|
Mikan posted:No, it's absolutely a good move for them - but it is also kind of weird for me to see the company that made every game I played back in high school, the company that temporarily dethroned Dungeons and Dragons, operating primarily as a Kickstarter publisher. That's before you even get into the weirdness with CCP and Onyx Path and everything else. I admit to feeling weird about it, too. CCP is not a company that needs Kickstarter to do anything. They have the sort of money that would make most TG companies void their loins just to contemplate. I'll be supporting the Exalted Kickstarter all the same, but it's important to recognize this as a marketing tool and not like, some bone they need to be thrown to make a particular game. Kickstarter doesn't provide any means to differentiate a small company's struggling startup from a big company's marketing push, and it's hard not to feel a little hornswoggled.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
It's not a store. Kickstarter's model is basically some dude playing guitar in the subway station and asking everyone if they could spare a few bucks. Except instead of playing songs, they are using the money to buy a mixer and a microphone and if you write your name and email address down here, they will totally make a good faith effort to send you a song six months from now. I don't know any stores that work like this. rather than doubleposting i'll just e; quote:CCP is not a company that needs Kickstarter to do anything. As long as fans are willing to throw their money at the company knowing that the company is not obligated to provide them with any return on their investment, why not milk them for everything they've got? If you can maintain a good reputation with them, it's a cash cow. GEExCEE fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
In a store, you exchange money for goods, you get them 99% of the time (usually immediately or within a few days), and if you don't, you have a myriad of legal options to get you money back. On kickstarter, you exchange money for the vague promise of some sort of goods at some point in the future, and if it doesn't pan out, there isn't a lot you can do to get your money back. Kickstarter is a charity. You contribute money to a worthy cause, and if everything goes right, you might get a nice thank-you present in the mail. If you don't, well, that's life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
GEExCEE posted:It's not a store. I gave a man money and he sent me a game. If that's not a store, what is that? Really it's probably better to think of it as a marketplace. It is a place where people sell things, but they can also just roll up their carpets and vanish or otherwise flake out and buyer beware and all that. People are most certainly buying and selling things, but the consumer protections we're used to as a society just aren't there. I imagine sooner or later we'll see a big, high-profile Failure (instead of the "little f" failures we've had so far) and Kickstarter will have to update their model when legalities start looming. But trying to pretend it's just means to donate to creative causes at this point strikes me as pure naïvete. Even if that's the intention, that's not how it's ending up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:I admit to feeling weird about it, too. CCP is not a company that needs Kickstarter to do anything. They have the sort of money that would make most TG companies void their loins just to contemplate. I'll be supporting the Exalted Kickstarter all the same, but it's important to recognize this as a marketing tool and not like, some bone they need to be thrown to make a particular game. Kickstarter doesn't provide any means to differentiate a small company's struggling startup from a big company's marketing push, and it's hard not to feel a little hornswoggled. I don't know all the details 100% so bear that in mind, but my understanding is that the situation with White Wolf and CCP these days is similar to that between WotC and D&D. Wizards of the Coast makes mad millions of dollars because Magic: the Gathering is super-huge, but this doesn't mean that the D&D side of things gets to just dip into those millions to do their own thing. My understanding is that when CCP's finances took a downturn one of the first things to be cut was virtually near-everything that had to do with the elfgame side of White Wolf because, well, it made the least amount of money and gently caress it, they own all the licenses now so they pretty much got all the really important stuff (I'm not trying to ascribe a sinister motivation to CCP here, it's just that of all their assets an RPG publisher is pretty much going to be one of the first things to go when you're looking to tighten the belt). That White Wolf gets to continue working on elfgames at all is largely, to my understanding, due to the outstanding work of a bunch of its freelancers and those staff that remained putting together some really killer books that sold pretty well and pitched a convincing case to CCP to let them continue to do stuff like that, and CCP looked at the numbers and said "sure, okay," but the numbers aren't so good that CCP is willing to just fund them outright out of pocket, hence Kickstarter. Again, my understanding, grain of salt, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:I gave a man money and he sent me a game. If that's not a store, what is that? It's giving a man money and a man sending you a game. You did not buy a game. The two are not the same thing, despite having the same end result. No one is pretending anything; the word donation is being used because that's what giving money on Kickstarter is. One of these things involves a whole lot of legal protections afforded to you as a customer, the other is literally the equivalent to just mailing a tenner to someone. e; this was posted in the DW thread: Flavivirus posted:Sage just posted a big breakdown of how DW is doing in the marketplace: http://www.latorra.org/2013/04/04/dungeon-worlds-first-5-months/ We're still not talking riches here, but this is a pretty huge deal for an indie game. I wonder if this bodes a future in which indie games are, if not greatly profitable, at least enough to live on. