Dat Backer Content

[JFSOCC]

yeah, but I don;t frequent those forums, and didn't learn about it till yesterday.

[Bryy]

yeah, but I don;t frequent those forums, and didn't learn about it till yesterday.

I'm just relaying information pertaining to what you ask.

 

I very highly doubt what you suggest can (or should) be done on as a crowdfunding tier.

[JFSOCC]

There could be different ways to do it. You could send an E-mail out to everyone who backed telling them that there is a contests for those who care. You could put in a lottery of sorts (though that is less fair, imo)

 

As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't even have to be limited to backers.

 

I just don't believe wealth is a fair discriminator for who could or could not contribute something awesome. There are many poor (or just not as well off) people out there who might have really awesome ideas, or would be just really thrilled at the opportunity, but can't pay an inordinate amount to get their content in.

 

I'm not saying that everyone ever should be able to post content and expect to find it in the game, but creating an opportunity for those dedicated fans to at least have a chance at such a thing would have been a bro thing to do.

[Bryy]

I just don't believe wealth is a fair discriminator for who could or could not contribute something awesome. There are many poor (or just not as well off) people out there who might have really awesome ideas, or would be just really thrilled at the opportunity, but can't pay an inordinate amount to get their content in.

JFSOCC, I really do not believe that you actually think it's discrimination.

[Amentep]

There could be different ways to do it. You could send an E-mail out to everyone who backed telling them that there is a contests for those who care. You could put in a lottery of sorts (though that is less fair, imo)

I may be misremembering, but IIRC Kickstarter forbids contests/lotteries based on backing which makes sense as you'd have people who pledged the same tier getting different backer rewards. I'm pretty sure at least one kickstarter I had joined ran into that issue.

[Bryy]

 

There could be different ways to do it. You could send an E-mail out to everyone who backed telling them that there is a contests for those who care. You could put in a lottery of sorts (though that is less fair, imo)

I may be misremembering, but IIRC Kickstarter forbids contests/lotteries based on backing which makes sense as you'd have people who pledged the same tier getting different backer rewards. I'm pretty sure at least one kickstarter I had joined ran into that issue.

 

Besides the TOS:

 

1) What would the incentive to pledge higher be if everything was a lottery?

2) Giving stuff away for free defeats the purpose of fundraising.

3) While Obsidian could have made lotteries, it would be akin to the Add-Ons rather than towards an actual reward tier. The best example I can think of is if Obsidian showed us concept art for 3-4 party members, and we got to pick which one ended up in the game due to voting. Votes would be gained through Add-Ons. Each new party member update would reveal the winner and start the process over again.

[JFSOCC]

so, they'd have 50 paid options for people to add their own weapon, and they'd add 3 in a contest, after the kickstarter. How is that unfair? If you want to be sure, you can still pay for the backer option. If you can't afford to, then you can wait for the contest and hope for the best.

 

I think that is actually *more* fair. besides, I highly doubt it would cost them any backers for that tier. Those who can afford to aren't going to risk it when there is a certain option.

[Sensuki]

The Crowd-funding model is you pay to contribute content. You don't pay you don't get to contribute (unless you get hired).

[Amentep]

so, they'd have 50 paid options for people to add their own weapon, and they'd add 3 in a contest, after the kickstarter. How is that unfair? If you want to be sure, you can still pay for the backer option. If you can't afford to, then you can wait for the contest and hope for the best.

 

I think that is actually *more* fair. besides, I highly doubt it would cost them any backers for that tier. Those who can afford to aren't going to risk it when there is a certain option.

Ignoring the potential breach of the Terms of Service, you seem to miss the point that the extras are incentives for people to pay money to fund a game that is only going to exist if they make their funding. Why would they want to create a dis-incentive for paying as much as one can (and thus insuring they make their target)?

 

How is the raffle unfair? Its unfair to the people who pledged the money to get those tiers that rewarded backer content. Remember Kickstarter is not a store. You don't go in and say "Yes, I'd like to order one 'PROJECT ETERNITY' and I'd like a side order of 'being able to create content' please". You're putting your own money forward with an inherent risk that you will get nothing for your investment. And for taking that risk, Obsidian is giving the ability to shape a very small part of the game *if* the game got funded.

