Nesrie
1621
I don’t know if this is some sort of doublespeak for something, but my opinion of Kickstarter was not improved or negatively impacted by their decision. I just don’t know why they would care if some comic book store down the street order a “store” pack of some new game or not.
It’s all about branding. The appeal of Kickstarter is that it’s a platform to help the starving artist achieve his impossible dreams (which is the case much of the time - it certainly was for AtG). You lose that warm, comfy glow if Kickstarter starts looking more like a crude preorder system or an easy way for companies to fund mass production of widgets. That means they have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. It’s really just a question of where to put it.
It’s a fine line to walk, and some of their policies will likely end up backfiring. But I don’t see how putting a cap on what projects can raise could help their image without seriously cutting into their revenue. They’ll make more off of Torment than they will from 500 “small fry” projects that each raise 10k.
In many ways, they have a similar model to social games, where the goal is to try and bring in as many “whales” as possible. As long as that doesn’t inflict irreparable damage their image (and it hasn’t so far), they have no incentive to change.
Nesrie
1623
Sure, i can see that although they’re starting to have an issue with that starving artist image considering how many wealthy individuals or established individuals are using it. Five games aren’t going to interest the chain stores, but what better place for a new board game to find a home than a handful of copies in some niche store. I understand that Kickstarter isn’t really in the business in “making” someone, but it seems a hindrance in some areas if the goal is to establish a project and let them take flight. That might not be the goal though because Kickstarter also has a lot of repeats.
Yep, they’re trying to balance two very powerful competing forces. Up to this point they’ve been able to maintain that image of “we’re helping the little guy!” but it may not be possible to do so forever. As you note, there’s already been several cases that don’t quite fit within the box of the “ideal” Kickstarter user, but those projects have also tended to rake in a lot of cash. Not an easy problem to solve. It’s times like these I’m glad that all I really have to do is keep making good games!
Nesrie
1625
Yep, and those big ones are glorified pre-orders. The theater, science and wouldn’t it be nice projects are more numerous but never come close to the pre-order types. I like Kickstarter as an alternative to other routes so far. I am glad it exists, but I do question why a multi millionaires won’t risk their own money with a project and whether enough of those kind of questions will start to hurt KS.
Fortunately, the creators are still there and the supports thus far :-)
corkeh
1626
I had a few thoughts about that 9 year old girl’s Kickstarter. Why was the original goal exactly the amount needed for the camp, when it’s common knowledge that the fees are 8-10% (Kickstarter takes 5%, the payment processor takes 3-5%)? And maybe they forgot to update their staff page or something, but there is no “john” working at kickstarter (the email in update 7).
Maybe I’m overthinking this, but the whole thing feels a bit shady.
Well, the answer to that is pretty obvious - because they don’t have to!
(What follows isn’t targeted at you specifically Nesrie, but your question brings up an interesting issue.)
I think this grey area is where the Kickstarter model of “funding by goodwill alone” starts to run into problems. People like the concept of Kickstarter and the ability to lend starving artists a hand so that they can produce the work of their dreams. But there’s a lot more going on here than the rosy ‘happily ever after’ simplification some people blindly believe in.
Where does the money actually go? How much should go into the pockets of the creators? Does it matter if someone asks for 30k and get none of that VS if they ask for 100k and take home 70k? What should happen if they raise 20x their funding goal - are there certain “rules” that should be followed?
People may not say it outright, but I’ve noticed a weird vibe that basically suggests project creators shouldn’t pay themselves, well… any of the money. After all, the funds raised should go towards “the project,” not its creators. This is a naive perspective, as the two are nearly always one in the same. I think the Amanda Palmer saga was the first example of this bubbling up in a very public fashion.
While Kickstarter doesn’t actively sweep these sorts of issues under the rug, they certainly have no incentive to bring attention to them, as they squarely get in the way of the inspirational “help the underdog” motif the platform is built on.
Personally, I think projects should be judged by what is promised and delivered - and nothing else. If you’re not comfortable with the idea that someone might get rich thanks to Kickstarter, then you’re under no obligation to contribute or use it at all. If you asked for a thousand dollars ended up with a million - congratulations! You’ve obviously hit on something that really resonates with people. It shouldn’t then be your burden to try and spend that money “correctly.” As long as all promises are followed through on it doesn’t matter where the money goes.
Trying to apply morality to Kickstarter is a slippery slope that threatens to topple the entire model. Regardless of where one stands on this issue, this would be a bad thing for both creators and people who enjoy the sorts of unique projects that wouldn’t otherwise exist.
I don’t have any clue about Kickstarters other than the gaming ones, but I’ve noticed that people seem to think they should be for games that otherwise wouldn’t get made unless a bunch of folks chip in to get them going. The crowd’s ire gets raised when a millionaire tries to kickstart something, especially a guy that’s not shy about spending his money, because the thinking is that this game could get made if he thought it was as important as his castle with secret doors, or his outlandish parties that get reported on in the local papers. This isn’t a guy that’s barely a millionaire. This is a guy that paid Russia $30 million to go into space.
I think its entirely fair that Kickstarter funds should be used to pay people working on the project.
steve
1629
Man, it’s so much easier for physical goods.
The idea that if you earn above your goal that you need to find ways to spend that extra money on “stretch goals” is madness, as far as trying to create a quality game design and run a sustainable business. It’s like Kickstarter is forcing feature creep, or else you need to intentionally leave out features just so you can add them back later. This has the unfortunate side effect of leaving holes in your initial design.
