TarickStonefire Comments

Page 1 of 28

  • August's PlayStation Plus free games include Fez, Crysis 3

  • TarickStonefire 01/08/2014

    It is *terrible* of me, but I just can't enjoy Fez after all the shit that surrounds the guy that made it.

    I actually tried the demo years ago and it did nothing for me really so I know I'm not missing out on much, but every time I think of giving it another go I remember his eye-opening temper tantrum in Indie Game The Movie and the numerous temper tantrums he's thrown since.

    Regardless of whether he may have had a point each of those times, it's the tantrums he throws while making the point that persevere in my memory and actually put me off playing his game.

    Which, like I say, I know is terrible of me.
    Reply 0
  • Your first glimpse of the new Hitman movie in action

  • TarickStonefire 29/07/2014

    @Wrathbone "He could have at least properly shaved his head."

    All I wanted to say. It's just weak, what they've done there.
    Reply +1
  • Face-Off: The Last of Us Remastered

  • TarickStonefire 29/07/2014

    The double-dip dilemma. Should you buy the PS4 version if you already own it on PS3?
    No, because WHYYYYY?
    Reply +3
  • Rust dev angers fans by announcing new prototype Riftlight

  • TarickStonefire 29/07/2014

    @chanandler Firstly, love the use of the word "son" - really sets up that you're a big man and I'm a little boy and you're taking charge here. Yessir. Sorry sir.

    But secondly, "don't think I said that" - don't think you said what?

    You said "LOL of course you don't agree", as if to say his input isn't going to be considered valid as he's the one being accused, so I added that I don't agree either, and I have nothing to do with the project.

    That's really all I said. What are you objecting to?
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 29/07/2014

    @chanandler "LOL of course you don't agree, why would you after the statements you have made?"

    I don't agree either. I think he's right, and I've got nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    So LOL it up all you like.

    (he wrote that in response to Garry J Newman posting: "I don't agree that the best way to make anything is to throw as many bodies on it as possible. I don't agree that making something fast is better than making it properly.

    You can see how far Rust has evolved by reading the devblogs here: http://playrust.com/")
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 29/07/2014

    Every person who's criticising them for this is just doing so because they've got little idea how business works. Reply +2
  • When too much is not enough

  • TarickStonefire 28/07/2014

    @gandhimasterfly "yep I assume they're rich. If they are not, they've still had the backing of MASSIVE companies and so shouldn't be using kickstarter. The risks are being taken from the rich/poor experienced deva/actors and being put on to the public. Can't be right surely? Each to their own of course, not being forced to back anybody."

    Okay well first of all you're wrong to assume that they're rich, because they aren't.

    Secondly, having the backing of massive publishers in the past is completely irrelevant. They only paid up for the game that was being made at the time, and the terrible pay structure of going with a publisher is why these companies aren't rich just because they had some hit games. It's the ENTIRE reason why these companies are now avoiding those massive publishers to go the KS route instead.

    Thirdly, the devs still take risks - they've got to make money and without a game to sell they can't, and without money to make a game they can't sell one, so there's risk for them as well as anyone who backs them. But they also make it very clear to backers what the risks are, with the mandatory RISKS section of every single KS project. So yes there are risks to backers - so what? Don't like the risks, don't back.

    And yes you're right, you're not forced to back anything you don't want to. Which is why I don't understand the complaints about KS as a concept: don't want to back a thing? Well just wait until the thing is available for sale officially and buy it then, complete with money back guarantee if it doesn't work :)

    (unless it's a game, ironically)
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 28/07/2014

    @gandhimasterfly "it doesn't pay salaries, that's why being a content maker requires investment. But it shouldn't be no risk for people apart from donators."

    Sorry, I don't know what you mean about risk, there, too many negatives!

    And it seems like you agree that experience isn't money, and games need experience AND money. So... are we in agreement?
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 28/07/2014

    @gandhimasterfly "These experienced devs/people have the resources to invest and take the risks themselves, rather than getting *us* to take those risks instead. "

    I'm sorry, since when does 'experience' pay bills and salaries?

    Money pays those things, and their companies did not have enough to fund full period of development required to make a game.

    So yes, they asked us. We're the ones wanting the games they would like to make but which publishers wouldn't pay for, so they asked us to decide if we wanted it bad enough to help them fund it.

    If you don't trust them, and you don't want the game bad enough, you wait.

    If you do, you fund them.

