EvaUnit02 on 22/11/2014 at 11:26
Quote Posted by icemann
It was also clear from the kickstarter pitch that offline singleplayer was going to be in it, which they removed after getting the money from people who were looking for that. Hence the betrayal.
Kickstarter donations are always a gamble. In the real world, things don't always go to plan. Eg finished games could turn of sub-par quality, projects might be cancelled due to lack of funds, etc. If you're treating Kickstarter/Indiegogo/etc crowdfunding site like a glorified pre-order service then you're a bloody fool.
Trance on 22/11/2014 at 13:34
"Glorified pre-order service?" What does that even mean? That has no relation to what he's arguing.
You put money into a project that says they're going to deliver something you want to see/play/use, with the expectation of being able to see/play/use it. It's basic business ethics that if you claim your product or service will do X, and someone gives you money for that, they are well within their rights to demand their money back if your product or service doesn't do X. Failure to deliver.
The whole reason Kickstarter/Indiegogo projects are such a gamble is that the system offers NO safety net for backers' money. That's a failing of the system, not of the backer, and blaming the backer for putting money into a project that reneged on promises is absurd.
I mean, yes, you should be careful where you put your money on these sites because so many projects quite obviously don't have the right people or resources to do what they want to do, and the site is certainly not going to help you get your money back if the project team decides to take it and run. That doesn't mean the backer was in the wrong for giving a project money.
EvaUnit02 on 22/11/2014 at 16:35
Quote Posted by Trance
"Glorified pre-order service?" What does that even mean?
Fools treating Kickstarter like another fucking retail outlet. That list of donation rewards on campaign pages isn't a virtual retail shop window by any means. (Why do I even need to clarify this?) Your standard consumer-business relationship is completely different in the world of philanthropy.
You should treat any crowdfunding donations as disposable money that you have may never see a return on, end of story.
icemann on 24/11/2014 at 05:35
Second everything that Trance said, as he said it far better than I did.
For me, if someone comes to you and says they have a product in development that will do A,B and C and it's B that enticed me, but then once they have my money they announced that B was never the focus of the project and that A & C was their main focus, then I'm entitled to a refund as the end result isn't wasn't what I paid for. And nor was it the product I wanted, in the form it resulted.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Fools treating Kickstarter like another fucking retail outlet.
I for one don't see it like that. I see it as a place where people pitch ideas for various things (movies, documentaries, video games, events etc), when enough interest ($$$) is supplied, further stretch goals are announced (with some projects) for additional content. But what you pitch is what the public expect of you. Changes to the overal scope of the project mean that what you pitched isn't what you eventually produced, and thus it isn't what they (the public) payed for, since it is them that funded the project.
Look at any kickstarter, or crowd funded related market and you'll see the exact same expectations from the majority of those who choose to invest their money into it.
faetal on 24/11/2014 at 08:37
I see KS as a way for game developers to bypass the risk-averse publishers in order to take a chance on fans willing to go out on a limb. Crowd-funded projects should always be treated as if they may never work out, as that's the flip-side of taking a chance on something the big publishers aren't keen to push. You can't expect money back if it's been paying for the development to get to the stage you are at. If you can find in writing where it tells you that you are entitled to the initial design propositions, then a refund may well be due, but else it's got to be entirely down to the devs whether they want to grant refunds as a gesture of a good faith if people feel they've knowingly pitched A to get money to develop B. Otherwise, it sets a dangerous precedent which threatens to undermine the crowd-funding paradigm and put us back towards a more risk-averse system where we get fewer niche projects floated out for development.
I've kickstarted projects which have dragged on and on and in a couple of cases, given an end product which was underwhelming, but I'm still glad I supported the projects, largely because I've learned a bit about being more careful with choosing which projects I back but also because if the big studios see X getting funded but not turning out a great product, they may seize on the opportunity to develop their own game in that style which turns out closer to what the backers were hoping for. Even at its ugliest, crowd-funding is a like a loud hailer for the economic worth of niche gaming interests, which puts them on the radar. If it looks as if Braben and co were purposefully stringing along the backers hoping for single player without the intention of ever providing such, then that's a bit different however. That's my take anyway, for whatever it's worth.
Thirith on 24/11/2014 at 08:54
I definitely agree with you, faetal. It's a balancing act for a developer that needs to be managed by being as transparent as possible, but I think it's unrealistic and downright dangerous to what crowdfunding can be at its best to see an original list of objectives as absolute promises, because that's just not how development of anything works. Which doesn't mean that there aren't better and worse ways of handling this sort of thing, both on the side of the developer and the funders. If it hasn't already done so, Kickstarter should probably tweak its rules and guidelines to make this clearer, and to keep developers from making hard and fast promises.
Pyrian on 24/11/2014 at 17:28
Here is the terms of the Kickstarter project/backer contract, (
https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use) copied from the source:
Quote:
When a project is successfully funded,
the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.
Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.
If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:
•they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
•they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
•they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
•they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
•they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.
The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.
Make of that what you will.
faetal on 24/11/2014 at 17:39
My guess is that "There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised." combined with the description of the reward tending to be "digital copy of the game" would rule out there being an on open route for recourse. You'd hope that if massive about-turns had occurred, the devs might volunteer some recompense though. Terms or no terms, bad publicity and loss of good faith is still worth a fair bit.
