|
Crackbone posted: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). Why? I'm not sure why it's such a big deal that some projects work as a preorder, some work as patronage of things you're never going to benefit from, and some are for things that wouldn't happen without KS. What's behind the urge to make Kickstarter fit into one discrete category, even if it means slicing off useful bits of the service?
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
Flavivirus posted:Why? I'm not sure why it's such a big deal that some projects work as a preorder, some work as patronage of things you're never going to benefit from, and some are for things that wouldn't happen without KS. What's behind the urge to make Kickstarter fit into one discrete category, even if it means slicing off useful bits of the service? Because if KS is going to effectively function as a preorder store, then there should be protections in place for the consumer. Amazon can't offer you a preorder on a product, collect your money, and then say "sorry you're hosed" if the product is never delivered. They're required to refund your money. KS has skirted this requirement. They look like a store, they function like a store, but don't have any responsibilities to you should you get screwed. I suppose you can argue that it's like ebay, where the transaction is between the buyer and seller. But you don't send money to ebay, who in turn gives it to the seller. And even ebay has SOME form of protection/arbitration for disputes (as poor as they might be). KS lacks even that, and a buyer has no practical recourse at all. For most transactions you can reverse charges on a CC as a last resort, but KS projects usually last far longer than the allowable chargeback window. If KS wants to take liability for undelivered rewards, then great, I have no issue with them being a store. But if pledgers have no recourse, then stop presenting the site as a store to drive business. KS would still live if it went back to it's original concept, and it would remove the risk to the pledger, since they know they won't be getting something in return.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Kickstarter is run the same way PayPal is, with zero consumer protection because of precisely what it is. If you don't like that chance don't use it, just as a lot of people stopped using PayPal. It doesn't matter what you think kickstarter is or isn't, it's set up in a certain legal way so use at your own risk on a personal level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Kickstarter is run the same way PayPal is, with zero consumer protection because of precisely what it is. If you don't like that chance don't use it, just as a lot of people stopped using PayPal. Paypal has a lot of consumer protections though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Kickstarter is run the same way PayPal is, with zero consumer protection because of precisely what it is. If you don't like that chance don't use it, just as a lot of people stopped using PayPal. That's factually incorrect. Paypal has consumer protection. You might not like them, or feel they are effective, but they do have them, which is more than KS does. quote:It doesn't matter what you think kickstarter is or isn't, it's set up in a certain legal way so use at your own risk on a personal level. "Buyer beware" is not some sort of magic phrase that absolves a company of potentially unfair practices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:Paypal has a lot of consumer protections though? They are neither a lender or a bank or anything like that, they can legally just hold your money for whatever reason they want with no legal recourse, I've been yet personally several years ago and it sucks, but it's what you agree to. They don't even have the same regulations as a western union or other wire transfer service.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
[quote="Crackbone" post="""] "Buyer beware" is not some sort of magic phrase that absolves a company of potentially unfair practices. [/quote] That's the risk though, so if you don't like it don't use it. This argument is really dumb. If you but speakers from the back of a van you know drat well you take a risk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:That's the risk though, so if you don't like it don't use it. This argument is really dumb. If you but speakers from the back of a van you know drat well you take a risk. The back of a van does not superficially resemble Best Buy, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:They are neither a lender or a bank or anything like that, they can legally just hold your money for whatever reason they want with no legal recourse, I've been yet personally several years ago and it sucks, but it's what you agree to. They don't even have the same regulations as a western union or other wire transfer service. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it acceptable. To go to an extreme, at one point it was legal to sell water with radium in it. That doesn't mean it was acceptable or fair to the consumer. "Welp, you shoulda known better that this site, which looks like a store, takes your money in exchange for a product like a store, has delivery dates like a store, and says the seller must give you the agreed upon item like a store, isn't really a store." EDIT: It's time to stop, because at this point we're just bumping into different worldviews of what's acceptable business practice. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Kickstarter may appear to be a store to some, some pledge rewards use tangible goods as rewards yes, but that is why the terms and conditions exist. To dispel the notion that they are a store. If people ignore them but sign up anyway, that's their problem, not Kickstarter's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