 

As an aside at least three posters here who did pledge for backer content ran their own contests for the tombstones they had in their pledge tiers. The contest lasted about three weeks all told as I recall. But they did that on their own, covering their own pledges and it did give forumites here a chance to offer their own wit for a chance to be included in the game (and I thought it was magnanimous of those posters to do it).

Edited May 29, 2014 by Amentep

[Bryy]

The idea of the raffle in itself in not unfair, but it would need to be something publicized OUTSIDE of Kickstarter. Such as, you wouldn't be able to put "$10,000 - make a weapon (limited to 50, but 3 will be done outside Kickstarter and for free)".

 

I think your main hangup is why didn't Obsidian themselves do this. Because there were plenty of contests, raffles, and participatory events done outside of the actual Kickstarter.

[Blarghagh]

The Crowd-funding model is you pay to contribute content. You don't pay you don't get to contribute (unless you get hired).

 

That's a very black and white view. It seems somewhat entitled - because some people paid for content, it automatically means nobody else can? I can understand the subjective moral objection (it is implied that it is a special privelege) but I don't see a rule.

 

Not to say I don't agree with you, mind. I would definitely raise an eyebrow in a "that's not a decent thing to do" manner, but I wouldn't set it as a requirement. What if the Make A Wish foundation contacted Obsidian - this kid will die of cancer before the game comes out, and his last wish is to create a weapon for PoE! Would Obsidian be obliged to say "sorry, he didn't pay for it"? An extreme and unlikely scenario perhaps, but in such a scenario I feel it would definitely be the decent thing to do. Making it a fixed rule removes that flexibility.

[Bryy]

What if the Make A Wish foundation contacted Obsidian - this kid will die of cancer before the game comes out, and his last wish is to create a weapon for PoE! Would Obsidian be obliged to say "sorry, he didn't pay for it"? An extreme and unlikely scenario perhaps, but in such a scenario I feel it would definitely be the decent thing to do. Making it a fixed rule removes that flexibility.

That's a huge strawman and you know it.

[Lephys]

^ Not really. It's merely an example illustrating the point that "you pay, you play" isn't the end-all be-all principle for deciding who should or shouldn't get to do something like partake in backer-content-type stuff. He's simply pointing out the exception to the rule.

 

To be a strawman, it'd have to be arguing a completely different rule.

[Blarghagh]

If it was a strawman I would be misrepresenting his argument, I don't see how I'm doing that. I'm merely presenting an alternate angle to consider. You're welcome to educate me if I'm wrong, Bryy.

[Bryy]

In no way does he imply that some example of that magnitude is applicable to this situation.

[Gfted1]

^Agreed. Some deathbed wish fulfillment is nowhere near the same as catering to people that forgot or never paid to begin with. I don't care about the "strawman" argument.

[Lephys]

The example's purpose is only to point out the factor in the whole equation, not to specifically be applicable to this very situation.

 

And, actually, I'd say it is applicable. Is it somehow impossible for a Make A Wish kid to love Obsidian and their games, and be ridiculously excited about PoE?

 

Either way, he is not misrepresenting your argument. Feel however you will about his particular example and its improbability. He admitted it was extreme. If it wasn't extreme, how would it be clear the factor he was trying to point out? If you just say "Suppose Bill the Dude is kinda broke, but really likes this game... would you turn him down for backer content just 'cause he didn't have the money?" I mean, that's pretty much the argument that was made already, and it was countered with "if you don't pay, you shouldn't get to do anything, 'cause that wouldn't be fair to paying people." The next logical step is a more potent example.

 

That's kind of the whole purpose of that example. To emphasize that "angle," as he put it. Are there not particular circumstances in which "if you didn't pay, you don't get to design stuff" doesn't cover all the bases?

[Bryy]

The example's purpose is only to point out the factor in the whole equation, not to specifically be applicable to this very situation.

 

And, actually, I'd say it is applicable. Is it somehow impossible for a Make A Wish kid to love Obsidian and their games, and be ridiculously excited about PoE?

