TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 03:37

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

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

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

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".

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.

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

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

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

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

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

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

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

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

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.

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.

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

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

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: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

Heart Attacks posted:

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;

No, that's called a preorder. You're not getting a return, you're buying a product.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2013 22:57

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

If you really want to drive business, maybe you could stipulate that additional orders will only be possible if you backed the Kickstarter? That creates a nice feeling of exclusivity.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2013 15:29

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

LumberingTroll posted:

That is an interesting idea. I wonder how people would take it.

Obviously I'm not representative of the majority, but for terrain, I'd much prefer the option to buy more later if I really like it. You basically create scarcity while assuring backers they will be "supported" in the future. It creates a lot more headaches for you though.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2013 16:07

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

Lakedaimon posted:

I thought KS charged you as soon as the project was "funded"?

In the old GMT P500 system, the game was usually at the printers and not far away from shipping when you finally got charged. Im considering a KS right now where the game won't be out until next January :/

You're correct. It's a minor difference but significant.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2013 12:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 03:37

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

jivjov posted:

I thought that was because of the wide distribution. If I sit at home and carve a perfect likeness of Darth Vader out of wood and give it to my dad as a gift, I'm pretty sure that's not copyright/trademark infringement.

Kickstarter gets around it by way of "oh yes, I'm making these minis that greatly resemble the characters from Firefly and giving them as gifts to people. These people happened to pledge $X to my campaign to fund my minis line, but I did not sell or give them to the public."

The "gift" poo poo KS claims is a paper-thin veneer and will crumble the first time a government entity examines the arrangement in any detail. Overseas KS backers have already seen this with the Ouya, for example.

KS is a store. What it does fits the legal definition of a sales contract, no matter how many semantic games they want to play. Copyright infringement doesn't go away because somebody claims it was a gift while slipping a $20 in their pocket.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 20:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future