Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

163 Comments

A Day Late and $28 Short

Alpha Colony’s (second) Kickstarter fell just below its $50,000 funding goal. The reasons why raise worthy questions about Kickstarter, and the psychology behind it, for both the creators and the backers.

No Caption Provided

When Alpha Colony’s Kickstarter ended on December 2, it was just $28 short of its $50,000 goal. Kickstarter’s terms are clear, however, and if you don’t reach the goal, all of the money disappears.

Alpha Colony was to be a modern building and trading sim with roots in gaming classic M.U.L.E.
Alpha Colony was to be a modern building and trading sim with roots in gaming classic M.U.L.E.

It’s hard not to feel bad for would-be Alpha Colony developer DreamQuest Games, and wonder why the company didn’t find someone, anyone to kick in the last $28. The answer is hardly that simple. The conclusion of Alpha Colony’s second--yes, second--attempt at Kickstarting development raises serious questions about the psychology behind Kickstarter, and the policies that govern it.

“It’s a little frustrating,” said DreamQuest founder Christopher Williamson to me this week, one day after his project fell tragically short. “It’s quite ironic to get a Kotaku article now. I’m kind of like ‘It would have been really helpful to get that article a week or two ago.’ [laughs] The publicity is appreciated, but, really, too late to be of any real use. A little bummed about that.”

Even though it’s just $28 shy of what DreamQuest asked for, Kickstarter’s current policy has no flexibility for edge cases like Alpha Colony. The game didn’t meet its projected funding goal, and so DreamQuest gets none of it.

“Usually, the all-or-nothing funding model (ie: projects must earn all the funding they need or they will not gain access to any of it) works to prevent this from happening, but as it is, there is no way to reopen the project for pledges,” the company said in a statement.

Kickstarter funding tends to spike at the beginning, with excitement and dreaming at its absolute peak. This occurs again at the very end, during the dramatic race to the finish to hit the original goal or a new stretch one. Based on the day-one funding, though, it’s usually pretty easy to see how the project will match, exceed, or never touch its goal. Look at Double Fine Adventure’s funding arc, which reflects this reliable pattern on a much larger scale.

No Caption Provided

When Camoflaj sought $500,000 for its ambitious iOS project, Republique, the first day funding was poor, and the graph suggested Republique was headed for eventual disaster. An intense rallying campaign, padded by key reveals that included key Metal Gear voice actors contributing to the project, eventually turned the tide three-fourths through the campaign--much earlier than when the spike usually occurs for projects. It ended up netting an extra $55,512.

No Caption Provided

Now, take Alpha Colony’s first, failed Kickstarter, which included the M.U.L.E. license and, just liked Republique, asked for $500,000. DreamQuest managed to raise $101,472, but it was very hard to imagine it would ever hit $500,000. Williamson recognized Alpha Colony wouldn’t make it, and pulled the plug just hours before it failed.

No Caption Provided

Alpha Colony’s second Kickstarter project no longer had the M.U.L.E. license attached (instead, it was simply inspired by M.U.L.E.) and only asked for $50,000. Given it previously raised more than $100,000, this made some sense. A lack of attention the second time around, however, and mixed reaction by backers to a playable prototype, meant Alpha Colony’s second round struggled, and it wasn’t clear how it would play out.

The “why wouldn’t the developer or someone just kick in another $28?” question is all over the comments section of the now-failed Kickstarter project, and became a prevailing query on Twitter.

“I know people were posting [about that],” said Williamson. “It’s not like we were just, you know, all high and partying or something. [laughs] We were there in the final moments of the Kickstarter, watching everything happen and play out live. I had a friend who put in a last-minute pledge on our behalf to help us push over, and we just had too many people changing their bids.”

No Caption Provided

Kickstarter allows users to change the size of their pledges prior to a project’s deadline. Here's how it's outlined in the terms of service:

"Backers may increase, decrease, or cancel their pledge at any time during the fundraising campaign, except that they may not cancel or reduce their pledge if the campaign is in its final 24 hours and the cancellation or reduction would drop the campaign below its goal."

Often, users will increase their pledge to become part of another bracket of backer rewards, but Alpha Colony experienced potential players realizing the game might be a losing horse, and just pulled out. The project had not passed its goal, so it was within Kickstarter guidelines. Backers don’t lose any money for a project that fails to meet its funding goal, but this meant Williamson’s last minute plans to push the project over were for naught, due to last second shuffles from anxious backers.

