The Kickstarter Thread

[Serrano]

I love him, but I'm not actually sure I feel like giving Zach's project funds, myself, unless I had enough to get one of those top tiers. Because as mentioned, he's going to get plenty of cash anyway and I'm selfish like that. Maybe the $20 tho, I like soundtracks .... Besides, I'm still waiting for Michael Biehn's "I used to be almost famous and now I do terrible B movies" Kickstarter.

More the pity that Aliens: Colonial Marines was such a disaster. Had it been done well we could have had another Aliens movie with Hicks as the lead .

[rjshae]

Zach Braff's Kickstarter Project Hits $2 Million Goal with 28,000 backers.

[babaganoosh13]

Here is one that I just noticed, and it only has 7 days to go:

 

14 year old wants to make 1st game - a First Person Shooter!

 

And he has autism.

 

This one is to go to game design camp at ASU. Here though, they teach Unreal.

 

The game will be called "Insomniac: The Madness Within"

 

------------------

 

It looks like these will be good to go on Kickstarter.

 

My problem with this one, is all of the low level tiers are physical tiers. It just seems a bit disingenuous to me, when after the costs of the goods, you are coming out to roughly the same amount as the cost of the base game. This one doesn't seem as bad as Susan Wilson's when it comes to Pledge-COM<Cost of base pledge for just the game. It actually seems like they will make a little bit off of those things.

 

Plus for $250 you get your name in the credits, and for $400, you get to name a character.

 

Goodness people, if this is the trend of these, I hope they all fail, regardless of the situation of anyone involved.

 

Oh, for a $15 pledge, I got my name in the credits for Delver's Drop. For a $25 pledge, I could vote on the extra characters, plus extra digital goodies. Just sayin' if you want to put your kids in some video game camp.

 

EDIT - I'm not even saying that if I donated to one of these things that I want my name in the credits for the base cost of the game. I am saying that I don't your stupid swag, and for a kid making a game, if I want to throw my kids name in it, it should only cost a little bit for some non-essential NPC, because THAT does not cost you anything. (That goes out to all kids, not any one in specific.)

Edited April 29, 2013 by babaganoosh13

[rjshae]

Goodness people, if this is the trend of these, I hope they all fail, regardless of the situation of anyone involved.

 

 

Available from Amazon for under $9.

[Hurlshort]

I'm much more comfortable with this kickstarter than the Susan Wilson one.  Of course I have plenty of autistic kids in my school and community, so I'll probably stick to helping them out.    

[babaganoosh13]

 

Goodness people, if this is the trend of these, I hope they all fail, regardless of the situation of anyone involved.

 

 

Available from Amazon for under $9.

 

The trend that I was referring to is: If this is basically a fundraiser; why is there all of these low tiers with just the physical goods (which results in less profit - close to just the base cost of the game?) I'm imagining a scenario where they only sell these low physical tiers and only make the goal. A small portion of it would be able to go to the camp. Therefore the parent would have had to go through the kickstarter with all of that money exchanging hands, create and ship a bunch of swag to people, and still have to pay a bunch of money out of pocket for the school because they couldn't see that one happening. That is the problem I can see happening.

 

Meanwhile little things that they can do digitally add no cost, and help add up.

 

I actually don't have a problem with them wanting to do a Kickstarter. I just have a problem with a stupid kickstarter as a fundraiser where a lot of the funds go towards things other than the project. It makes it seem like they don't really need the money. The bigger Kickstarters are actually a good model to use. Start off with a bunch of digital only tiers. Add some physical ones as well higher up.

[LadyCrimson]

There's a site for fundraiser/charity/fund-my-life stuff already. It's called GoFundMe.

 

Not that I really care too much if the occasional fundraiser/life project makes it on Kickstarter (since I can just ignore them if I want). But as time goes on and they gain in popularity/audience, it does seem like KS needs to do a bit better job at screening and maybe pointing project applicants to these other sites for projects that skirt such lines. Or else change their rules/stated stance on such. Either way.

[BruceVC]

Here is one that I just noticed, and it only has 7 days to go:

 

14 year old wants to make 1st game - a First Person Shooter!

 

 

 

Goodness people, if this is the trend of these, I hope they all fail, regardless of the situation of anyone involved.

