Kickstarter - stupid question

[ukaserex]

I realize this is probably a very, very insanely stupid question. But, I've been on my feet for a good while and am just now able to sit down, having made more bread pudding than I ever thought humanly possible. At least I smell good, though. Sure, I smell like something really good to eat, instead of smelling sexy, but I have to take what I can get.

The kickstarter promotion for MWM/TPP is soon approaching. I saw a tiered reward, based on how much was contributed - but isn't money I send an investment? That is, don't we get shares of stock, (of course not! They're not on the exchange yet!) or something equivalent?

I'm all for rewarding hard work. You make me a game, I pay to play it. Not a new concept. But, to fund the effort on the front end, when there's nothing concrete to guarantee its completion (not that I doubt it will happen) I'm wondering if I'm part-owner, or just one of those swell guys who had a little surplus cash at the right time that figured a donation to this cause was as good as a donation to http://www.ransomcafe.com/ because I'll get a statue of my character's likeness in some place within the game.

And yes, I do realize this question is probably better served at the MWM boards, but the last time I was there, it seemed rather empty.

[Ice Trix]

A kick starter is more like a pre-purchase that uses the pre-purchase funds to create the product.
You don't become a share holder, part owner or anything at all like that.

An example is for a board game that has been designed, and the designers lack funds to manufacture the actual physical board & pieces. So they do a kick starter, and the funds go to producing the board game.
Typically the tiered reward is used to encourage more money to be donated/pledged. So the board game example might give autographed copies of the game for people who paid $10 more than the basic pledge which purchases the game.

Many kick starters have both tiered rewards for money pledged and overall bonuses for total amount raised, e.g. you might pledge the basic amount for the board game, but as the project raised double the goal, they will add an extra board, or higher quality art. Or for a MMORPG it might be extra costumes, archtypes etc.
It's pretty tricky to juggle the rewards and tiers, as too many can lead a project into being delayed.

Kick starter returns your money if the kick starter fails to get what they set as their funding goal (ie money pledged). If the kick starter achieves their funding goal, the wording of the kick starter contract implies you can seek repayment if the project fails, but the reality is that has yet to happen AFAIK. Kick starters have run late, the people behind them have run off with the money, or just mismanaged it really badly.

The Pen & Paper RPG community (where most of me experience with kick starters is from) is full of good and bad stories, the 'consensus' seeming to be that you should only pledge what you would be prepared to lose. You should also try to judge how realistic the project seems to be, and if it has well structured time frames etc.

[JaguarX]

I realize this is probably a very, very insanely stupid question.

Well I think there is no such thing as a stupid question...well I take that back. A stupid question is one that is unasked and instead put on the backburner in favor of  assumptions.

Tell you the truth until relatively recently I didn't know much about kickstarter, and still going over parts of their policies as we speak. but from what I gather, it's like what Ice Trix said.

[Osborn]

A kick starter is more like a pre-purchase that uses the pre-purchase funds to create the product.
You don't become a share holder, part owner or anything at all like that.

That's a very, very dangerous assumption and one that is likely to foil the good faith of Kickstarter in time.

A closer example is that you become a stock share-holder with 0 shares, 0 ownership of the product and you earn 0 dividends from your stock buy.

This can still be useful, because guaranteeing nothing is sometimes all that a small time indie outfit that has no other recourse than Kickstarter can guarantee. You're not pre-ordering a product, or pre-purchasing a product. You're gambling that a product might get made and doing so because the power structure that exists as it does won't take the risk for you, except that in this case you're guaranteed nothing out of it, unlike a traditional producer who might get rights to the IP or what not.

If you believe in the product enough to make that gamble, more power to you. I've been a part of several kickstarter projects myself. But that's all it really is.

But believing Kickstarter is a pre-purchase is troublesome for 2 reasons: One, it will create resentment if and when (and the more kickstarters are started, the less 'if' it becomes and the more 'when' it becomes) a highly paid project folds up. Producers have many ways to alleviate losses in this scenario, but you have none. When you presume that you do or that your money is going towards some future game that the makers only have to 'discover' already built buried inside the marble, so to speak, then you're setting yourself and the Kickstarter community up for an eventual and very rough fall.

Two, it allows people with means that don't require Kickstarter to function and traditionally have done business fine without it to abuse the Kickstarter model, and thus abuse you, by allowing them to forgo normal channels of fundraising and ensuring capital for ventures and to bypass paying stock holders money by tricking you into basically becoming their venture capital source by tricking you on the nature of Kickstarter.

So please, don't tell people they're pre-ordering a product when they use a Kickstarter. The system can be a lot of good for a lot of talented people that exist outside of the traditional publishing system, but you do it no favors in making promises with the system that can't and won't always be kept.

[Noyjitat]

Love you ukase and I'm only posting this to be friendly. It doesn't your question though hehe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daYKTvCBNz8

[Zombie Man]

Giving to KS should be considered a totally free, no-strings-attached, *gift*.

Now, that being said, *if* the project is successful, the projects likes to reward the KS gifters with a free return gift, such as a finished product for free. But the project doesn't have to. It's all about freely funding worthwhile projects.

Now, since many project promise free return gifts based on how much you give, it can seem like something is being sold, or that there is an investment being made, but that's not the case.

[JaguarX]

yeah reading article about TPP kick starter and some comments bring up some good points. When I'm finish reading I'll probably ask in the TPP section after searching for the answers on the TPP main website.

[saipaman]

I'm a Kickstarter addict and I've only had one successfully funded project that didn't complete and provide the promised rewards.

In that particular case, the person actually refunded all the contributions.

[JaguarX]

I'm a Kickstarter addict and I've only had one successfully funded project that didn't complete and provide the promised rewards.