When news of Alpha Colony’s Kickstarter woes spread on Twitter, several people suggested that Kickstarter could use an overtime policy for these edge cases. What if, provided a project was within a certain percentage of its funding goal within the final minutes, it received an extra 30 minutes or so for it to play out?

Williamson witnessed how this could have been helpful first-hand, with users trying to increase their pledge or contribute for the first time, and simply getting caught up in the process as time ran out. Such a policy change would include strict guidelines (an extra 30 minutes if a project’s within 1% in the last hour?), but it seems reasonable.

There has been no conversation between Kickstarter and Williamson about a change, and he has accepted his fate.

“I understand their policies are what they are,” he said. “I don’t really blame them for that. They’re doing their job, and we’re doing ours.”

My conversation with Williamson did reveal something potentially troubling.

Given Alpha Colony previously raised more than $100,000, Williamson told me he assumed it would be easy to hit that a second time around, and had scaled and budgeted his game within that range. If Alpha Colony had managed to raise $50,000, it would have just barely done so, and that came with big consequences.

“We had stretch goals all the way up to $300K, so really to build the game I wanted to build, I knew it would cost us $100K, $150K,” he said. “We came up with some last-minute matches and other ways to work around that, but I was legitimately concerned [about] a) having to drastically cut my game and make it a lot less of a game than I had envisioned it being to try being in budget or b) lose even more money on it. That wasn’t an “or,” I guess, that was an “and.” It was guaranteed I wasn’t going to make any money on it. So, in some ways, it’s a little bit of a blessing in disguise, perhaps, because, really, to do the game right, we really needed to raise more funds.”

There are two problems with this.

One, Williamson was disingenuous with his Kickstarter project, one built on inaccurate assumptions regarding his funding prospects. It ultimately proved misleading about the game he intended to (or wanted to) make. Backers were funding towards a $50,000 game they were told DreamQuest could pull this off for $50,000, and Williamson now admits that was not the case. He admits this when the project has now twice been unable to reach its funding goal, not after having access to the money and being forced to either make it work, or deliver a different game to backers.

Two, I also don’t blame Williamson for making that call. There is a murky, unpredictable psychological component to Kickstarter, and lessons from one project do not necessarily translate to another. Williamson gambled a lower funding goal would ensure Alpha Colony a funding trajectory to success. People like to back a winner, not a loser, and winners on Kickstarter are sometimes big winners. If Alpha Colony was destined to be funded, people are more likely to increase pledges, and folks on the fence might've chipped in to become part of the wave.

The line I’ve heard from more than one Kickstarter creator is to ask for roughly half as much as you want, since a successful Kickstarter is likely to sail well past its original goal, and potentially hit what you actually want or need. This is what Williamson figured would happen to Alpha Colony. He was wrong, and it makes you raise an eyebrow at any project’s original funding goal and what it means.

No Caption Provided

Take Sportsfriends, for example, which is asking for $150,000 (and by the looks of it, might not make it there). Johann Sebastian Joust is one of four games created by four different developers in four different ways that want to come together in a single package for PlayStation 3. None of the creators involved with those games have the expertise to port their games Sony’s platform, and the Kickstarter is largely about raising the exact amount of money needed to hire a programmer to do exactly that.

“I’m a little worried people will think it looks like too much,” said Joust creator Doug Wilson to me a few weeks back.

Unlike Alpha Colony, though, Sportsfriends appears to be asking for precisely what it needs, and little more. Jason Rohrer raised money for Diamond Trust of London the same way. Rohrer needed a certain amount of money to produce DS cartridges (he couldn’t disclose the exact amount because Nintendo wouldn't let him), and asked for no more. Each Kickstarter has different needs, but trust definitely plays a role in it. You don't know for sure whether a creator is asking for the "right" amount, but you have to trust you're being told some truths.

But, again, while what Williamson did was absolutely misleading, do I really blame him? Not really. It’s only weird, suspicious and a little gross because the Kickstarter didn’t make it, and Williamson actually admitted what his thinking was. Plenty of others have done the same, and had Alpha Colony made it, it wouldn't have come up.

It's something to think about.

Regardless, the future of Alpha Colony may be bright. Williamson has already heard from several individuals interested in making the game happen, and the resources spent on trying to make this one game happen, rather than focusing on the mobile board games that usually make DreamQuest money, has proved draining.