    I funded BA, not been let down, the game is looking great and the first half was a pleasure.

    Similarly Prison Architect, not finished yet but a joy to watch come together and a lot of fun to play.

    Similarly Door Kickers.

    Similarly FTL.

    Similarly Divinity.

    Others not so much but I'm careful where I spend my money.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 28/07/2014

    @gandhimasterfly But Double Fine were close to bankruptcy. They didn't have the money to make Broken Age.

    Similarly, Harmonix didn't have the money to make a new Frequency. Well documented how people thought they were rich but actually they weren't.

    Couldn't give a stuff about Braff because I'm not talking movies.

    I might concede on Molyneux but basically you're just pulling names out of thin air based on what you assume their bank account should be. Why? Because they made some hit games in the past, they must be rich?
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 28/07/2014

    @melnificent "An experiences studio head should be better at this than a single software dev."

    And for the umpteenth time, DF had no experience of launching a Kickstarter and getting ten times the money they asked for.

    They didn't know how to react. Yes sure they know about spiralling costs and deadlines slipping, but they don't know how tens of thousands of gamers are going to react if the gamers give them three million for a three hundred thousand project, it was a new experience.

    They're also put their hands up and said, this was new and we made some mistakes. But they're still working through to complete what they promised.

    I don't see why anyone is having a go at them for that, other than to be all "I'm an internet hardass and I know BETTER THAN THEM."
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 28/07/2014

    @gandhimasterfly
    "I hate kickstarter because it's become somewhere rich devs go to get projects paid for. It should not be used this way, it should be for devs/people to get funded when they have no where else to go to get their chance."
    If you could just name some of these rich devs who, presumably, already had enough money in the bank to make the games that publishers were saying no to but fans were saying they wanted?

    Please don't say Double Fine. You're going to say Double Fine aren't you? Please don't.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @misinformed You're comparing encouragement to put some more money into the development of a massive project, with purchasing DLC.

    Backing, and purchasing, they don't compare well.

    I see what you're saying: that often the extra amount that brings a project up to the next stretch goal doesn't seem to be matched by the presumed effort involved in making the extra thing in that goal.

    Firstly I don't think in the majority of cases it's an issue. You claim that a single 3D model might not be worth the extra in your opinion, but are you considering the extra skill, time, tools, bug-testing, design work, etc that might be required to do that?

    I mean, if you were technically 'buying' that thing as opposed to it being a reward or a perk or something you might have a point regarding the value of the purchase and the amount of profit they're creaming, but when it's backing we're talking about, that money isn't so much profit as it is more funding to make the existing project even better, *plus* the extra thing they toss into the stretch goal.

    I don't see the issue really. I think it's all edging towards uncomfortable entitlement, when really this should all be about whether you want to help a developer and be part of a project getting made, which is the first thing I consider when backing a project.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @Silverflash
    "That's a good point, but I'm not sure that it is up to backers to have to swallow it. Backers can see when a target has been reached - if they continue to contribute, they do so knowing this."
    I'm with you, but experience suggests the internet gets all entitled about this shit and starts making demands they have no right to make, but loudly enough that the mood turns rather sour and devs feel compelled to Add More Stuff as the total keeps on rising.

    Sure, it's not the worst thing in the world to get more money than you anticipated needing, but you know what I mean I hope!

    "I've always wondered about a kickstarted game's revenue generation post launch. If the majority of your buyers have ponied up as part of the fundraise, you've got to keep some in hand for after you finish, no? That alone would necessitate a stretch-goal-freeze at some point, IMHO."
    I would say yes that would be the sensible thing to do, to keep you going until the revenue starts rolling in (hopefully).

    But again the internet would loudly disagree I fear, suggesting that they money they put in was for development only, not to pay running costs once the game is done, waaaaah etc.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @melnificent "If the idea is so good that more people want in then why can't they take it as profit... Any problems with the project that arise can be helped with the cash "profit" already generated.

    If double fine had left it at a 300k project fine. Better than the feature creep mess they got into."

    See, the thing is people are soooo quick to criticise DF and "the feature creep mess they got into" but they were one of the first to try this, to make it way bigger than intended, to learn the hard way about how to reign in expectations and plans when landing that sort of funding unexpectedly, and all that.

    And they're still learning, because game development, as a lot of naÔve gamers are currently learning, takes waaaaay longer than anyone usually anticipates, and is an extremely fluid experience that can't be pinned down to specifics and dates too easily while it's still going.