 

 

 

I agree, I think it was obvious the utter disdain I felt for the Susan Wilson KS but what concerns me is KS getting undermined by this deluge of "sympathy" projects and we start losing people who would normally contribute but now feel KS is becoming nothing but a charity website. I am going to sound harsh but I don't care if its a starving Somalian child or a handicapped Swedish teenager I only want people on KS who have a legitimate project and people should only donate towards there projects if they genuinely believe in the KS. Not because they feel sorry for the person.  There are thousands of mediums and charity websites already on the Internet where people can post idea's and get support

[TSBasilisk]

Stonehearth

Fantasy city-building game with a snazzy pseudo-Minecraft look and hints of Dwarf Fortress (fairly sure Cthulhu attacked there)

[Oerwinde]

http://igg.me/at/BookOfPureEvil/x/3149648

 

Todd and the Book of Pure Evil is running an Indie GoGo campaign to finish the series with an animated movie.

[babaganoosh13]

He ended up cancelling the kickstarter for his kid to go to camp. It looks like the reason for the short period for it was the spots were filling up quickly, and it appears as though they needed the money.

 

Again, this seems like it would have been a prime example as to why all of those low end physical tiers can be a bad thing. It was one thing with the Wilson's and they could afford it. This one seems like they are having a much harder time getting by. Brian, and others have explained that roughly 1/3 of what they receive actually goes towards Kickstarter fees, and the cost of the Physical items and shipping. This project, and others in the future if they run them like this could have easily see that percentage be over 1/2, in not even worse. I could almost see that dad being in way over his head if it ended up being successful, and people were donating to those physical tiers. At least as it stood before he cancelled it, no one had.

 

We'll see how the next one goes...

[rjshae]

^^^^ I disagree your conclusion. The Kickstarter approach is ideal for the independent developer who is looking for some money to polish up a fun little game. I don't yet see a good reason to control a developer's access to this mechanism when the market can decide just fine by itself.

[Hurlshort]

Interesting article on a spam campaign.

 

That Camelot game was just asking for too much money.

[Bester]

I'd like to think that journalists publish their articles even if somebody harasses them into not publishing it.

 

But right now, if they don't publish anything about Camelot out of personal feelings towards spam (oh oh oh, look how mighty we are, we can ruin your life, we won't do what you asked because we had to delete 5 identical messages!), this is extremely irresponsible journalism. Well, what do you expect, they're all humans and that's exactly what I expect of humans. Good thing I'm not!

Edited April 30, 2013 by Bester

[Humanoid]

I'm annoyed that they squandered a chance to use Spamalot as a headline.

[babaganoosh13]

^^^^ I disagree your conclusion. The Kickstarter approach is ideal for the independent developer who is looking for some money to polish up a fun little game. I don't yet see a good reason to control a developer's access to this mechanism when the market can decide just fine by itself.

Huh? I was referring to the dad who wanted to send his kid with autism to video game camp. It seems like he didn't have the money to spare to do it by himself, and was relying on quick funds from a kickstarter to send him there.

 

My main concern was how it was set up, most of the funds received could have been put towards physical goods w/shipping costs and kickstarter fees vs. the actual camp, and the dangers of this possibly happening again in the future if they take Susan Wilson's template as an example of how to do tiers.

[rjshae]

 

^^^^ I disagree your conclusion. The Kickstarter approach is ideal for the independent developer who is looking for some money to polish up a fun little game. I don't yet see a good reason to control a developer's access to this mechanism when the market can decide just fine by itself.

Huh? I was referring to the dad who wanted to send his kid with autism to video game camp. It seems like he didn't have the money to spare to do it by himself, and was relying on quick funds from a kickstarter to send him there.

 

My main concern was how it was set up, most of the funds received could have been put towards physical goods w/shipping costs and kickstarter fees vs. the actual camp, and the dangers of this possibly happening again in the future if they take Susan Wilson's template as an example of how to do tiers.

 

Right. You want to add additional constraints, rather than letting the consumer decide.

[alanschu]

I'd like to think that journalists publish their articles even if somebody harasses them into not publishing it.

 

But right now, if they don't publish anything about Camelot out of personal feelings towards spam (oh oh oh, look how mighty we are, we can ruin your life, we won't do what you asked because we had to delete 5 identical messages!), this is extremely irresponsible journalism. Well, what do you expect, they're all humans and that's exactly what I expect of humans. Good thing I'm not!

 

I think you are understating it when you say "5 identical messages."  Make it 1000+ and it starts to become irresponsible journalism because they are rewarding (and hence encouraging) spammers for their actions.

Edited May 1, 2013 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

 

I'd like to think that journalists publish their articles even if somebody harasses them into not publishing it.

 

But right now, if they don't publish anything about Camelot out of personal feelings towards spam (oh oh oh, look how mighty we are, we can ruin your life, we won't do what you asked because we had to delete 5 identical messages!), this is extremely irresponsible journalism. Well, what do you expect, they're all humans and that's exactly what I expect of humans. Good thing I'm not!

 

I think you are understating it when you say "5 identical messages."  Make it 1000+ and it starts to become irresponsible journalism because they are rewarding (and hence encouraging) spammers for their actions.