“It’s live and learn,” he said.

Same goes for the backers.

Patrick Klepek on Google+

163 Comments

Avatar image for raven10
Raven10

2427

Forum Posts

376

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 5

Edited By Raven10

@I_Stay_Puft said:

That's seriously a lot of money and dreams lost by a measly 28 bucks. So you can't post the same project twice on kickstarter? I wonder if they tweaked something minor or changed the name would that be viable as a new project?

You can. But if you failed once it really requires a pretty major overhaul to get support a second time around. Most backers will think that if it didn't click the first time there is no real reason for it to click the second time and won't donate.

Avatar image for thebadnews
thebadnews

44

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By thebadnews

@PimblyCharles: good work reading the article

Avatar image for probablytuna
probablytuna

5010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By probablytuna

So far I've backed three projects, and they're all rather high profile ones made by seasoned developers Double Fine, Obsidian and Camoflaj (well, this one isn't exactly proven yet, but the project sounds interesting). I'm not sure if I will ever back a project unless it's by a developer I can trust, or that the idea is really interesting.

Avatar image for captaincody
CaptainCody

1551

Forum Posts

56

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CaptainCody

I like how the first comments were prime examples of people not reading the article.

Avatar image for freakin9
freakin9

1226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By freakin9

It still marvels me that people are willing to fund these projects, for apparently nothing in return. I would get it if it were an investment, but it seems like nothing more than goodwill. I guess it's speak to my own level of goodwill that I don't understand it.

Avatar image for avidwriter
avidwriter

775

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By avidwriter

@freakin9 said:

It still marvels me that people are willing to fund these projects, for apparently nothing in return. I would get it if it were an investment, but it seems like nothing more than goodwill. I guess it's speak to my own level of goodwill that I don't understand it.

Not only that but they have no legal binding contract to actually make the game with the money. I read through kickstaters legal crap and unless they updated it, it's all the honor system.

Avatar image for visariloyalist
VisariLoyalist

3142

Forum Posts

2413

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 4

Edited By VisariLoyalist

@freakin9 said:

It still marvels me that people are willing to fund these projects, for apparently nothing in return. I would get it if it were an investment, but it seems like nothing more than goodwill. I guess it's speak to my own level of goodwill that I don't understand it.

it's perfectly rational not to fund these things of course but if you want to know the reasoning as I see it. People may want certain games but when it comes time that they come out not enough people actually buy the things to make funding possible. A lot of these kickstarters are nostalgia pieces so in a way it's like saying "hey do you want 'x' old game remade? If so pay 30 dollars and we will make it". The piece you're missing I think is that the game has zero chance of being made without a kickstarter therefore if the uncertain chance of a game you really want being made and delivered to you in a year or more is worth 30 dollars or whatever to you it's a perfectly rational choice. Just depends on what you want, goodwill is the thing for some people but I think it's just a gamble people are willing to take for something they really want.

Avatar image for zakn
zakn

72

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By zakn

You'd think you would call a friend with 5 min to go

Avatar image for neonie
Neonie

438

Forum Posts

1766

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Neonie

@xinxieyo said:

wow, how beautiful wedding dress! are you going to marry?

You did look pretty great in that wedding dress Patrick ;)

Avatar image for simmant
simmant

102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By simmant

I really like the idea of kickstarter, but I have been very hesitant to back any projects. There is just so much uncertainty.

Avatar image for divina_rex
Divina_Rex

367

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Divina_Rex

I feel like the kickstarter for Glodus ("populous-ish") will end up the same way.

Avatar image for freakin9
freakin9

1226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By freakin9

@VisariLoyalist said:

@freakin9 said:

It still marvels me that people are willing to fund these projects, for apparently nothing in return. I would get it if it were an investment, but it seems like nothing more than goodwill. I guess it's speak to my own level of goodwill that I don't understand it.

it's perfectly rational not to fund these things of course but if you want to know the reasoning as I see it. People may want certain games but when it comes time that they come out not enough people actually buy the things to make funding possible. A lot of these kickstarters are nostalgia pieces so in a way it's like saying "hey do you want 'x' old game remade? If so pay 30 dollars and we will make it". The piece you're missing I think is that the game has zero chance of being made without a kickstarter therefore if the uncertain chance of a game you really want being made and delivered to you in a year or more is worth 30 dollars or whatever to you it's a perfectly rational choice. Just depends on what you want, goodwill is the thing for some people but I think it's just a gamble people are willing to take for something they really want.