All of this raises the larger question, which is "why do people care so much if Kickstarter is a store or not?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Gau posted:All of this raises the larger question, which is "why do people care so much if Kickstarter is a store or not?" I think a lot of it, based on the points of conversation thus far, hinge on consumer rights and protections. If Wal-Mart takes your money and doesn't give you stuff, you have a legal recourse to either your stuff or your money. If a Kickstarter project creator takes your money and runs, or mismanages it and the project collapses, or the shipping carrier from China sinks, etc etc, you don't have a guarantee of getting a refund. That's the nature of the model though. You're a backer, not a customer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:KS would still live if it went back to it's original concept, and it would remove the risk to the pledger, since they know they won't be getting something in return. Just like any other investment, sometimes you get a return on your money, and sometimes you do not. You could see if you could buy a $40 stake in these peoples' company instead but it would probably not be a great investment in most of the TG-related projects that get kickstarted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Gau posted:All of this raises the larger question, which is "why do people care so much if Kickstarter is a store or not?" Because KICKSTARTER IS NOT A STORE became a cliche phrase people use to shout down any complaints people ever have about pledge levels not being good deals or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
quote:Wasn't Kickstarter's original concept, like, a way to invest money in things? That's the nature of the model, but can't we agree that some people think kickstarter doesn't make it clear enough? The hinge of the argument seems to be: "Kickstarter may not be a store, but it presents itself to be close enough like one to make some people think so." Then it degenerates into: "nuh uh / yeah it is / no it isn't / yeah it is / no it isn't" I'm even guilty of this earlier in the thread. Sure, it's against the nature of kickstarter to advertise in giant letters "HEY YOU COULD LOSE YOUR MONEY THIS IS NOT A STORE" but it seems they don't make it clear enough. Kickstarter might not be a "store" technically, but some companies present their products like it is a store. Some people feel like they don't make it clear enough. Then when a consumer has an issue, too bad. Are we really supposed to go, "You should have seen it wasn't a store at all! Sorry you're out your donation!  " Kickstarter isn't a store, but eBay isn't a store either (just a venue) and they have a much better system in place to help unhappy customers, because they realize that without buyers they have no site. The only examples I can think of to illustrate my point are ridiculously stupid ones, outside of my own personal equally ridiculously stupid example. Anecdotes aren't evidence, because for every bad experience there's a good one, so feel free to skip over this next part, but this is where I'm coming from. I backed the Hairbrained Schemes Shadowrun Returns kickstarter. Now, Hairbrained Schemes also is doing pre orders on their site. I also can eventually pre order it on Steam if I was so inclined. Kickstarter states that the creator has an obligation to "provide a product." What if the product is so fundamentally different from the original idea? If I waited and preordered it, I would be able to get mymoney back. I reached out to them trying to recover my initial investment, explaining my concerns, and they basically said, "We are only "obligated" to return your money if we don't come out with something, but we're coming out with something, so we hope you like it!" And then a complete stonewall. Since my admittedly small pledge was on kickstarter, I really have no recourse outside of a lawsuit to recover my investment. A TOS is only enforceable And who is going to sue over $15? So I'm out cash, and lesson learned on my end. This was before the whole "we are releasing DRM free only at launch, if you want updates past launch you need to get Steam" problem that came up. Kickstarter seems to have all the advantages of a store for the seller and none of the advantages of a store for the buyer. eBay does the whole "we're a venue, not a store." Paypal does "we're not a bank, we're a venue." But even they have ways for people to get recourse. And really, everyone loses in some way. The unhappy backer loses because they're out money. Kickstarter and the vendor also both lose, becuase they lose future revenue from unhappy backers not coming back. But not as much, since they have the money. Verdugo fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
