Poll: Is funding Kickstarters from a big companies a good idea?

[Vegosiux]

When it comes to big companies, I never give them money until I know exactly what I'm getting. I am willing to support a small fish hoping to compete and one that looks promising, but when it comes to big companies, they already should have the funds to pursue their ventures, and should not ask the consumers to fund them like that.

Yet, a fool and his money are soon parted...

 

[loa]

It's completely against the spirit of what kickstarter is about to me: giving small time developers a chance to realize their vision independently.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Yes, but not for the reason offered by the poll. It's a good idea because it cuts publishers out of the equation. Removing Electronic Arseholes, UbiWank, ActiBastards and their like from the equation means developers can develop without shareholders dictating what needs to happen in the game. That is the strength of kickstarter, allowing developers to develop independantly. I don't care if the developer is big or small.

The best thing about Kickstarter is that people are making PC games again. Sure, they aren't cutting edge or pushing hardware to its limits, but they're honest-to-God PC games. No bullshit console wank with max 4 weapons because that's the limit of the D-Pad. No shitty console UI, pathetically small maps and Lord willing, an end to the plague of QTEs. Actual depth might return to games, awesome, niche games, not watered down, mass-market junk that plays the same as every other game from the publishers library.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Let's break it down:

If you want to see more Veronica Mars, if you trust in Kristen Bell and everyone involved in actually delivering what you fancy, then absolutely. Without Kickstarter, it would not happen. Period.

For games, we've yet to see the gems we're all waiting for see the light of our own LCD screens, but for movies, it allows the people working on movies to make movies without bumping into kafkaesque Terry Gilliam walls of utter despair.

I love movies, but the financing schemes the actual making of movies are based on are... at times just suspicious, at times dubious.

I'd pay $100 per movie if I could contribute to stopping the 48fps and 3D nonsense today. I want a story, I want content, I want a proper movie and no tech wanking of some bearded manchild with a severe disconnect going on. Those $100 would also have to include my right to lob the greedy bastards' heads off if they try to sell me five editions of the movie before they release the one that makes sense.

I am incompatible with the poll.

>INDEF'D STATEMENT ERROR

 

[aba1]

The thing is it isn't like veronica mars couldn't have gotten made this whole time without kickstarter. The option was there all the company needed to see was there was enough of a fan base to put the money down for production. So instead of showing support people are giving money to a company so that they will intern make money off investing that money. Basically your just donating your money to a conglomerate on the off chance they will make something you like so you can proceed to buy it later.

I think a lot of people forget kickstarter isn't about the rewards it is about being selfless and giving to someone who doesn't have as much as you and is trying to make a living. The rewards are meant to be incentives not a product you bought. You should donate to money because it is a nice thing to do it is a way to help the little guy who actually needs help.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Well, you can be more certain that you actually GET a product rather than if you funded an Indy. An Indy dev is more likely to miscalculate how much money they will need or how hard it is to actually to deliver on the promises made. Warner Brothers has a lot of experience making films and is far less likely to run into unforeseen consequences, and more likely to be sued if they don't deliver.

 

[BrotherRool]

It's less the size of the company and more the size of a project. The issue here is, stuff like Veronica Mars doesn't come close to funding it. In fact it's so far away from funding it that it makes almost no difference to the studio whether they got the money or not. When you're greenlighting $40 million projects and expecting $50 million+ return, a couple of mil is a drop in the water. All kickstarter is in big projects is a way of squeezing money out of people's sense of charity and loyalty that isn't deserved without providing a project.


But on top of that, if the company is sitting on stacks of money, it's still bad because they could make the project and they're making the fans take the risk with no benefit in sight.




In the end if too many big companies start trying this, people are going to stop funding kickstarters altogether and we'll be back where we started

 

[aba1]

Yes, but not for the reason offered by the poll. It's a good idea because it cuts publishers out of the equation. Removing Electronic Arseholes, UbiWank, ActiBastards and their like from the equation means developers can develop without shareholders dictating what needs to happen in the game. That is the strength of kickstarter, allowing developers to develop independantly. I don't care if the developer is big or small.

That is only true if they were never involved with a publisher from the get go. Generally if you work with a any major publisher they will force you to sell the rights to them. So with Veronica Mars people were paying WB to make a profit off the movie. It is sorta like if someone gave me money to invest in a project with me having no obligation to give anything back. Which is basically people paying me to do nothing because I am gambling with other peoples money.

 

[BlackStar42]

In my nightmare gaming world, Activision fund Modern Warfare 15 in a $10.000.000 kickstarting campaign. When the game launches, it costs 100 bucks, comes with 50 bucks worth of day one DLC PLUS microtransactions like a level pack which gives you max level instantly.

So no, I don't really like the idea.

*curls into foetal position, starts crying*

NO GOD, WHY? WHY?!