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:It's me, I'm the guy that says 'fun' shouldn't be used in order to review games. It actually lead me to create my own reviews in order to avoid using the word altogether. I actually think that subjective criticism of something is unavoidable when discussing games/films/etc since biases do appear even when trying to be objective, but subjectivity isn't a bad thing as long as the reviewer recognises that he has inherent biases and that they are going to colour his review of a particular game. I think there are way too many people that do not realise this and mix up 'stuff that I don't personally like' with 'stuff that is objectively bad'. That is not to say that there aren't objective criteria that we can use to review a game and decide if the game is badly designed: for board games it mostly relies on rules interactions, production values etc. I think someone in the board game thread made a good point of how in isolation, lengthy games don't make bad games, but if you add to that things like highly random results or 'screw-the-leader' situations that artificially lengthen the game, the length of a game can be a problem. I think that although currently board game reviews don't really go into enough analysis of how rules interact with each other, it's an important step in making the review of board game more objective. It is a store...wait? For RPGs, I think you can reasonably critique a system on three elements- it's unlikely you'll get a "fun/not-fun" final ruling out of that kind of analysis. 1) System support of the game's design intentions: does the system actively support what the designers lay out as the "point" of the game? Does it emulate the genre it preports to emulate well? Does it give mechanical backing to the themes? If the game claims combat is gritty or tactical or something, do the rules seem to bear that out? This is slightly subjective- but I feel like this is where the "good D&D system" issue comes up not because of subjectivity in the metric, but because somehow both D&D fans and now both Paizo and WotC have tried to define new editions of D&D as "trying to be D&D", which is a complete non-starter for analysis. 2) System innovation: Here, it's valuable just to see if/how the system addresses problems differently from similar products. Does the system have XP even if it doesn't fit with theme or play? Is everything just dice pools or stat+attribute? Even systems with issues or failures still can be important if it approaches a classic RPG problem in a unique way. 3) Technicalities of play: does the system seem to require a lot of dice rolling or a little? How much math is involved? How long do turns last, and are players left bored? Here you can get pretty objective, but only by avoiding value judgments on the observations. While I don't know if you can develop a jargon from those methods above, I think it's a pretty good framework for analyzing systems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:It's giving a man money and a man sending you a game. You did not buy a game. Yes I did. I gave money. I got a game. Two games. You're arguing semantics. I, on the other hand, have physical evidence. Lemon Curdistan posted:The two are not the same thing, despite having the same end result. No one is pretending anything; the word donation is being used because that's what giving money on Kickstarter is. I could have bought 13th Age through the Kickstarter, or through the site. I did it through the site, but the effect is the same. You can take Kickstarter at face value, or you can take a look at the actual functionality of the thing. I give money, I get a thing, and if I don't get a thing, I can request a refund. It can be used for charitable donations and the like, but as far as TG goes, that's generally not what it's occurring. Lemon Curdistan posted:One of these things involves a whole lot of legal protections afforded to you as a customer, the other is literally the equivalent to just mailing a tenner to someone. This is not true. Kickstarter does not offer refunds, but they require project creators to do so. Kickstarter posted:Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Arguably, you could pre-order a game from a store and have the store declare bankruptcy before you get your game. Lemon Curdistan posted:It's giving a man money and a man sending you a game. You did not buy a game. The two are not the same thing, despite having the same end result. That's the definition of ''buying.'' edit: It's as if there was a mall somewhere where there were signs everywhere that said ''This is not a store''. You go in and give someone money and the owner can choose between giving you what you paid for or running away with your cash. I'd still call that a store. A terrible store, yeah, but still a store. ravenkult fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Actually, Kickstarter can't be used for charitable donations. Go figure. Kickstarter's functionality and the cultural expectations of an anglophone audience may eventually turn it into a giant online preordering retailer (specifically things like games), but that's hardly the only thing you can