On the business side, it also means you may need to keep producing Kickstarters in perpetuity, as you’re never giving yourself a buffer. If you get $1 million for your $500K game, you buy some time if development hits a snag and you have to delay (which never happens in game development, right?) or if you release and don’t see significant revenue beyond your Kickstarter audience.
I can totally understand this sentiment. Which is why people have, you know, the option of not contributing.
The built-in assumption that the Kickstarter platform is about “fighting the good fight” is both its greatest strength and largest enemy. It allows an old-school Double Fine point-and-click adventure game to be made. And it also brings out the morality police more often than any topics outside of politics and religion.
The entire community would be better off if people at both ends of the spectrum acknowledged that Kickstarter isn’t about good VS evil, but that it’s simply a way to get some potentially cool, unique projects funded.
I agree completely. The approach I took with AtG is that our funding goal was the minimum necessary to build the game and gameplay we wanted to make. All of the stretch goals were about fleshing out the experience, be it modding, extra leaders, etc. Never at any point did we consider playing around with the gameplay side.
It’s not easy for every game to take that approach, but I do think it’s possible. Scope is an important part of every project, and that’s particularly true with Kickstarter, as it’s easy to get carried away when the community is asking for new features and the funding level keeps ticking upward. Overpromising is rampant, be it through rewards, stretch goals or delivery dates. I worry that we’re going to see a bunch of projects run out of money or fall short here in the next year and I know I’m not alone there.
On the business side, it also means you may need to keep producing Kickstarters in perpetuity, as you’re never giving yourself a buffer. If you get $1 million for your $500K game, you buy some time if development hits a snag and you have to delay (which never happens in game development, right?) or if you release and don’t see significant revenue beyond your Kickstarter audience.
Yeah, it’s potentially a dangerous trap, although I’d say probably not any more so than the pre-Kickstarter days. This is why AtG is being built with such a small team. I have no idea if it will sell 5k units or 500k, but either way the company is in no danger. I’m really glad I’m not in the shoes of someone trying to figure out how to keep a 100, or even 15-person studio afloat. Unless you’re working in a big franchise, games are just too risky a bet without already having a ton of cash in the bank. It’s the sole reason why you see so few large-ish independent developers these days.
Considering that any kickstarter budget should have a certain amount of payment for the creators (read: profit) built in, well designed stretch goals should too. Even if you have $400K-$500K stretch goals for your $50K project, the actual cost of the $500K goal should be significantly less than $100K.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torment-tides-of-numenera/posts/440456?
Obsidian and InXile sharing tech for their Unity-based RPG projects. Interesting :)
Agreed, but that’s certainly not the opinion held by everyone. :)
robc04
1635
Jon, what are you doing out in public? I backed your kickstarter and my driveway needs shoveling!
I’m typing this from my phone while taking a break from shoveling contributor #1462’s driveway - I’ll get to you soon!
Nesrie
1637
I expect people to get paid for their work. I think the difference is… if someone goes out on their own, I think it is unreasonable for them to expect the same amount of pay. There are risks involved in going on your own as well as rewards. Kickstarter money is basically risk free cash. I mean really, it’s not a loan, there are no investors or contracts… they are donations. I am unlikely to back any project where I think someone is trying to maintain six figure salary while working on their indie game. I would hope that their game is so successful that they will reap the benefits for years to come though. Again though, I take the very advice you give… if i question where the money is going, I simply don’t contribute. Others will, and that’s fine.
Damnit, are we going to re-hash this again?
This is a perfectly valid line of reasoning for single-person projects. If the project is large enough that you need employees (i.e. Double Fine Adventure), it’s completely unrealistic. Sure, you can expect the owners of a project to take a pay cut, but the employees and contractors won’t. They’ll go somewhere else where they can get paid a competitive wage. If there are manufacturing costs involved (i.e. the CordLite project), the manufacturers don’t care that you’re a kickstarter. They want to be paid.
robc04
1639
If the person or company fulfills the promises / obligations of their kickstarter project, who cares if they make a lot of money? If someone creates a project that gets lots of support because it is interesting to a lot of people, let them make a lot of money from it. They shouldn’t be expected to deliver more than they promised, although it may be in their best interest to do so to garner good will for their next project.
This.
If i back something, it is because i think the product is worth my money and that means i want to encourage its creation, and others like it, and this means having the creator being successful financial. Unlike some people, i understand that just because they are on kickstarter, doesn’t mean you can hire programmers for $20,000/year. If you want to see a good game (or widget) made, you need good talent and good talent doesn’t work for nothing.
Unless you’re making a music cd like half of kickstarter (please let me filter this shit for the love of god), kickstarter is not about begging, to me at least. I’m pledging money for a future product/service. As long as said product isn’t compromised by excessive personal compensation, i’m golden and i want you to make as much profit as possible.
Stretch goals should not be about finding ways to use up extra money. They should be used to encourage people to pledge more and pledge in general, similar to how preorder dlc is used to encourage people to preorder at retailers. It seems absolutely silly to expect a product based kickstarter to do more with more money when they are basically selling copies of whatever. Those presales are their profits. I do expect them to meet stated obligations though if they make stretch goals.
The exception to this is non product based kickstarters, which i don’t do. I’d imagine if i pledged for something that wasn’t based around selling me a product, i’d expect them to use the overflow money for something useful.
