@Vampir: Why? What if I ask for money to make a game and in an update I change something someone find fundamental. Developers and pledgers have a set ammount of time to negotiate and make a deal. Increasing and decreasing the money is the way people have to show approval or concern. And pleding is the only way you can post in the comments for the project.
Ok i'm confused now ,dosn't this mean they hade 24 hours to put in the missing ammount?
"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."
I think the part right after what you underlined is the bit you're missing. "And the cancellation or reduction would drop the campaign below its goal". Since they never reached the goal, the reduction or cancellations of pledges would not allow it to drop below. That's what could enable a downward flux up until the last minute.
Ok i'm confused now ,dosn't this mean they hade 24 hours to put in the missing ammount?
"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 hoursand the cancellation or reduction would drop the campaign below its goal."
As someone who's never really been into the idea of KickStarter it's a real eye opener to read accounts like this, it's like someone pitching you an idea and not being able to ask any questions.
I can see it as a way for 'trusted' dev teams to make games that might be hard to pitch to actual investors, but maybe this isn't the place for games like this to be funded, and maybe... games like this shouldn't be funded..
I seriously think Kickstarter will fade away next year, developers won't trust it unless they're an established name with a fan base they can rely on to help fund the project. I don't think Kickstarter would even be a thing without Double Fine, it will be short lived but some potentially great games could come of it.
My personal hope is that the concept is developed upon, with a better understanding of the risks, because the idea of fans help funding a game so it can be designed with those fans in mind is a wonderful thing.
Fascinating read, feel for those developers.
Kickstarter is an actual thing without video games. Plenty of albums, art projects, and small films get funded because of it, not to mention all the fashion, food, and tech projects that have become possible thanks to the website. Seriously, there's a lot to Kickstarter that isn't just in the one menu option.
I never post comments about people in the game industry I know, but I need to make an exception. I have had the displeasure of working with Chris on previous projects before, and I would have not expected this project to succeed. He is very difficult to work with and I would say borderline mentally unstable. As much as it displeases me to see a project like this fall apart, I personally made the very conscious decision not to back this project.
I consider the philosophy of "ask for half of what you need" to be completely foolish. Asking for half of what you actually need makes it more likely that you'll get some money, but not the money you actually need to finish the project. If you're asking for half of what you actually need to create the product, then I think you should pitch to the people putting money in that they're backing half of a project.
I'm a little surprised and more than a little dismayed to hear that people are canceling their pledges ahead of time on projects that look like they won't make it. That makes literally no sense to me at all, you don't get charged if the project doesn't make it so it takes care of itself...and there's the definite risk THIS will happen, when a project should have made it but people were backing out.
Ok i'm confused now ,dosn't this mean they hade 24 hours to put in the missing ammount?
"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."
I think the part right after what you underlined is the bit you're missing. "And the cancellation or reduction would drop the campaign below its goal". Since they never reached the goal, the reduction or cancellations of pledges would not allow it to drop below. That's what could enable a downward flux up until the last minute.
Ok i read those as 2 seperate things ( sorry not so good at english), thanx for clearing that up for me.
I feel dirty even thinking this thought, but I'm going to say it whether I consciously agree with it or not, which I don't.
That he detracted a personal bid of his own so that it was guaranteed not to succeed because otherwise he'd have to create the game at a heavy loss and possibly not be able to finish the game.
Nice article Patrick. The question of what the "right" funding amount seems really grey. Full disclosure seems like the best course, but I wonder which games would be funded if the developer said "Ok, if we get this 50,000, that's half the game!" By the same token, 100,000 could be a pipe dream.
The line has to go somewhere. If you've got a 100 dollar cushion and miss by 20 bucks, then what? A cushion-cushion if you're 5 dollars short? It's harsh, I agree, but it is also delightfully simple. Yes or no.
I seriously think Kickstarter will fade away next year, developers won't trust it unless they're an established name with a fan base they can rely on to help fund the project. I don't think Kickstarter would even be a thing without Double Fine, it will be short lived but some potentially great games could come of it.
My personal hope is that the concept is developed upon, with a better understanding of the risks, because the idea of fans help funding a game so it can be designed with those fans in mind is a wonderful thing.
Fascinating read, feel for those developers.
Kickstarter was a "thing" long before Double Fine or Project Eternity, and even if game developers abandon the platform, it will continue to exist. That's what I usually find so funny about these game industry Kickstarter articles.
What Kickstarter should do would be remove the option to cancel a pledge within the last 24 hours of a kickstarter campaign, no matter if the goal for the campaign has already been met or not. That way there wouldn't be the issue anymore that people take their pledges back last minute and that way cause something that is close to the goal suddenly be (too) far below it to still have a chance to make it.
Yay for people not actually reading the article before posting.
Anyway its a bummer for the developer that they missed it by so little, but it seems like the game probably wouldn't have done well if it had met its $50k goal.
Did comment #1 or #4 even read the article? They had a friend who pledged what they needed to put them over the top, but when it looked like it wouldn't go through, people who had already pledged pulled their pledges back to $1 or whatever and that's what sunk them.
