• 160 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#151 Edited by Mr_Scumbag (44 posts) -

I have to disagree, Patrick. I think crowd funding's secret enemy is itself. It's a complete over saturation of people and "companies" with their hands out for money. So many that a good number of them don't have the ability, motivation or foresight to be able to complete a project. There are ones who will, or course, but there rarely any way to tell and it just leads to potential investors like me throwing their hands up in the air and praying for the whole idea to die.

That sucks, too. The idea or crowd funding is good, but like many things that start off good, people begin to pile on and after a while it becomes a mess.

That's how I see Kickstarter and Indiegogo now. Just a mess of aspirations and promises. Meanwhile, there are thousands of games out there that are complete and ready to buy and play. It's a pretty easy choice for me.

#152 Posted by peritus (1014 posts) -

well, fuck. That's some high level bullshit from paypal if this is correct.

#153 Posted by Zevvion (1874 posts) -

This is ridiculous and fucking disgusting.

PayPal is just the means to which the money is donated to those companies. They have no right to hold it back from them. If I had invested in one of these titles and I found out my money was held back from the thing I want to invest in, I'd be pissed off. And all because they fear I might not like how it turned out?

It's a donation; I'm backing it. There is implied risk to that, that I have to accept before I give them any money. If it doesn't quite turn out how I would have liked, that's too bad for me. I will have learned something about making investments at least. PayPal needs to mind its own business and not question mine.

That said, I already knew PayPal was bad news the first couple of months I tried it out. It's a terrible service that only adds more pain to payment. When I finally obtained a credit card, a whole new world opened for me. I can pay anything, anywhere now with extreme ease and it's more safe and apparently also more trustworthy than PayPal. There is no need for any other service.

In essence, PayPal is saying: use our service and we might, eventually get your money where you want it to go, but only if we are satisfied. What a joke.

#154 Posted by bluefoxxy (170 posts) -
@gaspower said:

@bluefoxxy: I thought out of all the articles in regards to that particular issue (Cross Assault) at that time, that was probably the most neutral-toned out of all of them (Evan Narcisse's article about the issue I found to be even more inflaming). I found Brad's comments about it on the Bombcast to be more irritating (considering that he was being very judgmental about it) then Patrick even. Since then he had covered more topics about the more interesting aspects relating to fighting games in general since that time.

Very well said duder. I don't remember what Brad said on the bombcast about it. Maybe I disregarded it? I'll have to find that segment sometime soon. I can't agree or disagree but I'll take your word for it! :)

@bluefoxxy: Chargebacks can only occur if the product is never delivered or if a product is significantly different than what was advertised (also unauthorized access to the card, but that's an entirely different issue). Yeah they should protect themselves from chargebacks but they also are opening the door for people to claim chargebacks by restricting resource access causing a product not be delivered on time. They're kinda fucking themselves over.

If PayPal is deciding at any time to release funds based on the current state of the product then they inherently become a producer in some way. I do disagree with Patrick in saying the fault lies with PayPal. Honestly PP shouldn't be involved at all. It's policies aren't set up to deal with financial capital at any scope, it was designed to handle small scale private transactions. If they indeed want to be in that space then they have to step up to the plate instead of fumbling around with all this budgeting bullshit.

If you don't want PP to handle how you get your cash, then you would receive the total amount, NQA right? Then PP would send a bill for 37% of your profits gained from the crowdsourcing due to chargebacks + whatever fees that come with chargebacks. So you are fucked either way.

Someone has to eat the cost of the chargeback, and it certainly isn't going to be the payment gateway. So why not let PayPal work with you to reduce chargebacks?

PayPal does have to handle these in a case by case scenario. That or maybe have some kind of buffer for cash received in case things go bad.

Also, I have to disagree on what you said on scale. PP can EASILY handle the scale of any transaction. It's the risk profile you have to assess. For instance, if all of this money transacted was from Bank Accounts, PayPal would issue you a check for the full amount NQA. But since there is alot of credit transactions, they have to assess the risk of how much they should give you based on the potential for chargebacks and how recent the transactions were. (Chargebacks expire after X days.)

@umbaglo said:

@bluefoxxy: Please explain how holding the money hostage from the person receiving the money is going to stop chargebacks. Please explain how fraudsters using a fake or stolen credit card justifies demanding information about business practices and timetables. Please explain how this isn't as simple as explaining to purchasers that if you are investing in a project, then a nil return is still getting what you paid for.

I don't think anyone is honestly arguing that chargebacks and fraud are not serious concerns. But the reality is that the demands being made by PayPal seem to not be targeted towards minimizing these concerns, and are instead designed to keep money in PayPal's bank account longer so they can get free interest on it. Or worse, free money period.

Only because you said please! PayPal isn't holding the money hostage. There isn't a threat, or a reward from PP if you get your money. Holding Hostage is bad terminology on your part.