I can understand that reasoning. I guess from my perspective I can't help but think, these people are getting a loan they at no point have to pay back and it's pure profit from there. Maybe I am just curious about the business model. You see everywhere on the internet places that simply ask for donations, whether it be a simple website, or a free program, you wonder, based on kickstarter, if it's a legitimate way to make a lot of money. It seems like it may just be.

Avatar image for xbox420
Xbox420

127

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Xbox420

Hey look, another Kick Starter article! How novel! We sure don't get enough of these on this site!

Avatar image for galloughs
galloughs

219

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By galloughs

I don't understand the attention this case is getting. Outside of the $28 shortcoming, this game appears to be an utterly mediocre casual game, and I don't think it deserves anything close to the coverage it's been getting.

Any line drawn in the sand will inevitably have people landing extremely close to either side of it. Statistically, things like this are going to continue happening, and probably already have several times outside of the gaming category. But then, most people these days don't seem to remember there are categories outside of games on Kickstarter.

Anyway, it's just strange to me that this crummy looking casual game is the one getting all the press.

Avatar image for sharkethic
SharkEthic

1091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By SharkEthic

@Terramagi said:

So the asshole lied about how much money he needed, got nothing, and now everybody is supposed to cry about it.

He lost. He failed. Twice. Why the fuck is this a news story.

Pretty much my immediate reaction as well (minus the news story part I guess). Seems like a total cop out to not just throw in the last 28 fucking dollars yourself. Makes it seem like even the guys behind the game didn't believe in the project. So him bitching about not being featured in Kotaku sooner? Give me a break dude, what, you don't have 28 dollars to your name?

Avatar image for pleasedaddyno
pleasedaddyno

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By pleasedaddyno

half of the people in the comments DID NOT READ the article. ugh. please overcome your urge to react just to the heading, when the greater article already addresses your concerns--and not even that far in.

Avatar image for spekingur
spekingur

174

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By spekingur

I have backed 26 projects on Kickstarter and of those 5 have been unsuccessful in their funding.

This project doesn't look very interesting to me to tell the truth. And I didn't know about it. That's part of the problem, there are way too many Kickstarter projects out there and you have no knowledge of who you can trust and who you can't.

Avatar image for zalera
Zalera

355

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: -1

Edited By Zalera

He couldn't ask a friend or family member to pitch in 28 bucks?

Avatar image for pleasedaddyno
pleasedaddyno

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By pleasedaddyno

@Floppycock: READ THE ARTICLE.

Avatar image for christoffer
Christoffer

2409

Forum Posts

58

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Christoffer

@pleasedaddyno said:

half of the people in the comments DID NOT READ the article. ugh. please overcome your urge to react just to the heading, when the greater article already addresses your concerns--and not even that far in.

Haha, I noticed that to. I don't know what's worse. If they commented without reading the article, or if they read it without comprehending it.

In either way, it's just sad.

Avatar image for sooty
Sooty

8193

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Sooty

Dull sounding game doesn't get funded.

More at 11.

Avatar image for dberg
Dberg

1025

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dberg

@Christoffer said:

@pleasedaddyno said:

half of the people in the comments DID NOT READ the article. ugh. please overcome your urge to react just to the heading, when the greater article already addresses your concerns--and not even that far in.

Haha, I noticed that to. I don't know what's worse. If they commented without reading the article, or if they read it without comprehending it.

In either way, it's just sad.

Allow me to shed some light on this as a person who did not read the article: It has a sensationalist headline. As a dude who still read tabloids from time to time, I'm no stranger to being lured to an article I don't care about, at which point I leave my tangentially related thoughts on the headline before bailing out.

Avatar image for wintermute
wintermute

443

Forum Posts

694

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 15

Edited By wintermute

@Dberg said:

Admittedly I only read the lead paragraph here, but if a project on Kickstarter is just barely at its mark by the skin of its teeth, then that kind of proves it's not popular enough. In this case, if none of the bidders could be bothered kicking in an extra 28 bucks, what does that say about the viability of the project itself?

If you had read the article, you would know. Why do people comment on articles they haven't read?