I think Kickstarter is more like Etsy, in that it is a "venue". Like Etsy, Kickstarter has terms of service and restrictions that it imposes on its independent sellers. Like Kickstarter, Etsy explicitly disavows responsibility for failed transactions. Unlike Kickstarter, Etsy does not process transactions (although they do collect a fee). Unlike Kickstarter, Etsy's sellers generally are engaging in ongoing business, and are selling items actually in inventory rather than attempting to finance future production. But I'm pointing out the parallel because it'd be equally fruitless to have an argument about whether Etsy "is a store" or not. The essence of this argument is semantics. What is fruitful (perhaps) is the question of whether Kickstarter is or should be protecting pledgers using their service from loss due to projects that fail to produce the promised rewards and/or refund pledged money. Is that something we want? The whole point of a project on Kickstarter is that you can collect funds now, and use them to get your project going, and then reward backers with whatever you promised later. How can Kickstarter hold projects to their promises, beyond the terms of service they already use? Is it feasible for KS to host thousands of projects, collectively pulling in several millions of dollars at a time, if it was ultimately financially liable for the full pledged amount of any project that failed? If KS made a habit of going after failed projects with a legal team, or a collections agency, or whatever, wouldn't that both cost KS a lot of money (and therefore cause them to have to raise their fees significantly) and have a significant chilling affect on people who want to kickstart a project? Wouldn't that put KS into basically exactly the same situation as an ordinary bank that makes business loans? It would have to decide on a case-by-case basis which projects were worthy of funding, check people's credit ratings, charge interest, and otherwise do all the things banks do to insure themselves against losses when a business that owes them money folds and they wind up in a bankruptcy court hoping to collect some fraction of what they're owed? KS is revolutionary in part because it doesn't do all that stuff. It allows individuals to fund projects that otherwise wouldn't happen because banks wouldn't lend that money, or would charge too much in interest. Perhaps trying to get KS to be more responsible for the failures of projects is an attack on basically the thing KS is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Verdugo posted:Are we really supposed to go, "You should have seen it wasn't a store at all! Sorry you're out your donation! Well not rather than  but otherwise yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Yeah, gamers are ultra-bad at predictions for some reason, but mine is that one day there will be a gigantic Kickstarter that completely fails to deliver anything whatsoever ("sorry, we spent all your money giving it a try and failed"), there will be a lawsuit about it, and that lawsuit will also fail to deliver anything whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
I sometimes wonder what would happen if some project fails because the needed investment was miscalculated, and they start another kickstarter to get the project finished. Would that be possible? And would people fund it? For example, imagine that game console that was kickstarted would go "we can't finish, need another 50k" with no rewards whatsoever, hoping that backers of the original kickstarter would throw in another 10$ rather than loosing all of their investment. It happens all the time with projects in the business world, it would be interesting to see what would happen in this case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
JDCorley posted:Yeah, gamers are ultra-bad at predictions for some reason, but mine is that one day there will be a gigantic Kickstarter that completely fails to deliver anything whatsoever ("sorry, we spent all your money giving it a try and failed"), there will be a lawsuit about it, and that lawsuit will also fail to deliver anything whatsoever. I really thought the OUYA was going to be the iceburg to KS's Titanic, but not anymore. Kickstarter can use NOT A STORE language to distance themselves from any multi-million dollar disaster, and the project creators are going to be the target of ire - not the service that facilitated the transactions. Suppose you buy a DVD player at Radio Shack and get an empty box. Would you stop shopping at that mall entirely, or just Radio Shack?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
Luebbi posted:I sometimes wonder what would happen if some project fails because the needed investment was miscalculated, and they start another kickstarter to get the project finished. Would that be possible? And would people fund it? And the more recent Pathfinder Online kickstarter was basically, "Yo Pathfinder peeps! Give Ryan Dancey a million more dollars for that thing you already kickstarted!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
The first was for the tech demo to show to investors - did the videogames industry as a whole decide it was poo poo? Or did Goblinworks just want to double-squeeze fans already on the hook for in-game rewards?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What is fruitful (perhaps) is the question of whether Kickstarter is or should be protecting pledgers using their service from loss due to projects that fail to produce the promised rewards and/or refund pledged money. Here's the thing: KS could still perform its function without providing rewards to pledgers. Sure, it would reduce revenues and project successes, but then you eliminate the whole store issue. There's a difference between believing in a project and wanting a tangible benefit in return. KS "preorders" absolutely allow projects that wouldn't exist under a strict pledge model; I'd wager almost every board game/physical project would not succeed under a pledge only format. But ultimately the KS "preorder" setup is ridiculously favorable to project creators and unfavorable to backers. Personally I don't think their current setup should exist because it fosters a reasonable expectation from backers that their "purchase" is guaranteed. