To me, this is a case of semantics. A Kickstarter pledge is a kind of purchase. Dollars are exchanged for a potential reward. It is closer to a purchase than a traditional investment that results in a stake. In any case, I stand by my points.
Star Citizen
- Thread starter ZZLEE
- Start date
To me, this is a case of semantics. A Kickstarter pledge is a kind of purchase. Dollars are exchanged for a potential reward. It is closer to a purchase than a traditional investment that results in a stake. In any case, I stand by my points.
Spending a single dollar on crowd funding is the stupidest thing I think you can do with your money. I can't even wrap my head around it. Toss money at a concept, hoping it becomes reality, even if it does, not a single penny of the profits come your way.
What? Haha, no thanks, ima send it off to the nigerian princes instead.
What? Haha, no thanks, ima send it off to the nigerian princes instead.
implosion222
Well-known member
FreeKnight
Well-known member
I think that's overly harsh. There are some problems with crowdfunding sure. It's obviously not an investment, it's not even *technically* a purchase (though most starters are marketed that way), but it has it's strengths too.
For gamers, while there's been a number of big successes, there's been a few blatantly bad Kickstarters. But for a game like Pillars of Eternity, it would have never been made without kickstarter. Publishers wouldn't pick it up, and even if Obsidian did somehow manage to get in with an EA, Ubisoft of SE on it, it's doubtful they would have let it get anywhere near the end product released. Probably would have morphed into some awful Fable-esque game. It's turned out to be a massive success. The same can be said for Shadowrun Returns, Divinity: Original Sin, maybe Wasteland 2. Even Elite Dangerous (as a comparison to SC) which is largely viewed as a good launch and support was kickstarted.
For non-gaming products there's been successes too. The Sansaire Sous-vide was a great success, and at the time was hands down the best non-bank breaking Sousvide you could get. It helped bring it more mainstream and put downward pressure on the prices for precisions cookers like Anova (and now there's a wide selection of immersion-circulator SV).
Like anything, particularly new funding types, it's imperfect and more starters will creep in over the initial few years that will burn backers. But, if you approach it with money you can afford to lose, and with projects that seem like they have a good chance to deliver what you want, it's certainly a viable option. There's just a lot of things that will never get past funding, or past marketing teams/analysts that can turn out to be big successes. It's just that with starters the 'Your Results May Vary' is a lot more crucial to keep in mind than a retail consumer product, and it's certainly not like all of us can't think of at least one consumer product that turned out to be a dud, riddled with hardware issues or failures, didn't deliver as expected/promised/advertised (For gaming, just think of anything post 2000 by Molyneux, AC Unity, Big Huge Games, etc). The difficulty with Kickstarter is that there can be a large time delay in between pledge and delivery that can open up a number of problems, or give them time to arise and that it's very difficult to make a really reliable estimate of what a project will turn out like (if at all) and if it'll deliver as promised. Part of the solution is vetting the project your looking at, be it past history
Nothing unforgiveably wrong with kickstarter, just as it's not the solution to every funding/product/problem. If people want to back a project, all the power to them, but they just have to be aware of what they're getting into and what the risks are.
implosion222
Well-known member
Back to the game
1.6 went live last night.
FPS will come soon
Did you watch the live stream ? AC 2.0 blew me away. They've come a long way.
implosion222
Well-known member
For the non believer : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xSOzEWsHOs
Sorry, that's supposed to make me feel better? If anything that demo proves everyone's point that feature creep is very real and alive. Nothing shown there couldn't have been rolled out after all of us pledgers received the game we were led to believe was being developed.
Couple that with the fact that NO ONE from the public at Gamescon was actually able to touch a Star Citizen demo past what's already available to everyone.
Look, I'm not here to rag on it too much since I sunk a good amount of money into it but seriously, can't any of the fanboys admit that at this point in time we should all have the COMPLETE game we were promised....even if all these other things were added on as modules in the future?
Couple that with the fact that NO ONE from the public at Gamescon was actually able to touch a Star Citizen demo past what's already available to everyone.
Look, I'm not here to rag on it too much since I sunk a good amount of money into it but seriously, can't any of the fanboys admit that at this point in time we should all have the COMPLETE game we were promised....even if all these other things were added on as modules in the future?
implosion222
Well-known member
The complete game ... They started development in LATE 2012 with a handful of people. And you expect a game of this scale to be completed in 2 years or so ? So by your logic we should be seeing games of this scope almost every year or just about.