Avatar image for branthog
Branthog

5777

Forum Posts

1014

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Branthog
Given Alpha Colony previously raised more than $100,000, Williamson told me he assumed it would be easy to hit that a second time around, and had scaled and budgeted his game within that range. If Alpha Colony had managed to raise $50,000, it would have just barely done so, and that came with big consequences.

I've backed more than 400 crowd-funded projects and the one hard and simple rule of managing a fundraising project is ASK FOR THE MONEY YOU NEED. Don't ask for more; don't ask for less. That they asked for $50k, when they're both expected and needed $100k is fucking awful. Frankly, it's downright dishonest. If they had succeeded, they would have been forced to put forth a likely shoddy project, at best. And they clearly know that.

YOU ASK FOR THE FUNDS YOU NEED TO COMPLETE YOUR PROJECT. If you need $50k, don't ask for $100k. You may lose your entire project, because you're reaching for the stars. Likewise, don't ask for $50k if you require $100k.

When someone is backing your crowd-funded project, they are forced to make the assumption that you've done the math and know how much you realistically need for your project. Period. This is not a place to play e-Bay auction games of "well, if I start the bid low, it'll entice people to come and bid it up higher". Projects are being funded that range from $500 up to millions, A $100k goal is not absurd, so setting it too low for your needs accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Patrick and the guy managing the project are incorrect in suggesting that "backing a winner" really means much of anything. Setting it at a lower price than necessary in some absurd idea that it'll fuel a sky-bound trajectory is not backed by the actual experiences of crowd-funding. As I mentioned, I have backed hundreds of projects and how great or small the goal and how near to being funded it is has very little significant impact. Quite simply, people back stuff they're interested in. The spike at the end has nothing to do with "Oh, I want to be involved with a winner!" and more to do with "Okay, I don't have much time left to make up my mind and I guess I'm going to pull the trigger on backing this project".

Playing silly games like the above is all sorts of wrong (and unnecessary).

Now, on to a more technical point with regard to Kickstarter:

In a discussion with them in the past, I'd made a suggestion that some sort of algorithm that kicks in near the end of a project could be interesting. I don't know if it is necessary since projects usually don't come so close and fail (Fargoal came close, but succeeded by a few dollars in literally the last few seconds) -- but it'd still be interesting to consider an algorithm that takes into account the percentage left for the project to be funded and the recent velocity of that funding to extend the fundraising time in small increments.

This wouldn't be just to see a project so near the goal get pushed over, but to allow some extra time for projects that have already met their goal but are seeing a flood of excited backers in the last few minutes. There's no harm in allowing a very successful project to keep going until the wave subsides.

Avatar image for leebmx
leebmx

2346

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By leebmx

That is a really interesting article. I guess people are taking these sorts of risks and making these sorts of compromises with business plans everywhere and its only through Kickstarter that we actually get to see how a lot of the thinking and planning (or lack of) plays out.

I would be really interested for some proper qualified economists to have a look at some of the data and stories behind Kickstarter, kind of like the guy they have blogging over at Valve.

Also might not blame them for not asking for the full amount but I do. If its not shady then it is at least incompetent and unsafe with investors money. Once they have blown through that $50k they will either have a game which wasn't what they promised or will have nothing and have to try and get new investment. Its misleading and although I am no expert it seems potentially criminal. For example if I say to someone 'give me $50k and i'll build you this game' and know I can't possibly do that. Is that not fraud?

Also the amount of fucking people who post without reading the article is nuts.

Avatar image for selbie
selbie

2602

Forum Posts

6468

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By selbie

The biggest mistake was coming back to KS again. If your project fails, it was either because of a terrible campaign, or your idea just doesn't interest people. It has nothing to do with the amount of money you ask for.

Avatar image for deaddorf
DeadDorf

432

Forum Posts

1349

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

Edited By DeadDorf

Hey Patrick, it doesn't look like they make board games from their website, but rather traditional card games.

Avatar image for dberg
Dberg

1025

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dberg

@mr_shoeless said:

@Dberg said:

Admittedly I only read the lead paragraph here, but if a project on Kickstarter is just barely at its mark by the skin of its teeth, then that kind of proves it's not popular enough. In this case, if none of the bidders could be bothered kicking in an extra 28 bucks, what does that say about the viability of the project itself?

If you had read the article, you would know. Why do people comment on articles they haven't read?

Why do people answer rhetorical questions?