*ahem*

Yeah, definitely not a good idea for big business to use Kickstarter, it's there for start-ups and small entrepreneurs, big companies have the cash to finance stuff themselves.

 

[Darknacht]

With this situation, if the kickstarter wasnt used then the film wouldnt be made - WB had repeately said it wasnt worth it to them to do it. So I put money in for it. Also you'll find at $35 you can get a digital copy close to when the the film releases, so you dont have to go and pay the cinema to see it. Granted thats more than a single ticket but i'm probably going to watch it more than once.

If you dont want to fund something, you dont have to. Personally, if i want something badly enough i'm prepared to put the money up front to ensure it gets made.

Sorry I did not notice the $35 digital copy, that not as bad as $50 but its still very expensive compared to a new DVD. I agree that Kiskstarters from big companies can have great benefits, but it seems like Warner Brothers is getter all of the profit while avoiding spending any money and that the price for a copy of what you funded is too high(it shouldn't cost more to get the movie through Kickstarter then to just buy it when it comes out). I think it would also be more beneficial for the creators if they funded something that they would own so that they would get the profit from it and could continue to create independent from the studios.
Even though I'm not sure this is a good direction to go it I do see that it has benefits and people are always free to do whatever they want with their own money.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Yes, but not for the reason offered by the poll. It's a good idea because it cuts publishers out of the equation. Removing Electronic Arseholes, UbiWank, ActiBastards and their like from the equation means developers can develop without shareholders dictating what needs to happen in the game. That is the strength of kickstarter, allowing developers to develop independantly. I don't care if the developer is big or small.

That is only true if they were never involved with a publisher from the get go. Generally if you work with a any major publisher they will force you to sell the rights to them. So with Veronica Mars people were paying WB to make a profit off the movie. It is sorta like if someone gave me money to invest in a project with me having no obligation to give anything back. Which is basically people paying me to do nothing because I am gambling with other peoples money.

I understand your point, and that is true for some titles (particularly where someone else's IP is involved). I suspect however its only true for studios who are owned by a publisher outright, like BioWare (EA), Bungie (Activision) and the like. But in the case of Kickstarter (if not in general, then at least all of the 6 or so projects I've backed since Project Eternity), that doesn't seem to be an issue. Some games have been sequels like Dreamfall: Chapters (or Nexus II which failed to get funded, for example), others are "spiritual" sequels like Torment or outright new IPs owned wholly by the developer creating them, like Obsidian and Project Eternity.

In these cases the studios are independant and there are no publishers involved, no royalties, no shareholders. Obsidian will own Project Eternity outright and all the profits from and rights to it will be theirs (assuming they self-publish). I believe this is true for all the projects I've backed including Star Citizen, Legends of Dawn, Project Eternity, Torment, Dreamfall: Chapters and Forsaken Fortress.

I'm quite happy with this idea as it's usually publishers that screw up games by insisting they be cross-platform (eg. 7 year old graphics, tiny maps due to 360/PS3 pathetic RAM, 4 hotkeys because of the DPad and so on), "mass-market" appeal (ie. generic and bland), have microtransactions (EA and Activision) in a full-priced game, always online, etc, etc. Developers, given free reign to create their own game without shareholders and corporate execs telling them what to do is the best way to make games, without question or exception.

 

[Yopaz]

Kickstarter was a good idea at some point. It gave developers and artists a chance to release things without the big corporations butting in. I am thrilled to listen to The End Is Where We Begin which is an album that was funded through Kickstarter. I am also happy to see the album doing well even outside what they accomplished with Kickstarter.

The thing about Kickstarter is that we are taking a risk, it might not be a big one, some of us put down a few bucks and some of us will put in enough to get the game or even some extra goodies. Now Activison, love them or hate them, are making sure to cash in on Call of Duty year after year. There's little risk in making the series, but with Kickstarter all that risk could be placed on us, the consumers. This might happen and we already see companies blindsiding us with pre-orders (Alien: Colonial Marines come to mind). With a Kickstarter we never saw this content they claimed would be the complete game when we out down our money. The major companies wont even be required to offer quality, they would just tell us their ambitions and we would likely believe the hype and toss down $50 for an AAA title we could never be sure we'd like.

Now this is the truth for any game. I sometimes dislike games my friends love, I sometimes love games they tell me not to get. Now let's say Microsoft started a Kickstarter for a new Banjo Kazooie game made by Rare taking elements from the classic games (I loved Nuts and Bolts, but I still like the N64 games). Well, the Kickstarter would tell them if there was interest for the game and if it was worth spending money on producing. It would let fans determine if the game should be made or not and at the same time make them a part of the process.

Because of this I'm not sure what I think. My first reaction is that it's bad, but then again it can be used as a measure to learn what we want in a product rather than relying on information from market analysts. I hope this wont catch on, but if it does, I hope it wont follow the route Smash mentioned on page 1.