    I don't get the negative talk about that. If anything they've led the way by being entirely open about all of it, mistakes and all.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @Seafort
    "The project I'm worried about atm is the biggest one out there, Star Citizen. If this one project crashes and burns it will be the end of crowd funding. "
    No it won't. It'll merely mark a whole new shitstorm on the internet about how it's the end of crowd funding and how it was all a big scam in the first place and fools and their money and blah blah blah, and the chap behind it will have a lot to answer for and a reputation in tatters.

    Crowdfunding as a concept will be fine, in the same way as people don't suddenly all stop using planes when one crashes.

    Assuming it does fail, of course, which at the moment is nothing but a big If, and rather close to what I'd call a strawman argument.
    Reply +4
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @misinformed Stretch goals aren't extra t-shirt rewards, they're things added to the project itself. Sometimes they don't add much work, other times they do relative to the money being put in.

    Anyway, the point is really that at some point Creators should not feel they owe anything extra should they get more than they asked for.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @Eoin_M
    "I guess that is the issue with software, there is no real variable cost to development. As such I don't think developers should feel too bad to pocket the extra funds they raise."
    I agree with this, but given the situation Double Fine were in (only wanted to make a small adventure for three hundred thousand, got three million), at what point should devs reconsider where some of that money could go in terms of new features?

    Because that's a hard pill for a lot of backers to swallow, a 2.7 million 'profit' that just goes into the company itself.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    I agree that stretch goals are a problem the way you describe them as becoming too much like feature creep.

    However, the root of the problem is with both the backers that expect to see ever more features being packed in for their money, as well as the developers who condition them to expect that.

    Prison Architect continues to take money, it's proved very lucrative for Introversion, but they've long, long since stopped adding goals to the funding and promising ever more ambitious features as the money rolls in. Instead they've got their design plan that only they know about and more than enough money to make it, and they're plugging away.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @thestage "you've backed 60 kickstarter games? really?"

    No, he said projects.
    Reply +8
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @PearOfAnguish As someone who has no interest in SC and didn't back it, I don't see any meaningful points in your post.

    You've got no reason to assume SC will implode. You're just hoping/guessing out of meanness.

    Also, so what if it arrives 'late'? Does it even have a release date, rather than a vague guess? It'll be done when it's done and backers should be aware of that for *any* game they back, not just SC.

    If it arrives missing features, again so what? So long as the game that arrives is as fun to play as people hoped when backing it, who cares which features that weren't named got added, and which features that were named had to get cut? Game development is a fluid thing.

    As for what people choose to spend their money on, pro-tip: let others worry about what they spend their own cash on.
    Reply +11
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @Ares42 Okay, my bad, seemed a bit snooty...

    My take is that the satisfaction should come as equally from the 'helping to make something happen' as it should from getting a reward or the finished project in your hand. So, even if something doesn't quite go how it hoped, you helped make someone's dream a reality - the dream of trying this project they wanted to do.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @ItsLatch I'm not sure it's KS's responsibility to monitor and judge every single project that goes up there, I think the prospective backers need to take some responsibility for their actions when in charge of a computer and a credit card. If you're able to identify those as dodgy, so can anyone else.

    I think KS gets involved when everyone alerts them to the extreme dodginess of a campaign, as happened with Areal or whatever it's called.
    Reply +6
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @masseffectman
    "I guess when you have enough disposable income / insanity to back "over 60 projects" on Kickstarter, it doesn't seem too much of a biggie when a crooked dev runs off with your cash. Cool."
    Guess as much as you like, all you're doing here is demonstrating a certain level of jealousy about his levels of disposable income.
    Reply +5
  • TarickStonefire 26/07/2014

    @Ares42
    You've backed 60+ projects ? =o

    If that's just from the last 2 years (when Kickstarter became a thing) that's as many or more projects than there are real big studio developed games per year.

    I have to wonder what kinda satisfaction-rate you're getting out of that.
    Presumably enough satisfaction to be perfectly happy to continue donating where he feels it's deserved.
    Reply +7
  • Frozen Endzone re-named to Frozen Cortex, rejigged in large update

  • TarickStonefire 24/07/2014

    I really genuinely hope this world-stopping traumatic event that is 'some guy on the internet not understanding a very brief description of a game in development that multiple explanatory videos exist for, while nobody else really sees the problem' gets sorted out soon. Lives are at stake. Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 24/07/2014

    @penhalion "The fact that EG didn't immediately call them on that description says volumes."