Avatar image for seeric
Seeric

343

Forum Posts

3698

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

Edited By Seeric

It seems like this game suffered in large part from a lack of advertising, though it is worrying that the creators seem to place the blame largely on big gaming news sites not covering their game during the Kickstarter.

Really, there are dozens upon dozens of websites out there aimed at small/indie developers which they could have tapped to get the word out. Even if those sites would not make a story about their game, it is usually entirely acceptable, even encouraged, to post about your upcoming projects on their forums. If they can't raise a decent amount of hype after all that, then they should take a serious look at their own game.

In short, while more publicity would have certainly helped them, it's ultimately their own fault for not trying hard enough to raise hype within gaming communities for a project they are presumably passionate about.

Avatar image for groof
Groof

22

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Groof

Crazy discussions in here, but all I gotta say is damn, too bad.

Avatar image for gbrading
gbrading

3317

Forum Posts

10581

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 5

Edited By gbrading

I'm afraid I don't feel particularly sorry for unsuccessful Kickstarter projects: That's just the way the dice rolls. Some projects are funded, and some aren't. This game doesn't seem particularly interesting, ergo it doesn't get funded. Backers have the right to pull out at any time, even right at the end. Yes it's sad it wasn't funded by only $28, but that still wouldn't make me want to back it because I'm simply not interested in it.

If you game has the spark, gets traction and gets press, you'll probably get funding. That's Capitalism.

Avatar image for rcath
rcath

677

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By rcath

This is honestly a great article.

Avatar image for boopie
Boopie

197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Boopie

crowdfund my ass more like loudfund am I right?

Avatar image for jscro
jscro

47

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By jscro

I didn't even know about the Sportsfriends Kickstarter until I heard someone mention it on a podcast earlier today then Patrick's story reminded me to get over there and contribute. It's a shame it seems they won't reach their funding goal.

Avatar image for visualize
Visualize

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Visualize

@DarthTater5: I'm relieved to see that at least one other person out there knows about CW's questionable character. I backed the project the first time but not the second after doing research on him. The whole cutting back to 1/10 of the amount needed seemed shady and dishonest to me. So I researched and found this: http://www.bouldercounty.org/safety/court/pages/publicreports.aspx Login and search his name. Middle name is Preston, born in 1969, lives and works in Lafayette, CO. Searched even more and there is so much info out there, enough to put the pieces together and confirm this is him. He is a criminal. So ironic that he's trying to develop a family friendly game when in fact he is not a family friendly person at all. It is a shame he is a father. Furthermore, I think you are spot on -- borderline mentally unstable, and he comes across as very narcissistic. No one should be backing this criminal and con-artist. He has fooled so many people, but he is not fooling us. Sorry you had to work with someone like this and hope you are in a better place now.

Avatar image for rick_deckard
rick_deckard

21

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By rick_deckard

@xdaknightx69: Did you even read the story?

Avatar image for seek83
seek83

28

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By seek83

What are backers doing pulling out? If the project falls short they get the money back, yeah?

Avatar image for muralbat
muralbat

158

Forum Posts

23

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By muralbat

@Floppycock: Dude, read the fucking article holy shit it explains it all in there. Why comment if you haven't read it?

Avatar image for magikgimp
MagikGimp

792

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MagikGimp

Majority of comments giving a perfect example to when people don't read an article in full but still voice their useless reaction to just the headline.

Avatar image for harabec
Harabec

98

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Harabec

Found the article to be really insightful into the developers mindset when trying to get funding through Kickstarter.

Avatar image for monsterelite
monsterelite

22

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By monsterelite

$28 bucks did they really want to make this game? Really?

Avatar image for christoffer
Christoffer

2409

Forum Posts

58

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Christoffer

@Dberg said:

@Christoffer said:

@pleasedaddyno said:

half of the people in the comments DID NOT READ the article. ugh. please overcome your urge to react just to the heading, when the greater article already addresses your concerns--and not even that far in.

Haha, I noticed that to. I don't know what's worse. If they commented without reading the article, or if they read it without comprehending it.

In either way, it's just sad.

Allow me to shed some light on this as a person who did not read the article: It has a sensationalist headline. As a dude who still read tabloids from time to time, I'm no stranger to being lured to an article I don't care about, at which point I leave my tangentially related thoughts on the headline before bailing out.