Kickstarter is funded by hype, there are tons of ways to generate it. The dev could have done more to ensure his funding. At the end of the day he will most likely still make his game. Nothing happened after all?
I'm surprised the discussion has gotten this far and no one's mentioned other services like IndieGoGo that do the same thing but allow the project to keep money given to them (at a higher percentage cut, which is then lowered to around the Kickstarter amount if the project goes over its goal).
Honestly, I'd rather use IndieGoGo at this point because it's not nearly as cluttered as Kickstarter is, and it allows for the Kickstarter all-or-none funding model along with its unique flexible funding model.
I'm a little surprised and more than a little dismayed to hear that people are canceling their pledges ahead of time on projects that look like they won't make it. That makes literally no sense to me at all, you don't get charged if the project doesn't make it so it takes care of itself...and there's the definite risk THIS will happen, when a project should have made it but people were backing out.
To me it seems like buyer's regret or they pledged knowing full well the game would never hit its goal, thus allowing them to never pay any actual money. The pledgers want to feel good about contributing, but never actually contribute. Once they realize a game is about to hit its goal, they back out because they never really wanted to contribute any actual money. Its totally dishonest and really sucks for the people running the campaign.
Republique succeeded because they finally caved and announced it for platforms people actually want to play games with 3D movement on - I wouldn't wish playing a third person iPhone shooter on my worst enemy. The surge at the end had more to do with the PC market than anything.
Let's be honest, there was a lack of faith by the backers for this project because it all seemd a bit flaky. First they need $500K then they need $50K - how is that logical? Are you telling me the M.U.LE. licence was worth $450K or even $400K.
People got cold feet at the end because they realized this whole projects was not making much sense. They are asking $50K, but they REALLY need $150K, but the might get it done for $100K; .but last month they needed $500K. It was all lies and I have no problem saying this not reaching ist gaol is for the best. Even, if they had reached the goal they ADMIT it was not going to be enough. Williamson admits this, he needed closer to 3x as much funding, so why are people call this a tragedy. A poor plan failed because there was no logic to the plan - that's good news folks. This isn't KS failing, this is a prime exampled of how KS works well.
Awww man, as someone who's in the middle of crowdfunding a short film, this is kinda devastating at first glance.
Then you read further and realise that situation isn't quite so clear-cut. Just goes to show how volatile the crowdfunding landscape still is, and how much of your success is measured by psychological factors versus raw numbers.
@zeekthegeek: What the hell are you talking about? Isn't Republique the game where you control security cameras and electronic devices to assist the girl escaping? What shooting is there?
This article has really brought to light how many people try to comment on something while passing off that they know anything about it when they clearly don't. Hilarious.
Also, that Kickstarter policy seems awful - I agree with another poster who said they should lock pledge changes with 24 hours left...after 29 days you should fucking well know if you are in or not, and pulling at the last minute is just weak.
This example doesn't mean kickstarter is useless. It just means that this guy didn't do a good job selling his idea and why it's worth donating money to. There are a lot of successful projects that came from Kickstarter.
I don't get it. What happens to all the funds if the project don't reach the goal? Does the money return to the backers or does Kickstarter keep it for their own?
@Inquisitor_Sif: I'm fairly certain your account/credit card doesn't get charged until the project deadline is reached and it's made enough funds to be successful, so if it doesn't make the goal, you don't pay anything.
I don't want to back a winner. I want to back something I think has a shot at being both well-made and appealing to me. Win or lose, it doesn't matter to me. Your money isn't taken if the project doesn't reach its goal. There's no accounting for the Kickstarter not setting a proper budget to allow them to deliver everything the've promised. All you can do is assume that they have.
I guess no one read the article,. It stated clearly that too many people pulled out at the end so every time they got someone to donate the difference, another one of the backers would pull out.
Kickstarter is going to fade away in terms of massive influx of video game projects. People have backed several video games now and it's a 1-2 year waiting period after they are charged. They aren't going to keep shelling out cash when none of their previously backed kickstarter projects are completed yet.
I don't think I could ever pull out of a project that I previously pledged too. I have knocked down my pledges in the past, because - hey, paying bills comes first. But I have only done so after they already passed their goal - I doubt Obsidian, for example, minds that I changed my $15 pledge to a $5 one, y'know?
I mean, that's just mean. This is people, with a lot of talent, trying to do something that needs a lot of money. How can you just pull out entirely? If it's unsuccessful, you'll get your money back anyway. Why jump out BEFORE that moment? Don't be a dick, internet.
I don't have anything against kickstarter- I just think people need to keep in mind that this is not an investment in a project. If a product gets off the ground that you contributed to, you aren't going to be kicked back anything in return except maybe a "free" copy of the game (or whatever the gift is that they put in place). So when a kickstarter project doesn't make its goal and goes nowhere, that's fine too. Maybe kickstarter wasn't the avenue the developer needs to go to raise capital for the project. This is a relatively new way for people to raise funds, when it doesn't work out, I doesn't see it as anyone getting hurt. People get hurt when a fund goal is met and then the end product doesn't materialize or it turns out to be garbage. Contribute at your own risk.
Log in to comment