    I don't think a news story is the place to offer criticism of that nature, really. The fact you leapt to have a go at EG is the only thing speaking volumes to me.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 24/07/2014

    Going from a vaguely descriptive name to one that could be literally *anything*? I'm not seeing the logic there. Reply 0
  • Yogventures dev to "dissolve" following Yogscast-backed project failure

  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    @PlugMonkey Yeah but it wasn't really other people's money once other people gave it to them to fund this project. I mean I see what you're saying but I'm still not seeing how Winterkewl did anything criminal. Them filing for bankruptcy is pretty bad for them. Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    @PlugMonkey
    "How much sympathy would anyone have for some chump on Watchdog who'd paid a builder $35k up front and then never seen them again? Not a lot! That's not naivety, it's criminal negligence."
    No, it's not criminal negligence to pay someone a full fee without a contract and before they've done the work, it's stupidity and naÔvety, both of which we've all agreed Winterkewl were guilty of to trust someone without a contract.

    Not sure what you're adding here. To also quote my original post, "Not sure what else there is to say about all this right now."
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    @Vixzer
    "I invest my money in a promissing project that I would like to see delivered BUT if the project is NOT delivered beware and be prepared to pay me (and every other backer) back!"
    If you put money into a project to back it, to fund it, and the project fails, well, it spent your money in the process of failing. You ain't getting it back. Good luck demanding something that you gave away to be spent, that was indeed spent.

    If I were you I'd just stick to buying finished products and demanding a refund if it doesn't work.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    @Ryze
    "Clowns, and this is why these clowns don't get my money.

    Deliver, and I'll pay a premium price when I'm impressed - otherwise fuck off.

    Gimps."
    Is this your attitude to all KS projects, or just this one, in hindsight?

    If it's your attitude to all KS campaigns, how do you suppose the premium product is going to get made if everyone calls the creators gimps and tells them to fuck off when they ask for backing to fund it?

    ;)
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    @craziii "how is that even legal though? he was pay for 6 months of work but quit after only 2 weeks. and still got the 35k? we need lawyers for this. but I think it is easy enough to see that it cannot be legal."

    If there wasn't a contract that stated he had to provide a certain amount of work in return for the money, lawyers can't do shit.

    So I'm guessing their contract, if there was one, didn't mention this.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 22/07/2014

    @megatronx I think they really honestly were the most clueless people ever when it came to running and protecting a business, and employing other people.

    Even a basic freelance contract off the web would allow mention of how much usable work was to be turned in for the money, so the fact he was able to take it and go suggests the only contract that could have existed must have been written on a napkin in crayon.
    Reply +12
  • TarickStonefire 22/07/2014

    @lancashirered
    "This is why I don't kick start, early access or founders edition, money up front just isn't a good idea."
    I dunno, I think you need to take each project that interests you on its own merits.

    The only KS game I backed is Broken Age and I believed it would get made, so I didn't feel I was saying goodbye to the £100 I spent there.

    Apart from the fact that I trusted DF to not completely fuck up, there was always the promise that even if they did the documentary would be a fascinating insight into the trials of making a game and running a business.

    Plus I was a kid when Monkey Island etc hit, so I felt really close to the whole motivation to make that project happen.

    But I've also backed Prison Architect which is turning out great, and Door Kickers which is also going great guns right now, pun intended. And Kerbal Space Program, but only after it had been going for a year or so.

    You have to decide if you're putting money in to get your hands on the thing being made, or because you really want to back these people making this thing. If it's the former, you've really got to think hard about just waiting until the thing is commercially available and buying it then.

    For that reason I've nearly put money into so many big KS and Early Access games, such as Wasteland 2 and Elite Dangerous, but stopped short because I knew I wasn't *that* passionate about playing early buggy builds.
    Reply +8
  • TarickStonefire 22/07/2014

    Not sure what else there is to say about all this right now.

    I feel for everyone involved, but I think the biggest mystery is not where the $150,000 went, but what the conversation was like between the artist they paid $35,000 up front to, and Winterkewl, when it became clear he was fucking off with their money just two weeks into the project.

    How does that even happen?
    Reply +59
  • PopCap is making another new Peggle game

  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    Are we *really* that excited about Peggle: Free To Play?