 

 

Not to mention the message simply gets lost under all that spam.  

[alanschu]

Well, Bester is suggesting that it'd be irresponsible for the message to get lost in all that spam.

[babaganoosh13]

 

 

^^^^ I disagree your conclusion. The Kickstarter approach is ideal for the independent developer who is looking for some money to polish up a fun little game. I don't yet see a good reason to control a developer's access to this mechanism when the market can decide just fine by itself.

Huh? I was referring to the dad who wanted to send his kid with autism to video game camp. It seems like he didn't have the money to spare to do it by himself, and was relying on quick funds from a kickstarter to send him there.

 

My main concern was how it was set up, most of the funds received could have been put towards physical goods w/shipping costs and kickstarter fees vs. the actual camp, and the dangers of this possibly happening again in the future if they take Susan Wilson's template as an example of how to do tiers.

 

Right. You want to add additional constraints, rather than letting the consumer decide.

 

How is it adding additional constraints, suggesting how they can do them better with some sense of fiscal responsibility with a lot less floating expenses? I'm sure that goal doesn't put in mind the cost of the physical items, especially at such low tiers. Plus, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. How is it a constraint?

 

Ultimately yes, the customer will always decide regardless of how any kickstarter is set up, regardless of any suggestions the person putting together the kickstarter takes from anyone.

[rjshae]

I hadn't been keeping tabs on this one, but since their successful KS in December, the Forsaken Fortress team has posted nine more updates with plenty of interesting graphics:

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1317934609/forsaken-fortress/posts

[Bester]

 

I'd like to think that journalists publish their articles even if somebody harasses them into not publishing it.

 

But right now, if they don't publish anything about Camelot out of personal feelings towards spam (oh oh oh, look how mighty we are, we can ruin your life, we won't do what you asked because we had to delete 5 identical messages!), this is extremely irresponsible journalism. Well, what do you expect, they're all humans and that's exactly what I expect of humans. Good thing I'm not!

 

I think you are understating it when you say "5 identical messages."  Make it 1000+ and it starts to become irresponsible journalism because they are rewarding (and hence encouraging) spammers for their actions.

 

There's news to report, so they should report it, independently of whether it's going to take 2 seconds or 2 minutes to clean their mail. In this case, the spammers happen to be right that there's news to report.

 

Next time there's gonna be a war and people are gonna send their emails about it, in fact so many emails that the journalists will get pissed off and won't report it. Cause your job as a journalist is to discourage spammers, not to report what's real.

[Hurlshort]

When I get a hundred emails all with the same information, I'm most likely to not even bother looking at it and simply trash it.  I won't even read the first one.

[alanschu]

 

 

I'd like to think that journalists publish their articles even if somebody harasses them into not publishing it.

 

But right now, if they don't publish anything about Camelot out of personal feelings towards spam (oh oh oh, look how mighty we are, we can ruin your life, we won't do what you asked because we had to delete 5 identical messages!), this is extremely irresponsible journalism. Well, what do you expect, they're all humans and that's exactly what I expect of humans. Good thing I'm not!

 

I think you are understating it when you say "5 identical messages."  Make it 1000+ and it starts to become irresponsible journalism because they are rewarding (and hence encouraging) spammers for their actions.

 

There's news to report, so they should report it, independently of whether it's going to take 2 seconds or 2 minutes to clean their mail. In this case, the spammers happen to be right that there's news to report.

 

Next time there's gonna be a war and people are gonna send their emails about it, in fact so many emails that the journalists will get pissed off and won't report it. Cause your job as a journalist is to discourage spammers, not to report what's real.

 

 

Expecting the media to be truly objective is living in a fantasy world.  I don't agree with your implicit support of the notion that spam is an acceptable and even encouraged way of ensuring your story is seen and recognized.  Nor do I agree with the implicit support that a company should not be held accountable for encouraging actions that actually waste time and money.

 

You still understate the time investment.  2 seconds or 2 minutes?  I guess if you just shift click.  WHOOPS, a genuinely important email that went out about an amber alert for a young child abducted by a child molester ended up squeaking in between the 1000s of emails that were spammed to your account.  Or worse yet, the one that didn't get received because an inbox was full.  You're not the only person that can come up with exaggerated hypothetical situations where something bad happens.

 

Furthermore, a journalist has always chosen what to report on.  There's a reason why we don't see news about Allan showing up to work this morning though.  Few people care and it's a waste of time and money to report on that.  Though I'm sure some people would still qualify it as news.

 

There is actually anti-spam legislation in places as well, so it really opens up a whole can of worms to support the actions you think are acceptable.