use the system for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:Arguably, you could pre-order a game from a store and have the store declare bankruptcy before you get your game. But the stuff you're "buying" doesn't exist is the thing. If I go to a mall or a grocery or whatever I don't give the cashier a bunch of my money as soon as I walk in and then if it turns out they don't have what I'm looking for go "aw shucks" and leave. The pre-order and store thing is a pretty big corner case, you have to admit. I've pre-ordered things like video games before and you get a receipt and everything, if poo poo breaks down you can go to the store that has your money and be like "I would like my money back," and of course they can get shirty with you I suppose but the bagboy at the grocery could also decide to engage in fearsome bat'leth combat with you over your eggs, the point is that when you buy things in stores you are buying a thing that actually exists and is there for you to purchase there and then (eggs) or you are putting money down in advance for a thing that you know will be coming out (Gears of War 5, I'm pretty sure that places like Gamestop don't take pre-orders for games unless those games are for-sure coming out). Again, with Kickstarter all you are buying is a promise. For your hypothetical mall to be closer to what Kickstarter is like you would go into a store full of signs advertising really cool things that don't exist yet, paying the clerk money, and having him tell you that just as soon as someone gets around to making one of those things he'll make sure you get one, scout's honor. Treating Kickstarter like a store is a good way to pitch your money into a hole with no guarantee of seeing anything, nothing more ironclad that the word of people who are, as it turns out in a number of instances, pretty loving bad at handling money. Nobody goes to a store thinking "man I hope I actually get something for my money today."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
There's plenty of cases where a Kickstarter project is already finished and the money goes for extras or for print costs. That's basically a pre-order. When you preorder a videogame, it's not like the DVD is behind the counter, the game might not even be finished yet and it sure ain't produced, but they will take your money and you can wait 'till it comes out to get the physical thing in your hands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:There's plenty of cases where a Kickstarter project is already finished and the money goes for extras or for print costs. That's basically a pre-order. When you preorder a videogame, it's not like the DVD is behind the counter, the game might not even be finished yet and it sure ain't produced, but they will take your money and you can wait 'till it comes out to get the physical thing in your hands. I'm not saying there aren't cases where product doesn't already exist (Greg Stolze did this with his "ransom model" supplements for Reign), but a lot of the stuff we're seeing now (and a lot of the stuff that seems to be falling through/having problems) is of the "give me money and I totally promise I'll do this, scout's honor" variety which isn't store shopping, it's either patronage, charity, or gambling. If Kickstarter only took pledges for things that were already done and ready to simply be sold then it would be a different beast entirely. And like I said, I'm pretty sure that stores like Gamestop don't take pre-orders for games until there's more or less a solid guarantee that the game is coming out and not going to be cancelled, like there are legal and contractual things that people can get in a lot of trouble for otherwise. Maybe I am wrong! If there's a story of some big video game pre-order (non-Kickstarter, I mean like go into a Gamestop and see "Pre-Order Mass Effect 4!!!") where stores took pre-orders and then the game got cancelled before release I would love to hear how that went down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:But the stuff you're "buying" doesn't exist is the thing. If I go to a mall or a grocery or whatever I don't give the cashier a bunch of my money as soon as I walk in and then if it turns out they don't have what I'm looking for go "aw shucks" and leave. I've paid for things that don't yet exist at Gamestop plenty of times. I guess Gamestop isn't a store.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:(Gears of War 5, I'm pretty sure that places like Gamestop don't take pre-orders for games unless those games are for-sure coming out). Good ol' Gamestop has definitely allowed pre-orders of things that are not for sure coming out. Computers, cars, and a number of other things are "purchased" before they exist (at least the exact one you will eventually take possession of). Can we agree that Kickstarter at least SOMETIMES is a store, that people are sometimes purchasing things (real, existing things) in a manner identical to other merchants? That when one is funding a project that is an unproven concept and a rendering of the box, it's not much like a store?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