    Or even Peggle 3, for that matter?
    Reply +1
  • A few extraordinary pledges secure Areal Kickstarter success

  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    @penhalion "It's a con what did you expect to happen. The aim they would have had now was to get the funds released to them as quickly as possible for the getaway! Kickstarter will hand over the funds it is able to grab and then make requests for the remainder in the usual "You pledged please pay the fuck up" manner."

    ??

    Doesn't backing on KS require you put in a credit card number which is then verified, to ensure that when the project is funded the money can be taken?
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    @skunkfish
    "I don't think it's really on for you to give a link to their website which asks for donations when it's such an obvious scam..."
    That presumes the majority of EG's reader are gullible idiots. It's on them if they want to throw money at this nonsense, not EG.

    Without the link I wouldn't be able to as easily check out the site and instantly spot that it offers absolutely no guarantees about how safe your money is if they don't make the funding they need, or even how much funding they need in the first place, or how much they've already got.

    It's gone from dodgy KS to even dodgier, totally unverifiable website pledging.

    LOLOLOL, as the kids say.
    Reply +5
  • TarickStonefire 23/07/2014

    Why do they only want $50,000? You can't make *shit* with $50,000, let alone what they're suggesting making. It wouldn't even cover a couple of extra programmers for a year. Reply +2
  • Yogventures studio reveals troubled development, how Yogscast "lost faith" early on

  • TarickStonefire 22/07/2014

    @Diablo13 "Instead of Kickstarter, why not just cut out the middleman and offer SHARES in the company to backers?"

    1) most of the creators don't have shares to offer, what with not being publicly floated companies.

    2) backers are putting money in to fund a particular project, not a whole company.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 22/07/2014

    @Diablo13
    "I have the perfect term for it; MUG PUNTERS!
    Now try telling me that's not true because it certainly was in this case."
    You're free to use whatever derogatory terms to like to insult strangers who took Yogscast at their word and donated money to fund development of a game they wanted to play.

    Personally I think you're being rather rude, as everyone who backs a project on KS does so at their own risk. Many have been called 'mugs' by people like you for backing things that turned out just fine.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    @DrGravity
    "EDIT: On your point about buying a car this isn't really that. With your example you pay the money when you collect the car and anything afterwards is your responsibility. You already have your "reward". No reputable motoring magazine or website would publish an advert saying "send money now and you'll get a car later." The magazine / website says your legally entitled to said car but if you don't get it don't involve them it's between you and the buyer even though they pocketted 5% of all the money. That would really puss people off! Nobody would (hopefully) be stupid enough to do that yet Kickstarter is the same thing and it's considered ok."
    Good point about the unsuitable comparison, but that also serves to make my point about how any comparison to a shop really doesn't work. It's not a shop. And you're not sending money and 'hoping' to get your product later.

    You're donating money to a project to make a thing that doesn't currently exist, because you think the Creator is onto something and you want to see them succeed and you'd like the thing they're making in the process. If you really want that thing but don't want to get involved in the risk of backing the business in order to get it, then wait until the thing is on sale for real in a year or two and buy it then.

    KS is for backing a venture. You're putting money in to back that venture. And there's no guarantees of the venture succeeding.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    @DrGravity
    "Let be clear I'm not saying Kickstarter are legally obliged to refund backers. They're not. I'm saying it's morally reprehensible that they can just take their money and shrug their shoulders and what's worse is that people have no issue with it."
    And I continue to have no idea why you think that!

    KS provides a framework for Creators to put up projects and ask for money.
    KS (and Amazon) provides a safe way for Backers to pledge money.
    KS (and Amazon) provides a service for Creators that collects the money successfully pledged and delivers it to the Creator.

    That's all they do. That's it. Everything else - EV-ER-Y-THING - is the Creator's responsibility.

    So if the Creator fucks up, take the Creator to task over it. Very clear, very simple.

    Why, oh why, oh why, is it anything whatsoever to do with KS if some random Creator fucks up? You want KS to spend time taking personal responsibility for all the hundreds of thousands of projects on there?
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    @DrGravity Ahh. Thanks. Well it's very clear: backers have legal recourse against the creators who took their money and didn't meet their legal obligations to provide the agreed reward.

    That part about good faith also calls into question that a backer should immediately launch legal proceedings if they don't get their reward. This just underlines the difference between a regular purchase/receipt arrangement with a shop, and backing a KS project, as well as the uncertainty involved when you back a project.