 

Either way, he is not misrepresenting your argument. Feel however you will about his particular example and its improbability. He admitted it was extreme. If it wasn't extreme, how would it be clear the factor he was trying to point out? If you just say "Suppose Bill the Dude is kinda broke, but really likes this game... would you turn him down for backer content just 'cause he didn't have the money?" I mean, that's pretty much the argument that was made already, and it was countered with "if you don't pay, you shouldn't get to do anything, 'cause that wouldn't be fair to paying people." The next logical step is a more potent example.

 

That's kind of the whole purpose of that example. To emphasize that "angle," as he put it. Are there not particular circumstances in which "if you didn't pay, you don't get to design stuff" doesn't cover all the bases?

Either way, it's done and barring any Obsidian comments on the matter, it's no longer relevant other than to complain.

[Lephys]

*shrug*

 

Personally, I find such things fundamentally relevant to understanding and reasoning, even if they don't necessarily help decide any particular/current situation.

 

Just because Obsidian isn't going to go back in time and change how they happened to do things doesn't mean exploring the factors involved in such a situation is "irrelevant."

 

If you don't feel it's prudent to discuss it any further, then so be it. But that makes it neither a strawman, nor irrelevant.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Lephys

[Bryy]

It's not irrevelant for the future, no.

[Blarghagh]

I may have conveyed my opinion ineffectively by choosing that extreme hypothetical scenario.Let me try again.

 

Hypothetically, one of the special backer rewards was designing the art for a loading screen. Obsidian starts a PoE art contest and some hypothetically incredible artist wins the right for his awesome hypothetical piece to be featured as a loading screen as well.

 

This would violate the statement of "you didn't pay, you don't get to contribute", correct? But would you be opposed to a cool piece of art being featured just because it wasn't created by someone who backed that tier, even if the contest involved the community with the project and resulted in great content that took serious effort and enthousiasm for the project from the person who created it?

 

Like I said, I agree that in this case Obsidian shouldn't simply raffle off special backer content that was implied to be special rewards for people who went above and beyond to support the project. But there are other ways to go above and beyond to support a project than pledging money, and as long as that happens I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

tl;dr version: I don't think the possibility for non-backers  to contribute to the game should be written off entirely and instead it should be looked at on a case by case basis. This is just my opinion, you're welcome to disagree.

[Bryy]

I don't think the possibility for non-backers  to contribute to the game should be written off entirely and instead it should be looked at on a case by case basis. This is just my opinion, you're welcome to disagree.

This was never my stance and I agree completely with this. Just in the context of the fundraising client, where such a thing would be against TOS.

[rjshae]

 

I did not contribute to the campaign, those that did are keeping tight lips about it. To be honest I would have preferred an Enemy Codexian Adventuring Party that would be the hardest fight in the game But they changed from that to an Inn.

That's a great idea.  Their party name could have been the "Goon Squad" and they would be world renown for only fighting on the side of reviled dictators and tyrants.  In battle they would constantly fling insults as well and when one of them died they would say "I am suspending my belief!"

 

Led by a great flaming Troll named Xedoc....

Edited June 6, 2014 by rjshae

[Lephys]

That is, admittedly, a more accurate example, TrueNeutral. I've seen many a Kickstarter do that: Design-a-such-and-such contests. They are separate from the backer-tiers, true; you don't get to design one of the 10 $1000 characters or something, specifically, true. But, content is content, and the original sentiment expressed was, I believe, simply "sometimes it's a shame you don't get to help contribute some cool content unless you happen to, say, have a thousand dollars."

 

*thumbs up*

[Silent Winter]

^I see it as 2 different types though.

A 'raffle' gives it to a random entrant (who may or may not even care that much, a lot of people enter raffles because they're there.  Let's assume they do care - they may or may not have any talent).

The 2nd example was a 'pay through service' type - you win the competition by putting in skill and effort - you give the result (either in whole or under license) to the developers and in return you get to see it 'in-game'.  With a large enough community, you get at least some worthwhile efforts.

 

2nd type seems more of a win-win -> everyone gets a 'chance' but only those who put in enough effort and have something worth contributing can succeed.  (For everyone else, there's Mastercard )