I guess Duke Nukem Forever would be the game that hosed everything up. So how do video game pre-orders work on the back end, then? Can a publisher just say "Yep, at some point we'll be making [GAME], dunno when it's coming out if ever, but whatever" and Gamestop can start taking pre-orders at that point? Just whenever they feel like it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:(Gears of War 5, I'm pretty sure that places like Gamestop don't take pre-orders for games unless those games are for-sure coming out). Kai Tave posted:I guess Duke Nukem Forever would be the game that hosed everything up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I guess Duke Nukem Forever would be the game that hosed everything up. Yeah, Gamestop takes pre-orders on their own initiative, just on good word from the publisher that the game is coming out someday. The publisher has nothing to do with it. You don't have to pay in full but you can. I don't know at what point Gamestop accepts that a game is never coming out - I'm sure that Duke Nukem guy could have gotten his money back at any point during that ten years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Yes I did. I gave money. I got a game. Two games. You're arguing semantics. I, on the other hand, have physical evidence. Stop being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of argument. I gave money and did not receive a refund, so my anecdote counters your anectote. They require creators to do so, but it's just Terms of Service. If you're a dissatisfied customer? Or someone who received a broken item? Or the game has changed art direction, design, etc since you backed and you're not happy with it anymore? There's no recourse to receive a refund. Also with Gamestop, if I preorder something at Gamestop and change my mind I can use the preoder money for something else. If I "preorder" something on kickstarter and change my mind? I'm gonna have to sue for a refund because they're not obligated to do anything. Verdugo fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:Yeah, Gamestop takes pre-orders on their own initiative, just on good word from the publisher that the game is coming out someday. The publisher has nothing to do with it. Well I learn something new every day, and in the process further validate my decision to not pre-order stuff. quote:You don't have to pay in full but you can. I don't know at what point Gamestop accepts that a game is never coming out - I'm sure that Duke Nukem guy could have gotten his money back at any point during that ten years. Well this is kind of another thing that separates Kickstarter from stores is that there's pretty much no way to go to Kickstarter and be like "hey, I put down money for this sweet flying car and a year later I have no flying car, I would like my money back." Yes, I know that some stores don't do refunds, but yet and still. Once the pledge has funded and Kickstarter has their cut, it's up to the guy on the other end whether you get your money back or not, and that guy has already had a chunk taken out of the funds he raised for Kickstarter's cut and also probably taxes too, which means that in a lot of cases they don't have all the money pledged to give back. Yes, Kickstarter can sometimes be a store if the person pitching has already finished their products in some demonstrable fashion and, I suppose, you trust them enough not to be a flake. On the other hand, Kickstarter is also what raised nearly two and a half million bucks for a Pathfinder MMO that wasn't even in alpha at the time, so "buying promises" seems pretty apt to me. I think people treat Kickstarter like a store or a pre-ordering service when they should not be. I think that by them doing so a lot more Kickstarters are funding that otherwise might not, but because those Kickstarters are funding we're also seeing what happens when people start soliciting funds for this wicked-rad idea for a game they had and then suddenly a year later it's like "no really, any day now."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
GEExCEE posted:Actually, Kickstarter can't be used for charitable donations. Go figure. Yeah, thanks for the reminder. I meant in the general sense, though. I've contributed to one or two things that don't directly ship anything to me, but are art, is what I mean. It's not the only thing the system can be used for, true, but as far as TG goes, it's going to be most of it. Kai Tave posted:But the stuff you're "buying" doesn't exist is the thing. If I go to a mall or a grocery or whatever I don't give the cashier a bunch of my money as soon as I walk in and then if it turns out they don't have what I'm looking for go "aw shucks" and leave. Comic stores often require you to preorder if you want to be certain you're getting a copy. Amazon lets you preorder books, albums, DVDs, and other upcoming releases. Microsoft has preorders for their software. Lots of electronics are put up on preorder. Some collectibles pretty much require preorders. You can preorder shoes now. Shoes. If you want the new grape Air Jordan 5s... The idea of preordering things is going to become more and more prevalent for specialty goods, and treating it as an anomaly is going to get harder and harder. Kai Tave posted:Again, with Kickstarter all you are buying is a promise. For your hypothetical mall to be closer to what Kickstarter is like you would go into a store full of signs advertising really cool things that don't exist yet, paying the clerk money, and having him tell you that just as soon as someone gets around to making one of those things he'll make sure you get one, scout's honor. It's legally binding. It's not just a promise. The issue right now is so far nobody's been willing to take a guy to court to get their $30 back for an OSR module or whatever, but if they wanted to, they certainly could do that. Verdugo posted:Stop being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of argument. I gave money and did not receive a refund, so my anecdote counters your anectote. I can't stop when I haven't even started. You got burned, and that sucks. But you still are legally obligated to receive something (product or refund); it's just that the recourse (lawsuit) is generally too onerous for you to consider when it's broken. I've certainly gotten burned with online sellers in the past. But they were legally obligated to deliver. It's a problem, but it's not a problem unique to Kickstarter - it's just with Kickstarter, a wider group is likely to be affected, making it a larger issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