    It's not Kickstarter's fault if you don't get your rewards. Why do you think it is?
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    @FuzzyDuck Cute, but I think there's rules about it. There needs to be a 'thing' being made, you can't just kickstart a lifestyle. I suppose you could say the 'thing' is a photographic document of your successful uni education at the end of however many years you're there? ;) Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    @DrGravity Well... I see it like this. You see a car you like second hand in a Second Hand Car Ads magazine. You check the car out, it seems fine, you decide to buy the car. A week later it screws up and it's undeniably a fault the seller should have made you aware of, they've broken their contract with you. Do you have a go at the magazine that sold the ad to the seller, or the seller?

    The way I see it, if the company you backed via KS screws up, it's the company you backed you have to take issue with. Yes, KS gets a lot from a $500,000 campaign they take 5% from, but unless they're forming a contract with you that states that KS takes some responsibility for the inability of projects to do the right thing, I'm not sure how or why a backer would turn to KS.

    It doesn't really matter what eBay does. I see why you make the comparison, but in eBay's case you are buying an actual thing. You are a customer, purchasing from a franchisee in eBay's network of 'shops'. It's not quite the same as you donating money to a project to make a thing that might not even happen. The difference is subtle but important.

    It comes back to: you make a decision when you back a project, whether you can stand to lose the money if the project goes tits up and can't even afford to send out the rewards. The risks have been made clear, so while you might think it's crazy that we 'let' KS 'get away' with this, they've informed you of the risks at every step, or at least made those risks clear to you. You can't then go ahead, get burned, and go running back to KS. It smacks a little to me of "Well, someone's got to take the blame, KS has got lots of money, let's make KS take it, even though I knew there were risks and I backed anyway."

    I do see your point, but I don't think it's right.

    EDIT: As I think about it, I am interested in what KS says about being legally entitled to rewards. Can someone link me to their statement on the legal entitlement, and if KS says anything at all about what you should do if the Project has no money to send those rewards? If they say the rewards are a legal entitlement, they *must* say what the legal recourse is, no?
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    @DrGravity Firstly I agree with you. It is closer to a pre-order platform than an investment platform. But by the same token, grass is closer to blue than it is to black, so it's not really a point that says much.

    Secondly, it's not an investment platform either, so people who cite the risks of investing are using the wrong terminology too.

    People who pay money towards projects on KS are backers. Not pre-orderers, not purchasers, not customers, not investors. Backers.

    KS's position is not "we got our cut so it's not a problem" - that's words you've decided they implied, and so you've made them up and put them in their mouths. I get where you're coming from, but the reality here is that KS provides a service for project makers to put up a project and ask for backing, and for backers to offer to put money in assuming the project achieves all the funding it's asked for. Their cut pays for that. It's really very small - about 5%.

    In providing this service for both parties they make it really very clear how it works, what you're doing when you back a project, and that you must assess the risks, which are listed on each and every project page.

    I do see your point, but I think if you back a project on KS, you do so knowing full well that even if it gets the funding the project might crash and burn. If you choose to go ahead, on your head be it.

    And for that reason I'm not so sure that KS is letting anyone down here, and have yet to see a good explanation of why/how they are that doesn't use entirely the wrong terminology. If you have one, I'd genuinely be interested.
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    @DrGravity
    "This artist thing makes no sense - you wouldn't need a provision in the contract about the artist working for another company! Even if you have no experience with contracts a basic one would be we pay you £35k and you make the art for our game. If the artist can no longer fulfil his part of the deal because he gained employment elsewhere then he would at least need to repay the money!"
    Not if there's not a clause in the contract that says so, and there wasn't. I'm not even sure there was a contract at all. It's incredibly hard for me to fathom too because even as a naÔve n00b I've never worked for that sort of pay without a contract, and even some crappy thing you pull off the web will include something about having to actually turn in work or the contract is null and void.

    They won't make that mistake ever, ever again.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    @DrGravity
    "Despite what people say Kickstarter IS actually closer to a pre-order system than an investment platform with one big difference to pre-ordering from a retail outlet: if you never receive what you were promised you have no recourse!"
    It could be living in the same house as a pre-order system, it still wouldn't BE ONE, no matter how closely you think it resembles one.

    You're right though, it does resemble one, which is why I think there needs to be a tick box every backer has to check before their money is taken, that confirms the backer has read a specific page on the KS site that describes in plain terms what KS is and is not.
    Reply +7