

 

[Jaesun]

He's no longer a Pretty Princess. He's now an Angry Dwarf.

 

[Volourn]

Codex gave me that tag because they thoguht it would hurt my feelings and I'd commit suicide like otyhers did when they gave tyhem funny custom tags to 'punish' them. L0L. I laughed it off and they cried about it because you can't hurt my feelings because Volourn > internet geeks even if Volourn is one.

 

[Jaesun]

No, VD gave you that tag for a very specific reason.

 

[Jarpie]

He's no longer a Pretty Princess. He's now an Angry Dwarf.

What about new title, "Resident Village Idiot"?

 

[Monad]

If you think, for some reason, that something that is produced for mass consumption isn't art, you're a retard. If you want to try to use Adorno to justify any position, you're a cocksucking retard.

 

[hoverdog]

He's no longer a Pretty Princess. He's now an Angry Dwarf.

What about new title, "Resident Village Idiot"?

He's more than that. Hei s Vloounr.

 

[Volourn]

"No, VD gave you that tag for a very specific reason."

Yeah, and the specific reason is he's a little crybaby.


What about new title, "Resident Village Idiot""

Try to be a little more creative. Besdies, the Codex isn't a village you idiot so Resident Forum idiot would be more fitting. Then again, i don't live on the Codex so resiident doesn't fit either. Mayve just 'Poster I Hate Because He Doesn't Suck My Dick Idiot' would be fit most in this instance.

R00fles!