It's true that Kickstarter's terms of service are legally binding. But, they're a legally binding contract between Kickstarter, and the merchant (or whoever). Those TOS provide Kickstarter with legal relief if the other party breaches the contract; as "terms of service" I suspect the extent of their relief is "we can sever your access to our website" and possibly also "you have to pay us a fine or fee". The problem arises in that the terms of service might not bind the merchant and you, the customer, with the same level of performance contract you'd get in a direct-purchase situation. An actual legally-binding contract does exist whenever money changes hands in a buying/selling situation. When you go to McDonald's and order a hamburger and they take your cash money, you have created a contract by that exchange. The contract binds McDonald's to reasonable performance; they must supply you with a hamburger. If they fail to do so, they must refund you your cash money. This is a very firmly-established part of US law. However, on Kickstarter, you often are not making the same sort of contract with the merchant. What you are doing is "backing this project". Exactly what is promised to you in performance of this backing is up to the merchant and what they've put on their page, for your pledge level and in general. A merchant could (and often does) have a level where you give them a dollar and in exchange you just get their eternal thanks. This is literally a donation; there's no way to legally enforce the requirement that the merchant be grateful. If you decided they weren't being happy enough, good luck taking them to court! A merchant could (and often does) have a level where if you give them x dollars, they promise to supply you with an item. This is like a store, in that there is the creation of a contract; so, you would have exactly the same legal recourse as if McDonald's failed to provide the promised hamburger. Of course, one major issue is the question of timing. When you order a hamburger, it's reasonable for you to expect you'll get it in a few minutes. But look on the menu, look around the store, I doubt you'll find anyone explicitly promising you that you'll get your hamburger in five minutes or less! On the other hand, if you decided your hamburger wasn't arriving in reasonable time, McDonald's would still be obligated to refund you. They can't just keep the money and say "hey this guy was too impatient, we would have gotten him a hamburger eventually, so no refund!" Sooo.... it seems to me that if a merchant promises to send you a thing for your dollars, and also explicitly states a deadline by which they will deliver it, and fails to deliver, they're legally obliged to refund you your money. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect they are actually legally within their rights to hang on to your money until that date passes, even if you want a refund. So I think the crux of the argument revolves around three situations: 1. A date of delivery is promised, it passes, you get no item and you are refused a refund (or cannot contact the merchant to get a refund) 2. A date of delivery is promised, you decide you want a refund before hand, but are refused 3. No date of delivery is promised, or the date is vague or is stated as being flexible; you decide too much time has passed, demand a refund, but are refused. In "a store", say McDonald's, you'd clearly have legal recourse in case 1. I'm not sure about case 2, but I suspect a court would grant you relief, especially in a case where there was no explicit statement that refunds aren't allowed after purchase. In a situation where refunds are explicitly disallowed (common in many merchant environments), you would probably have no relief. In case 3, I think a court would require the plaintiff to establish some measure of what is reasonable and customary for this type of transaction. This could be difficult. So, is Kickstarter a store? I think that's the wrong question, because "a store" is too vague and covers too many different situations. Kickstarter is not a merchant, though. Some individuals and companies that use Kickstarter are acting like merchants, and some are not: the Kickstarter marketplace enables multiple types of transactional arrangements. When Reaper runs a Bones kickstarter and says they'll start deliveries in March, but softens that promise a bit by saying things could be delayed, they're acting as a vendor but they're also explicitly modifying the usual "pay money and then get stuff" performance contract. They're still legally obliged to give you the thing you bought or a refund, one or the other. But someone could use Kickstarter to basically say "please give me money in exchange for my gratitude" and that's perfectly legal too. That's not a store, there's no performance express or implied in exchange for your money, it's a charity. And other arrangements, more or less usual, are allowed and possible. I bet you could run a (legal) Kickstarter that basically said "send me $20, and I'll invest it in stocks for six months and then sell the stocks, take 1% of the proceeds, and send you back the rest". That's not a store at all, neither is it a charity; it's an investment vehicle. Probably that person's activities would come under the rules of the SEC, maybe they'd need to be legally a bank or whatever, but provided they obey the law, it'd be kosher. Sure wouldn't be "a store" though. So