In that particular case, the person actually refunded all the contributions.

wait what? That can happen?

What would have happened if say for some reason they either don't complete and or don't provide the promised rewards?

From what I gather from kickstarter, it's left between the person that contributed and the maker of the game.

[Golden Girl]

because I'll get a statue of my character's likeness in some place within the game.

If that's true, then ethical alarm bells should be ringing.

[JaguarX]

If that's true, then ethical alarm bells should be ringing.

what you mean?

Getting a bit antsy between that article and a few stuff here. I don't like feeling antsy especially when on the flip side I whole heartedly believe 110% in these projects.

[Golden Girl]

what you mean?

I mean that allowing people to make a permanent mark on the game only if they're at a certain level of wealth and able to spend it during a certain period of time is the complete opposite of an community focused project  - it discriminates against CoH fans who might not be able to afford the required level of payment, or are unable to raised the required amount within the KS window. If they're actually going to do that, then they're gating a popular CoH request behind a limited time pay wall - and that's unethical.
Making your mark on the game world should only be done through gameplay that everyone has an equal and fair chance of achieving, and not restricting it to players with a certain wealth level at a certain point in time.

[JaguarX]

I mean that allowing people to make a permanent mark on the game only if they're at a certain level of wealth and able to spend it during a certain period of time is the complete opposite of an community focused project  - it discriminates against CoH fans who might not be able to afford the required level of payment, or are unable to raised the required amount within the KS window. If they're actually going to do that, then they're gating a popular CoH request behind a limited time pay wall - and that's unethical.
Making your mark on the game world should only be done through gameplay that everyone has an equal and fair chance of achieving, and not restricting it to players with a certain wealth level at a certain point in time.

you know... I never thought of it in that manner. You make a very valid point there.

[Zombie Man]

I mean that allowing people to make a permanent mark on the game only if they're at a certain level of wealth and able to spend it during a certain period of time is the complete opposite of an community focused project  - it discriminates against CoH fans who might not be able to afford the required level of payment, or are unable to raised the required amount within the KS window. If they're actually going to do that, then they're gating a popular CoH request behind a limited time pay wall - and that's unethical.
Making your mark on the game world should only be done through gameplay that everyone has an equal and fair chance of achieving, and not restricting it to players with a certain wealth level at a certain point in time.

So, all those hospitals and universities with wings named after their donor are unethical?

All those public projects, like a park, where donors get their names on the bricks in the road are unethical?

So, every single friggin' sale on earth that's available for a limited time is unethical?

So the CoH devs which had their own NPC personas in the game was unethical?

Please, Golden Girl, you don't know what you're talking about. The Phoenix Project's KS rewards are not selling pay-to-win power or top spots on leader boards.

Go find some other well to poison.

[Zombie Man]

I should also add:

Just because a donor gets an in-game thanks doesn't rule out players from getting their avatars to be especially saluted with statues or named NPCs or buildings or whatever may be decided.

But to expect that someone who freely gave thousands of dollars to make the game even possible can't get an in-game thanks is ridiculous. It would be like expecting NCsoft when it first produced CoH not to get their logo on the splash screen. "Hey! Players can't get their names on the splash screen... THAT'S UNETHICAL!!!"

puh-lease

[Ice Trix]

That's a very, very dangerous assumption and one that is likely to foil the good faith of Kickstarter in time.

(snip)

So please, don't tell people they're pre-ordering a product when they use a Kickstarter. The system can be a lot of good for a lot of talented people that exist outside of the traditional publishing system, but you do it no favors in making promises with the system that can't and won't always be kept.

I'm guessing you read my first line and skipped the rest of my post.

[Ice Trix]

Giving to KS should be considered a totally free, no-strings-attached, *gift*.

Now, that being said, *if* the project is successful, the projects likes to reward the KS gifters with a free return gift, such as a finished product for free. But the project doesn't have to. It's all about freely funding worthwhile projects.

Now, since many project promise free return gifts based on how much you give, it can seem like something is being sold, or that there is an investment being made, but that's not the case.

No. A kick starter is not a gift. It should not be considered a gift. No one involved in running a kick starter should have that mentality. It's scarey that you, a part of that kick starter team is saying that. It is not about freely funding projects.

See the terms and conditions, http://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use . Particuarily "Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."
Projector backers must fulfill the rewards. It's what they agree to.

[Ice Trix]

wait what? That can happen?

What would have happened if say for some reason they either don't complete and or don't provide the promised rewards?

From what I gather from kickstarter, it's left between the person that contributed and the maker of the game.

As in my first reply, some RPG Pen and Paper kick starters have had people run with money, or mis manage funds etc.
Aside from chasing it up legally from your personal end (untested afaik) there will be nothing you can do if a kick starter fails.
Though failure is very different to running off with the cash.
For a long forum thread, http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?688479-Kickstarter-Failstarter-lt goes over the issues from both sides.

[downix]

you know... I never thought of it in that manner. You make a very valid point there.

No, she's not.

[Ice Trix]

I mean that allowing people to make a permanent mark on the game only if they're at a certain level of wealth and able to spend it during a certain period of time is the complete opposite of an community focused project  - it discriminates against CoH fans who might not be able to afford the required level of payment, or are unable to raised the required amount within the KS window. If they're actually going to do that, then they're gating a popular CoH request behind a limited time pay wall - and that's unethical.
Making your mark on the game world should only be done through gameplay that everyone has an equal and fair chance of achieving, and not restricting it to players with a certain wealth level at a certain point in time.

Things like statues and other ingame items are very common for computer game kick starters. While I dislike the idea of 'private' rewards the phoenix project intended on offering (seriously if someone pays to get to design a costume, do you really think they will decide not to get that reward just because others in the game would get it to wear it as well) calling it unethical is a huge stretch of the word.