Everyone wants crowdfunding to be better, just like every developer wants their game to be hailed as an artistic masterpiece, and every publisher wants their game to make all the money on Earth, just like, well, everyone wants everything to be better; the problem is there frequently isn't an 'everyone wins' scenario to many problems and that's before we get into the fact everyone has a different idea of what 'better' means. I was not critiquing the general concept that it would be nice if crowdfunding afforded more protection to the people who support it, I was critiquing the specific suggestions given as I felt they did not properly reflect for the economic realities of the situation. I do not understand how doing that could be conflated as 'attacking' or 'ganging up on'. To give a very hyperbolic and simplistic example: my Grandmother is very tech/internet illiterate and not the best at spotting scams to start with. If one day she told me a Nigerian Prince had contacted her and offered to split his money with her for helping with the bank fees I don't feel explaining why that will not work to her is 'attacking' her, nor would I consider it 'ganging up on' her if every member of my family repeats the same thing to her. It doesn't mean my hypothetical grandmother is stupid, it just means it's an area of knowledge she doesn't understand. And to extend the metaphor, if she hypothetically turned around and asked 'well, what's your better idea for making a million dollars??' that doesn't disarm the prior arguments. On the contrary, if I was about to risk my life savings in an obviously economically nonviable venture I would actively HOPE someone would explain to me why what I'm about to do isn't realistic.The_Great_Galendo said:
No More Paypal Payment Protection for Crowdfunding Pledges
- Thread starter ffronw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, count me as a supporter, because you are absolutely correct. The developers who obtain their funding through Kickstarter and fail to deliver on their promises without good reason should be considered financially and probably legally liable to the greatest extent possible. If that means completely draining the developer's bank accounts so be it, that's called punishment for failure, not being heartless. In fact, it should be considered fraud if deliberate or at least criminal negligence if not to do so without good reason given. Even if they do deliver on their promises any amount that exceeds the amount requested or required to fund each goal should be given back rather than kept. Also no, "it cost me more than I thought it probably would" does not constitute good reason, nor "I had problems that made things cost more than I would have and take longer", the initial asking price should have enough leeway to take those into account in the first place. If this was the case or especially was always the case we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of projects dead in the water that never delivered that we do now because developers using Kickstarter would make damned sure they knew what their projects would cost and how long it was going to take even accounting for unforeseen events that could change that before even putting it up.Saelune said:
As it is there is nothing remotely resembling a guarantee that a project that is successfully funded is completed. Such a situation is ripe for abuse.
So I have been summoned again. Anyways, I have had time to think about it, and here is how I personally think Crowdfunding should work.
One, people keep saying charity and stuff, but really its a different kind of loan. We should be considered investors. When you get a loan from a bank, you are expected to pay it back, with interest. With someone funding it, like a game (since our focus has been game developers more than any other potential crowdfund project), ie a publisher, they pay for the game but may expect to have creative influence, and they too expect to get paid back in profit. The difference with crowdfunding is there isn't someone making changes to your project, and you don't have to pay interest, and likely they have to buy the product themselves aswell. Its not a charity, and it should not be. People are paying for a product, and I think backers deserve a return, one way or another.
Both bank loans and publishers have risks of failure, as does crowdfunding. The project runners should take careful consideration for all potential costs, and likely should set a goal with some legroom.
They set the goal, and either A: Enough people like the idea that it reaches its goal, the project gets the money and should be able to finish it. Then the backers now have the ability to buy the product. Or B: People don't like it, doesn't make its goal, everyone who did fund some of it gets their money back, the project gets nothing.
Should they get excessive funds, I -don't- think they should be punished for it. This is where I am actually on the project's side. It shouldn't be held against you that people actually like your idea. All they should be expected to do is fulfill their original goal. Obviously this just means they have way more legroom to work. If they finish and want to add more, good for them. If not, then I think they should get to keep the money, though perhaps give backers the product for free, since you don't need as much profit.
If the project just falls through, that's unfortunate, but you should have planned better. Why it failed may be important, but a bank isn't going to care that your project failed, and expect to get paid regardless. People who keep saying "but the money is gone" need to understand the concept of being "in debt".
Projects should also be clear and open with how things are going. A publisher doesn't just give money and not keep tabs. Plus this may allow issues to be better avoided. A full plan beyond idea should probably be part of the pitch atleast, so people can judge for themselves if they trust the project to succeed. A bank giving a loan to a start up business is likely to want to know you have a decent enough plan, perhaps a location picked out, proper licenses or whatever.
In the case of people scamming or embezzling, or shady things, well obviously they definatly need to pay back, and possibly be arrested. Fraud is fraud. If some people ruin a project for others, in the case of multiple people working on it, only those doing the illegal stuff should be punished such as in Saulkar's case.
I hope this more clearly and fairly expresses my opinion on this, and if anyone has any issue with all or some of this, that we can continue proper and thoughtful debate. I'm not a money expert, I just think people need to be open and fair, and not trying to scam each other nor should faulty practices not be fixed. I do like the idea of the community more directly getting to decide what gets made, but I think it needs some work before all the kinks are hammered out.
One, people keep saying charity and stuff, but really its a different kind of loan. We should be considered investors. When you get a loan from a bank, you are expected to pay it back, with interest. With someone funding it, like a game (since our focus has been game developers more than any other potential crowdfund project), ie a publisher, they pay for the game but may expect to have creative influence, and they too expect to get paid back in profit. The difference with crowdfunding is there isn't someone making changes to your project, and you don't have to pay interest, and likely they have to buy the product themselves aswell. Its not a charity, and it should not be. People are paying for a product, and I think backers deserve a return, one way or another.
Both bank loans and publishers have risks of failure, as does crowdfunding. The project runners should take careful consideration for all potential costs, and likely should set a goal with some legroom.
They set the goal, and either A: Enough people like the idea that it reaches its goal, the project gets the money and should be able to finish it. Then the backers now have the ability to buy the product. Or B: People don't like it, doesn't make its goal, everyone who did fund some of it gets their money back, the project gets nothing.
Should they get excessive funds, I -don't- think they should be punished for it. This is where I am actually on the project's side. It shouldn't be held against you that people actually like your idea. All they should be expected to do is fulfill their original goal. Obviously this just means they have way more legroom to work. If they finish and want to add more, good for them. If not, then I think they should get to keep the money, though perhaps give backers the product for free, since you don't need as much profit.
If the project just falls through, that's unfortunate, but you should have planned better. Why it failed may be important, but a bank isn't going to care that your project failed, and expect to get paid regardless. People who keep saying "but the money is gone" need to understand the concept of being "in debt".
Projects should also be clear and open with how things are going. A publisher doesn't just give money and not keep tabs. Plus this may allow issues to be better avoided. A full plan beyond idea should probably be part of the pitch atleast, so people can judge for themselves if they trust the project to succeed. A bank giving a loan to a start up business is likely to want to know you have a decent enough plan, perhaps a location picked out, proper licenses or whatever.
In the case of people scamming or embezzling, or shady things, well obviously they definatly need to pay back, and possibly be arrested. Fraud is fraud. If some people ruin a project for others, in the case of multiple people working on it, only those doing the illegal stuff should be punished such as in Saulkar's case.
I hope this more clearly and fairly expresses my opinion on this, and if anyone has any issue with all or some of this, that we can continue proper and thoughtful debate. I'm not a money expert, I just think people need to be open and fair, and not trying to scam each other nor should faulty practices not be fixed. I do like the idea of the community more directly getting to decide what gets made, but I think it needs some work before all the kinks are hammered out.