what if someone is acting like a store (give me money and I'll send you a thing), but they fail to perform (as in 1, 2, or 3, above)? Exactly the same as if you ordered a shirt from Eddie Bower, but they never sent the shirt and also refuse a refund. You can try to reverse the charge through your credit card, you can take them to small claims court, you can team up with other burned customers and start a class action. But that's all dependent on what exactly that particular merchant promised. It's got nothing to do with Kickstarter, (or whoever is hosting Eddie Bower's website, or the mall where the McDonald's is located), and everything to do with the type of transaction you've made and what the legal recourses are if the other party breaks that contract. So my very long-winded argument is intended to basically say "this argument is dumb because Kickstarter is a marketplace that offers the opportunity to behave like a merchant, or not like a merchant, and exactly what each project happens to be is variable". I hope we can move on to a more productive topic. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I don't know all the details 100% so bear that in mind, but my understanding is that the situation with White Wolf and CCP these days is similar to that between WotC and D&D. Wizards of the Coast makes mad millions of dollars because Magic: the Gathering is super-huge, but this doesn't mean that the D&D side of things gets to just dip into those millions to do their own thing. My understanding is that when CCP's finances took a downturn one of the first things to be cut was virtually near-everything that had to do with the elfgame side of White Wolf because, well, it made the least amount of money and gently caress it, they own all the licenses now so they pretty much got all the really important stuff (I'm not trying to ascribe a sinister motivation to CCP here, it's just that of all their assets an RPG publisher is pretty much going to be one of the first things to go when you're looking to tighten the belt). Well, and it's not White Wolf any more, it's Onyx Path which really is a separate entity. There are obviously connections, both licensing and personal, but at the end of the day CCP wouldn't bail Onyx Path out of financial trouble and without the Kickstarters Onyx Path couldn't publish books. quote:So my very long-winded argument is intended to basically say "this argument is dumb because Kickstarter is a marketplace that offers the opportunity to behave like a merchant, or not like a merchant, and exactly what each project happens to be is variable". I hope we can move on to a more productive topic. Yes exactly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
Thanlis posted:Well, and it's not White Wolf any more, it's Onyx Path which really is a separate entity. There are obviously connections, both licensing and personal, but at the end of the day CCP wouldn't bail Onyx Path out of financial trouble and without the Kickstarters Onyx Path couldn't publish books. No, Onyx Path does publish the books without Kickstarter funding. Their Kickstarters are purely to fund deluxe editions for people who want to throw money at them for such a thing. The products are going to be finished either way, and if you want a print copy, you can buy one through DriveThruRPG, but if you want something more, you can contribute to the Kickstarter, and sometimes they fund other stuff from that money. From their own website: Frequently Asked Questions posted:Q: Why is a Kickstarter necessary? They explicitly say that the funds from Kickstarter don't fund projects they are currently working on for release. Onyx Path does well enough to keep making more books.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
viewtyjoe posted:No, Onyx Path does publish the books without Kickstarter funding. Their Kickstarters are purely to fund deluxe editions for people who want to throw money at them for such a thing. The products are going to be finished either way, and if you want a print copy, you can buy one through DriveThruRPG, but if you want something more, you can contribute to the Kickstarter, and sometimes they fund other stuff from that money. From their own website: This is absolutely true and I was absolutely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
I'll cop some of the blame for that too, I wasn't really clear. I knew that Onyx Path made enough money to keep people making stuff, but as you said, for deluxe stuff like luxury hardbacks they can't get CCP to shell out for that, so they have to turn to either conventional pre-ordering or Kickstarter and Kickstarter is at least marginally more beneficial than pre-ordering because if it completely falls flat and doesn't fund then nobody gets charged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I'll cop some of the blame for that too, I wasn't really clear. I knew that Onyx Path made enough money to keep people making stuff, but as you said, for deluxe stuff like luxury hardbacks they can't get CCP to shell out for that, so they have to turn to either conventional pre-ordering or Kickstarter and Kickstarter is at least marginally more beneficial than pre-ordering because if it completely falls flat and doesn't fund then nobody gets charged. Yeah, that's what was in the back of my mind and I didn't double check my thoughts. Although I didn't think CCP was doing any of the funding, but now I'm not sure of myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Thanlis posted:Yeah, that's what was in the back of my mind and I didn't double check my thoughts. Although I didn't think CCP was doing any of the funding, but now I'm not sure of myself. CCP aren't doing any of the funding, Onyx Path is an