The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Broken Age: Double Fine's 3.3 Million Dollar Kickstarter Game
Posts
I'm not donating anything, I'm paying them for a product that they wouldn't be able to produce were it not for advance payments. Regardless of what Double Fine does with my $30 or their extra $30*100 I will get exactly the product I pay for.
You "pay towards the corporation's bottom line" every time you buy a product from a corporation. The only differences here are that you're paying Double Fine directly and you're paying them in advance.
The people making the "donations" are perfectly okay with what they're getting in return. Hell, man, that's what makes Kickstarter work. It seems like your argument is against the Kickstarter model itself, not with DoubleFine, in which case you should contact Kickstarter.
Personally, having helped fund some incredible things through Kickstarter—primarily boardgames—I've been happy each and every time.
I think what Smaug6 isn't understanding is the bolded. This isn't a not-for-profit organization. You aren't donating anything. You're pre-ordering a product that is yet to be made.
Calling it "donating" feels petty, like referring to tipping your table's server as "charity".
I'm hoping a lot of this will be stemmed by the documentary portion, along with the feedback system all kickstarter participants will have access to. If feedback is extremely negative, then I trust them to take that into consideration as to whether it'll be in the final product.
EDIT: But, yes, regardless of the medium, this is still an investment, and yes, investments are not 100% guaranteed.
That could be a terrible terrible game designed by internet committee.
But then I guess that's what the documentary is for. It'll still be fun to see how the terrible happens.
Really just more videos of Tim being funny is enough to justify my backing.
They don't have to deliver anything, thats the problem. Because its a donation, not a sale, no laws regulate this conduct really.
You actually aren't buying a product here. You are donating money and they say they will give you a product. You might be able to argue breach of contract, but its very unlikely as you donating money, not paying for a service or good.
Also on kickstarter's site, from the FAQ it seems pretty clear that the person asking for the donation has no legal obligation to deliver on their promise. Basically it says, donor beware.
I am not trying to get down on this game or the idea behind it. I just think its an incredibly poor way to go about financing it from the consumer side of the equation.
I fail to see how this Kickstarter thing is radically different. You're spending on a bigger unknown, but we do that all the time with products.
It's the sort of thing that goes against established business models in way that shorts out the brains of anyone who is used to dealing with those, but also just makes so much damn sense.
To the consumer, this is a far, far better system than the "old way" of doing things.
Yes. That's true. I and many other people are gambling our $15-100 dollars on Double Fine's history, reputation, and current (assumed) stability. In exchange, Double Fine doesn't have to make the far more complex, risky, and potentially less valuable gamble with a publisher to get the same thing done.
I think it's exactly the right way to raise money to get a passion project made.
It kind of does. An MMO, for example, costs far more to make than a turret defense game. Generally. There are exceptions, of course.
I'd just hate to see them pressured to pour more money into the game that doesn't really need to be spent. I'd rather see it go to releasing the game on other platforms, which is what they've said they're going to do. So, good.
But those crying that the game isn't going to cost nearly as much as they're getting and they should be giving that back or that they're somehow deceiving people? Stupid. This is a business. If they didn't bring in more than they spent, it wouldn't be a very good business.
^ this
Also, it's not like those are the ONLY two games Tim Schafer has ever put out -_-
(for the record, played and loved Costume Quest, never got around to Stacking)
Right?
Oh my god, it's full of stars.
And yet Kickstarter seems to have gotten a great many successful products made without any major failures or fraud.
Sky's still up there. Imagine that.
But in this case you do know the people behind the project and what kind of game they'll be producing, based on what they've produced in the past. If Nintendo suddenly wanted to develop a kart racer, you would know what kind of kart racer you'd be getting.
I mean, if they're only familiar with the newer DoubleFine titles and don't understand the ramifications of a point-and-click adventure being produced by these guys, then... yeah, I could understand some hesitation. It would seem like a pretty big genre leap for DoubleFine.
The only thing I am really confused about is why they are not going all the way and just using the ransom model. The ransom model is like a kickstarter, but rather than asking for the money you need to create the project, you ask for what you would like to be paid for it. Usually you release a demo and eventually incomplete parts of the game at major milestones of pledgers. Once you get enough pledgers to cover the ransom, you gain access to the money and release the game for 'free'.