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Apr 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Kickstarter doesn't exist so that you can give feel-good donations, though. It is for crowd-based investing. You don't need Kickstarter at all if you're just asking for charity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Heart Attacks posted:Kickstarter doesn't exist so that you can give feel-good donations, though. It is for crowd-based investing. You don't need Kickstarter at all if you're just asking for charity. Where the gently caress did you get that idea? "Investing" is a specific term that only applies to KS in emotional terms. When's the last time you got shares or a cut of the profits from a KS? Even if you get a pledge reward that's essentially buying a product. You're eating up feel-good marketing crap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Here's the thing: KS could still perform its function without providing rewards to pledgers. Sure, it would reduce revenues and project successes, but then you eliminate the whole store issue. There's a difference between believing in a project and wanting a tangible benefit in return. I would have backed 0 Kickstarters if that is how it would work. I am fully aware that the project I backed could blow up in my face and my money is gone, but at the very least if it is a success then I get the product or some small token as thanks. I would never back something if it was a case of "give us money to do this, and then give us money again to actually get it from us". I just simply could not afford to do that. I get your point though, there is a problem with Kickstarter, but there needs to be a better idea than essentially "nuke kickstarter" because that method would pretty much kill them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Where the gently caress did you get that idea? "Investing" is a specific term that only applies to KS in emotional terms. When's the last time you got shares or a cut of the profits from a KS? Even if you get a pledge reward that's essentially buying a product. Are you serious? The entire basis of Kickstarter is, "Give us the money we need to do something now, so that if we're successful you see a return later." This is the core of investment; Kickstarter changes the reward from 'a share of profits' to 'a toy that we make' because 'a share of profits' would make most of these projects unviable (either a), because paying out pennies to a thousand people isn't motivation enough to draw investments, or b) because paying out more than pennies cuts down on the margins for the creators too much to be worthwhile.) Kickstarter broadens the base of people willing to hand over their money by replacing 'a share of the company' with whatever the creator wants. The idea that Kickstarter is risky, therefore it needs to die is kind of hosed up. Heart Attacks fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
I think at bare minimum, if you pledge to a Kickstarter that's creating a thing, be it a board game, a documentary, a book, whatever, then that thing should be offered as a pledge reward, provided the pledge is at or above the price the item would be sold at at retail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
I wonder how sustainable the RPG business model is. The current cycle seems to be release a core rules book and make a lot of money (for an RPG). Then release splats which tend to diminish in quality and sales, which necessities the release of a new edition, which splits their player base and hampers their future sales. The character builder for 4e showed a company could make money selling a gaming service, rather than an actual game. I’d be interested in nearly any game which rolled up roll 20, obsidian portal and a character builder into an integrated high quality product. There are a bunch of other services the RPG market is willing to drop money on, but can’t do so in any sort of coherent way. It just seems like there a lot of ways to make money off of people playing your game, rather than trying to make all of your money getting people to play it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Heart Attacks posted:Are you serious? No, that's called a preorder. You're not getting a return, you're buying a product.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
You give reaper money to expand their line. They pay you back in miniatures because it's cheaper for them than going through normal channels. It's not a store, it's not a preorder, it's not an investment, it's not a philanthropic altruism dispensary - it's a Kickstarter project. It has elements of all those and doesn't fit neatly into any one box. What we should be asking is why categorizing it still gives people raging boners and aneurysms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
There are plenty of ways to give donations to nonprofit charities. Kickstarter isn't that. I mean, it can be used for that, but why pay KS a fee to do that when you can just set up your charity and a web page to collect donations? In order to sell shares of profit, you'd pretty much have to incorporate. That's expensive and subject to significant amounts of regulation. There's no way Matching Lions gets made if its creator has to sell shares in order to raise the funds. And of course there are already channels for raising funds that way, if that's what you're going to do. KS provides a service that allows people to do something they couldn't do before, or at least, to greatly facilitate doing something that was much harder to do before. Why does it matter if it's exactly like a store or not exactly like a store? Because: Crackbone posted:Here's the thing: KS could still perform its function without providing rewards to pledgers. Sure, it would reduce revenues and project successes, but then you eliminate the whole store issue. There is no "whole store issue". As far as I can tell, the only real "problem" being discussed