independent entity that's run by Rich Thomas and is made up of freelancers from the old White Wolf writing crowd, with the licenses for tabletop games in the cWoD, nWoD, and Exalted. Oh, and fully owning the Trinity universe and Scion. Tabletop RPGs don't make anywhere near enough money for someone like CCP to dedicate full-time staff to, so going back to a more startup-sized organization has been massively helpful. Part of the joy of shifting to PDF/POD is that we don't need Kickstarter to make a book happen — and can launch a KS when the book's actually written — but for deluxe editions and for a chance to add extra content via stretch goals it can come in very handy, as well as for getting the word out to people who (still) believe the "White Wolf Is Dead" bollocks. Not dead, just the same people in a different company who can run on a scale where making RPG books works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
I don't care to quote every relevant post, but one thing to keep in mind is that Kickstarter makes it abundantly clear, on everything from their terms of service all the way to the big green button you click to initiate payment, is that you are not "purchasing/preordering a product", you're "backing a project". Big difference there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I don't care to quote every relevant post, but one thing to keep in mind is that Kickstarter makes it abundantly clear, on everything from their terms of service all the way to the big green button you click to initiate payment, is that you are not "purchasing/preordering a product", you're "backing a project". Big difference there. On the other hand, you have things like this, in which nobody is breaking any laws regarding usury in any way, but the effect is still an interest-bearing loan. If it walks like a store and quacks like a store . . . I am not sure it matters what the green button says, if sometimes it is acting like a store.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Maybe the problem isn't "Kickstarter is too much like a store when it's not supposed to be," but that people won't back a project without a guarantee of a tangible product delivered to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:Maybe the problem isn't "Kickstarter is too much like a store when it's not supposed to be," but that people won't back a project without a guarantee of a tangible product delivered to them. The worry for me at least regarding the nature of Kickstarter's perception as a store is that people view the likelihood of the tangible product being delivered as much higher than it is. There is much greater risk whether a product will a) arrive and b) arrive in the predicted format than even a pre-order. Pre-orders usually have some intermediary doing some form of due diligence for the consumer. Sure some lovely or varporware games get sold as pre-orders by Steam or Amazon but given retailers don't want a reputation of offering bad pre-orders they will do some checking to make sure there is some level of quality to the product. Kickstarter of course don't want a bad reputation either but right now I don't think they have a way of filtering out questionable but still plausible projects. They've also shown a willingness to ignore their own TOS when they'll make profit by doing so, such as the case of the "send my daughter to videogame camp" project. Some legal protection may exist in some form but the onus is on the individual to bring about their own restitution rather than there being a clear regulatory structure in place, unlike with actual retailers. Kickstarter are very clear it is a donation rather than a purchase so as to avoid liability after all. All of this leads to the potential people will donate to Kickstarter in the false confidence that they are better protected and more likely (to the point of feeling it is near guaranteed) to receive a product than they actually are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I don't care to quote every relevant post, but one thing to keep in mind is that Kickstarter makes it abundantly clear, on everything from their terms of service all the way to the big green button you click to initiate payment, is that you are not "purchasing/preordering a product", you're "backing a project". Big difference there. Here's the issue with that; KS project pages visually present themselves as a store. You can put up all the disclaimers you want but at the end of the day, when you look at a KS page, you see: Pay A, get B. That's a powerful visual message, especially to people who've spent their lives ordering poo poo online. Whatever KS' original intent was, it sure as hell presents and functions like a store to the average end user. Obviously this doesn't hold to everything on the site, but it really does in categories like games where there's a tangible product on offer. Frankly, I think KS should be an actual store/retailer given how it functions now - currently it gets to have its cake and eat it to- they get all the benefits of looking like a storefront but have no responsibility should things go bad. If KS doesn't want to be a store they should stop letting people offer rewards. Sure, it would seriously impact projects, but if the vision was to enable people to donate to projects they believe in, then that's what it should be - donations with no expectation of compensation/reward other than the project getting funded. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
You don't "pay A, get B". You donate A to a project and as a reward for your pledge, get B. There's a pretty big difference there, especially legally speaking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
