Ashoten said:
eh? well then maybe it is time for someone to form a indie based funding group that only allows small timers to put their projects up.
Good idea. Maybe call it "Hipstarter". Their slogan could be: "No mainstream need apply"
Ashoten said:
However this really ignores the underlying problem. I easily foresee this becoming a trend for companies to habitually preorder all their products to the consumers. Now this may well be a model that works(if the corporations set reasonable goals) but will most likely allow for corporations to make you the consumer risk your money to develop a product that has not been made yet meaning they do not need to risk their own private fortunes.
What risk? Assuming that the games actually get made (and as scammy as big publishers can get, they rarely take preorder money and run away with it), the worst risk that consumers are taking would be the same that they are taking with preorders now anyways, and even with released games (after all, you always risk that you might not end up liking it).
In turn for that, the fact that enthusiastic fandom-driven games are more likely to get funded than media juggernauts that actually most of it's players are "meh" about, would be a pretty big improvement on it's own. The fact that it would be for a studio to finish a game without needing publisher's approval, would be even better.
The real risk that studios would avoid, wouldn't be something that they place on the players, but something that's automatically eliminated by unprofitably unpopular projects failing before they could even get started.
Ashoten said:
The reason kickstarter makes sense as a business model for small independents is because they usually do not have any money to risk but a good product that they have made a prototype of. It also means that their goals for production and fundraising are going to be more in line with the particular audience they are trying to reach.
On the other hand, the smallest indies can actually run out of KS money if they still misjudge it, and they rarely have a proven track record, so you are taking more risks with them than with established studios. Quid pro quo.
Ashoten said:
Just to be clear my personal sentaments about Penny Arcade have to do with my own frustrations that people willingly ignore the spirit of the thing because it is technically a moral thing for them to do. Never mind that Penny arcade has their own web site in place they used Kickstarter because it is popular and guaranteed to get attention.
Morality is not technical. And using the more popular way to get atention, is not immoral. PA is not harming Kickstarter by being there, it's not "taking away space". I don't see anything wrong with grabbing opportunities to catch attentions with your fundraising projects.
Ashoten said:
Additionally the name Kickstarter does imply the purpose of the system is to help people kickstart a product that they otherwise would not be able to. If they want to be normal greedy big industry types then maybe they should be politly asked to change their name to "Preorder funding anyone or anything".
The name could just as easily refer to projects as to creators. If you are backing PA, or Obsidian, or Zach Braff, you are still "kickstarting" a project, that is, you are paying the profits that it would need to earn anyways, except that you are kicking it at the start of the production process, instead of at the end.