Quick fix: Stop being lured, stop reading tabloids. I hope you didn't expect us to find you non-readers less idiotic because of your non-explanation.

Avatar image for dberg
Dberg

1025

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dberg

@Christoffer said:

@Dberg said:

@Christoffer said:

@pleasedaddyno said:

half of the people in the comments DID NOT READ the article. ugh. please overcome your urge to react just to the heading, when the greater article already addresses your concerns--and not even that far in.

Haha, I noticed that to. I don't know what's worse. If they commented without reading the article, or if they read it without comprehending it.

In either way, it's just sad.

Allow me to shed some light on this as a person who did not read the article: It has a sensationalist headline. As a dude who still read tabloids from time to time, I'm no stranger to being lured to an article I don't care about, at which point I leave my tangentially related thoughts on the headline before bailing out.

Quick fix: Stop being lured, stop reading tabloids. I hope you didn't expect us to find you non-readers less idiotic because of your non-explanation.

Nah, that's okay. I'm nowhere near optimistic enough to think people will stop bitching about other people in comment fields.

Avatar image for sins_of_mosin
sins_of_mosin

1713

Forum Posts

291

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 7

Edited By sins_of_mosin

I've always had zero interest in giving money to things like this.

Avatar image for sordel
Sordel

32

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Sordel

I don't know anything about this particular project, but I have supported other projects on Kickstarter and I think that - especially in the games world - it is important that projects do fail to raise their money. There's a big "gold rush' mentality from new Kickstarter backers, and you see a lot of projects being floated that are very weak or speculative indeed. Project starters need to realise that this is not money for nothing and their kicks for free.

The project that I am carefully watching is Godus. Now, personally I think that Peter Molyneux is someone who has never been "punished" for making promises that he didn't keep ... I would love for this project to fail. But, bystanders cannot make a project fail ... they can only watch, and I find it amazing that the project is half way through and less than 50% funded. If nothing else, that shows that the same community that massively overfunded Project Eternity is at least sceptical when it comes to this game.

That's great ... that's how it should be. Backers should back the projects that they want to see funded, not just the ones with star names attached. The failures are just as important as the successes.

Obviously we want to see as many developers and software programmers in work as possible, and I can feel for the guys who lost out on their funding here, but the success of non-viable projects is in no one's interest, and it's pretty clear from the article here that the project could not have succeeded with only its minimal funding.

Avatar image for sickvisionz
sickVisionz

1307

Forum Posts

39

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

Edited By sickVisionz

@TrueEnglishGent: I think Kickstarter will still be around next year. It was around before video games started popping up and will be around once they stop.

It's a great system, but game devs seem to be, for lack of a better term, trying game it. Asking for half of what you need as if that's some cheat code for success is unethical. Devs need to do the due diligence to

  1. know what all of Kickstarter's costs are. These are clearly displayed and involve math even a 3rd grader could do so this is a poor caveat to get tripped up on.
  2. know what your project will cost. Don't pull numbers out of your ass. Get quotes from people and make realistic estimates and be fricking honest. Don't make your funding goal something that won't come anywhere near your funding goal as if that's some Mario pipe that takes you to a land filled with gold coins as far as the eye can see that you can grab and make up the difference.

Kickstarter is good but developer incompetence and purposeful deceit have a real shot at turning people off from the platform as a method of funding anything other than the most high profile projects.

I'm also against this overtime thing. Video games don't deserve special treatment and site-wide policy shouldn't be changed to help some crying game developer. I think game devs have already forgotten that Kickstarter isn't some guaranteed backing for any project you can imagine. Much like going to a venture capital form or game developer, the crowd totally has the option of saying, "no," which is what a funding failure represents.

Avatar image for jimmyecho
JimmyEcho

15

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By JimmyEcho

devastating

Avatar image for kollerj
kollerj

2

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By kollerj

I guess I'll research more thoroughly next time I pledge.

Avatar image for deactivated-5945386c8a570
deactivated-5945386c8a570

429

Forum Posts

2008

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Ha, & i remember that 'Day late' song from Finnish Hanoi Rcks, good times :D

Avatar image for diachron
Diachron

107

Forum Posts

383

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Edited By Diachron

This story supports my theory that as Kickstarter gets older, the population of projects that under deliver will cast an increasingly large shadow on the model.


That, or the practice of understating the true financial requirements of a project will have to diminish or be scrutinized.