jivjov posted:You don't "pay A, get B". You donate A to a project and as a reward for your pledge, get B. There's a pretty big difference there, especially legally speaking. You didn't even read what I said. I understand how Kickstarter actual terms, policies, etc. My point is you can argue semantics all you want, but what most people are seeing is "pay A, get B". No matter how many disclaimers or education campaigns they provide, their system is being used and viewed as a preorder store. This is further reinforced by KS' claim that project funders are responsible for delivering rewards to backers. Note they don't say how this is enforced, because they can't enforce it. So, you have a webpage that says, pledge X, and you get Y. KS says the project creator HAS to deliver on their promise. This is for all functional purposes a preorder store, which is why people treat it as such. KS hit upon a lovely new niche where they can do this without actually having to deal with the normal issues of a storefront/distributor/etc. Hence my point that if KS doesn't want to be viewed as a store, they should stop allowing pledge rewards. EDIT: And before you start down the path of "the pledgers should know better/do their research", it's not a valid argument because KS absolutely does not do enough to make that distinction to its users. It's got a serious case of schizophrenia. We're not a store, but here's a list of products you'll get if you send money. This isn't REALLY a purchase contract, but we insist that project creators have to delivered promised goods based on the amount your game them. That's pretty much the definition of a purchase contract. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
I'm really not sure what you want them to do. The terms and conditions clearly lay out the whole concept, and as I mentioned before, the big green button you click to make a pledge says "make a pledge" not "make a purchase". The reward tiers are called just that, "reward tiers". Not "purchaseables", not "goods for sale". About the only thing they could do more at this point is have a bigass pop up show up whenever you pledged for a product.  YOU ARE NOT PREORDERING A PRODUCT. WE ARE NOT A STORE. THE PROJECT CREATOR IS LIABLE, NOT US! and that would get annoying real quick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm really not sure what you want them to do. The terms and conditions clearly lay out the whole concept, and as I mentioned before, the big green button you click to make a pledge says "make a pledge" not "make a purchase". The reward tiers are called just that, "reward tiers". Not "purchaseables", not "goods for sale". I wouldn't mind seeing them differentiating the products that really are pre-orders (or really are "donate to help make this happen"), but what I'd really prefer, game-wise, is a separate site that consists solely of pre-orders for established companies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:My point is you can argue semantics all you want, but what most people are seeing is "pay A, get B". I hate to break it to you, but "what most people are seeing" does not actually define reality. Crackbone posted:but we insist that project creators have to delivered promised goods based on the amount your gave them. Promised rewards, not promised good. They are pretty explicit about that. The fact that a lot of KSes have goods as pledge rewards does not make pledge rewards and goods the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:I hate to break it to you, but "what most people are seeing" does not actually define reality. I hate to break it to you, but "how most people respond to something" is real, even if the impetus is not. If you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and there is none, the stampede of people leaving does not make the fire a reality, but the stampede is very real and could result in deaths. Kickstarter and TG as an industry would be very wrong to disregard the fact that many people see it as a store.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm really not sure what you want them to do. The terms and conditions clearly lay out the whole concept, and as I mentioned before, the big green button you click to make a pledge says "make a pledge" not "make a purchase". The reward tiers are called just that, "reward tiers". Not "purchaseables", not "goods for sale". Let me put this another way - despite whatever they say, KS functions like a store. They built the site to allow creators to create what is essentially a store interface (pay X, get Y, different options available). They built the pledge system to allow people to pick rewards just like you would buy a product (I paid X, I want tier Y). They built what functions as an inventory system (we only have 100 available slots to pledge at this level). They have language on their site that basically tells the pledger they have a purchase contract (if you paid X and were promised Y, the creator must deliver Y). So basically, KS has built all this functionality into their site to emulate how a storefront works. Project creators are obviously using it as a preorder store - christ, Indie Cards & Games have admitted as much. KS built a business model that functions as a store while dodging the normal responsibilities. They do everything a store does, but claim that saying "we're not a store!" resolves it from any liability or ill-will when a project goes south. But, this ties in back to my point that if KS really wanted be a pledge collector, and not viewed as a store, they should strip out the things that make it like a store. They don't want to do that obviously, because it would mean their bottom line would shrink. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:45
|
|