is, what is the actual recourse to funders if the project explodes/disappears/fails to deliver and also refuses refunds. And the recourse is exactly the same as if Kickstarter didn't exist, and you'd given money directly to some company to get a product delivered in the future, and they failed to do so/provide a refund. The fact that a website called Kickstarter facilitated that transaction has no bearing. If some people think that, because a project is on Kickstarter, it should be treated as more credible than if you went directly to someone's own website to exchange money now for a promise of something later, well, that's actually legitimate: KS does add some small veneer of additional credibility, by virtue of their Terms of Service imposed on project teams. The quantity of credibility granted by that is probably not very huge, and people who make a pledge should evaluate that themselves. You seem to want Kickstarter to stop being Kickstarter, because people sometimes get ripped off. I put it to you that the fundamental service being delivered by Kickstarter is a slightly better chance of not getting ripped off, compared to a world without that service provided by someone. That improvement in credibility allows more projects overall to be crowdfunded, and that means more cool projects happen, more people get cool stuff, more commerce, more jobs, more money spread around. If I've misunderstood, please try to explain exactly how you think Kickstarter should operate, in a way that doesn't crush the possibility of funding for thousands of small-scale projects that some number of enthusiastic members of the public are willing to pay money months in advance to try and make happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I think at bare minimum, if you pledge to a Kickstarter that's creating a thing, be it a board game, a documentary, a book, whatever, then that thing should be offered as a pledge reward, provided the pledge is at or above the price the item would be sold at at retail. Yeah, that's explicitly stated in their FAQ and KS School. Kickstarter posted:Every project’s primary rewards should be things made by the project itself. If the project is to record a new album, then rewards should include a copy of the CD when it’s finished.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Yeah, that's explicitly stated in their FAQ and KS School. So from the ground up, KS is supporting having project creators give out physical rewards. The way some people were talking, they seemed to think KS should not have any tangible benefit to pledging at all. Just the good feelings of supporting a startup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
Ok, so I have something I want to talk to you guys about. You are all very vocal about Kickstarter so that's why I am asking you. I am planning a Kickstarter, hoping for late summer. I want to Make and distribute some Laser Cut MDF terrain, of my own design. The laser will already be paid for (it will be delivered beginning of June, already ordered). The designs will be complete, and the instructional materials will already be done. There is literally no risk to the backer, and I don't NEED the money to do the project, I actually want to do the Kickstarter for two reasons, 1) To make back some, or all of the money I spent on the laser. 2)To share my terrain with people. I have no intention of mass producing the terrain, or selling it at retail. What do you think about this as a project? It's not really raising funds for completing the project, and its not really a pre-order as its the only way someone will be able to get what I am offering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Well that's basically what Greg Stolze did with his Reign supplements. It's called the ransom model. He told people "hey, I've written 10,000 words of Reign stuff that I'd like to get paid to self-publish, if I can get $1,000 then I'll release it for everybody" (which is, of course, the big difference between your project and his in that you can't realistically give away free terrain to everybody who wants some, backer or no, once you've reached your funding threshold). I see nothing wrong with ransoming projects per se, though I'm not sure whether you can actually use Kickstarter itself to do something like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Let's approach this from a really pessimistic investing standpoint.LumberingTroll posted:I am planning a Kickstarter, hoping for late summer. I want to Make and distribute some Laser Cut MDF terrain, of my own design. quote:I don't NEED the money to do the project, I actually want to do the Kickstarter for two reasons, 1) To make back some, or all of the money I spent on the laser. 2)To share my terrain with people. [/b] quote:I have no intention of mass producing the terrain, or selling it at retail. I think it's a great idea personally, I just want to make sure you succeed really well and can maybe make it a regular thing if you wanted, while also getting good word of mouth and backer numbers/dollars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Let's approach this from a really pessimistic investing standpoint. Thanks, this was really helpful feedback. If anyone else has anything to add, please do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
It's not really that different from any other Kickstarter. Evil Hat doesn't ''need'' money to publish Fate Core.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
ravenkult posted:It's not really that different from any other Kickstarter. Evil Hat doesn't ''need'' money to publish Fate Core. Yes, because printing, binding, and shipping is free for them, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 17:58
|
|