A lot of your issues seem to come from the idea these being donations in the charitable sense. I don't see them as such at all. It's a simple business transaction. I pre-ordered a game is all. Extremely early pre order, but such is my faith in the company that I am happy to do so at this stage.
I agree it's not the best from a consumer standpoint. It is loaded with risk. But everyone involved is a grown up who is fully aware of said risk and decided to take it because the alternative is the game doesn't get made at all.
Adventure games are puzzle games, though. Stacking just replaced "inventory" for "who are you possessing", like Phoenix Wright swaps inventory out for "Evidence" and "Use Item" for "Present Item". Plain "Adventure Gaming" is puzzles woven into a storyline. Stacking is still an adventure game, albeit a nontraditional one.
I just think its a terrible legal structure to make this game and because of that, it could lead to unscrupulous results. I am not saying it will.
In alot of ways I am happy that so many people supported the game, but I will never support a project with this set up through donations.
Will I order the game? Possibly. Will I have taken any risk? No. Should people understand the problems with how this is done? Yes. Should you donate? Its up to you, but please understand the risks you are taking.
Why are people more critical over a company doing this officially instead?
Please understand its not a pre-order. You can't get your money back if the cancel the project or change the project. Its something else, I am not sure what to call it. A hope-order?
Why do you keep using the word donate? It's not helping your argument to ignore all the people telling you it's not a donation.
Like... Eric Idle. And John Cleese. Carlos Alazraqui, Tara Strong, Mark Hamill. Mmm.
In a nutshell, more money means more people. The original budget of $300k gets you approximately four people for eight months- 1.5 artists, a programmer, a designer, half of a sound guy. Obviously I'm spitballing but you get the idea. Triple that and holy shit! Now you can do particle effects, high res animations, more backgrounds, minigames, more cinematics, more voice acting, and so on. A four hour adventure game becomes an eight hour adventure game.
More money opens doors, up to a point. Obviously there are diminishing returns but that point comes at a hell of a lot more than a few million bucks when a single mid-level development seat, including things like floorplan (electricity, rent, etc) and health care costs over $100k a year, nevermind what senior guys like Ron Gilbert or Tim Schafer cost.
And if they manage to raise, say, $20 million? I'm with you: bully for them! I hope they use that money as a war chest to cut their reliance on the publisher model forever. I don't expect or require that they use all of the money they raise on the game.
Yeah... these aren't donations. I expect a return on my money. In fact, Kickstarter insists on it.
Even if the game sucks, at least we'll get to watch it all go to hell on video!
2 reasons
First, when you pre-ordered and got the beta, you got a copy of the game, plus the ability to get a refund if the game was never finished. You had legal entitlement to the final copy of the game. Its true that Notch could have just released one more minor update and called it finished and possibility escaped liability, but here, you literally have just a promise to make a game. You don't even have a beta copy of the game. There aren't even any assets for it yet.
Second, you are funding the development of a game before its even taken shape. You have no idea how or if it will turn out. Plus, Double Fine can unilaterally do whatever they want and you can contribute input, but there is no way to tell if it will matter.
I want part of the game to be entirely voiced by Nolan North. Including female characters.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
No you couldn't.
It is entirely a donation. I mean thats what kickstarter is. Its for donations. Their rules expressly prohibit any return on investment or profit sharing. Its not an investment.
You are giving someone money and they have all the power to decide how to use that money to create something. I am not sure how else you can see it.
To repeat, you have no legal right to the product. Its not a pre-order. Its not an advanced sale.
Its a donation to a for profit company with the idea that they will take the money and create a product. If they do, they will send you one. If not, thanks for the donation.
Ok. You still got a product license for the beta game. Where's your product license here?
Edit: Also I am just going to assume that you had no legal entitlement to the end product, but I imagine you would as if it was a condition of purchasing the beta. Even if the license didn't provide for it, through contract law and consumer protection.
It's akin to investing in Adobe to develop the next version of Premiere. If they don't deliver, it'd be such a blow to their reputation that nobody would support them in the future, including standard big publisher investors. If they do deliver, I have a pretty good idea of how the final product will be used.