It's not fair that fraudsters are making us go through these hoops. But what choice do we have? Just hope that fraudsters don't use a loophole to make free money? Is PP making it easy for us? No. But these are requirements that we gotta get through to process transactions safely and securely.

And as for your third "please" I can't give you a solid answer but here goes. The simplicity of it is if it gets funded or not right? Put in X amount, get X back. But that money has alot of responsibilities tied to it. And who are we to trust that you, the recipient are to be trusted and/or experienced to handle the financing of the money? PP looks at that and created this idea of protecting you from yourself. I'm not defending them though. It's not a solid plan. But it works.

PP does thrive off of reserves. It's an obvious truth.

#155 Posted by bluefoxxy (170 posts) -

@kinapuff said:

@bluefoxxy: Would you mind starting off with "I'm a screaming, raging child because I don't like Patrick" instead of ending with it next time? It'd save us all some time.

You got it. Yeah I came off as immature. I was angry about it. I apologize there. It's not that I don't like Patrick. The dude is pretty spot on. Just these articles that get spun into something that they aren't. I came to GB because I wanted to get away from that. And Patrick seems to be the one that brings all that bullshit in. Just a personal perspective on that one.

#156 Posted by Hassun (1187 posts) -

I had never heard of this problem before you brought it to my attention, Patrick.

Thanks for letting me know, PayPal had better start adapting to this ASAP.

#157 Posted by Bunny_Fire (305 posts) -
#158 Edited by bluefoxxy (170 posts) -

@bluefoxxy: Paypal had every opportunity to make all the necessary credit checks before these Kickstarters close - they have a very clear timeline and promises they are making to their customers. You may be "in" the industry, but if you read this entire article, it seems fairly clear that Paypal is having trouble communicating with its users, at the very least. Which should be hardly surprising.

Locking down these funds isn't a horrible thing to do as a payment processing firm, but they should be much more communicative with their clients, do their credit checks and profiles BEFORE they accept half a million dollars from customers, provide workarounds and solutions, and most importantly be up front about the way their business works. It is not inherently difficult to do these things, and it's not unreasonable to say that the fact that Paypal seems to not care very much is a shitty thing.

One problem is the PP account holders are not telling PP in advance that they are doing this.

so they fit a different credit / risk profile

In fact I don't think paypal does credit checks per se. Banks do, but always deny unless you've been in business for at least 18 months with 100k in the bank etc.

#159 Posted by GaspoweR (3050 posts) -

@bluefoxxy: Sure man just thought I'd like to share that just to put it in perspective in regards to how other people from mainstream media viewed it at that time. :)

#160 Posted by twelve1784 (114 posts) -

Knowing exactly how the collection and distribution process works, the outright statement that the money is "locked away" is absurd and makes me want to drop to my knees, and fire my gun up in the air whilst screaming.

#161 Posted by Rongaryen (275 posts) -

This who things makes Pay Pal look and sound super fucking nefarious.

#162 Edited by bluefoxxy (170 posts) -

@gaspower said:

@bluefoxxy: Sure man just thought I'd like to share that just to put it in perspective in regards to how other people from mainstream media viewed it at that time. :)

Love u duder. On a complete other note, I want to publicly apologize to everyone here for how rude I was earlier. I had a 96 foot pole in my ass and that was SO not cool in any way shape or form. I was caught in a moment in my company, and the crossfire was this forum. Apologies all around. I'll definitely try to be a better person and choose my words carefully next time.

#163 Posted by Omberone (2 posts) -

Are they perhaps locking down the account so that they have time to invest in the buisness? They after all get first peak and assessment from the source itself, and they control the money/funding in the end.

#164 Posted by ptys (1961 posts) -

This was an interesting read.

#165 Posted by wedgeski (11 posts) -

Great read, Patrick. It's disappointing to hear that this is how Paypal operates for crowd-funded projects. They claim they have the best interests of the backers at heart, but why then do they immediately buckle without explanation as soon as a big enough developer makes noise publicly about the situation?

Because that's when someone with actual decision-making power gets involved.

It certainly seems that this is a "straightforward" customer service policy issue. I'd imagine crowd-funded exchanges set off most or all of the alarms for fraudulent activity, because they're new and weird and people are still learning to deal with it all. It will straighten itself out.

#166 Edited by YukoAsho (2055 posts) -

@wedgeski said:

@dr_robocop said:

Great read, Patrick. It's disappointing to hear that this is how Paypal operates for crowd-funded projects. They claim they have the best interests of the backers at heart, but why then do they immediately buckle without explanation as soon as a big enough developer makes noise publicly about the situation?

Because that's when someone with actual decision-making power gets involved.

It certainly seems that this is a "straightforward" customer service policy issue. I'd imagine crowd-funded exchanges set off most or all of the alarms for fraudulent activity, because they're new and weird and people are still learning to deal with it all. It will straighten itself out.

Pretty much this. Crowdfunding isn't that old, and megalithic corporations are notoriously slow.