TarickStonefire Comments

Page 1 of 27

  • 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 0
  • 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 naïvety, 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 +2
  • 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 0
  • 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 +58
  • 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 +2
  • 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 +4
  • 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 +1
  • 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 naïve 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
  • TarickStonefire 21/07/2014

    "Nothing was scammed, no one and I mean NO ONE has gotten rich from this effort or is even better off then when we started"
    Apart from the animator who took his $35,000, did two weeks work, then fucked off to Lucasarts without turning in so much as a pixel (allegedly). He's done damn well out of this.
    Reply +12
  • You've got male

  • TarickStonefire 19/07/2014

    @Acquiescence Gneder representation is bullshit to you?

    Huh. Seems like a few more of these articles are required then. Gender representation is not bullshit.
    Reply -13
  • Kickstarter-funded Yogventures canned, backers given Steam key for another game instead

  • TarickStonefire 19/07/2014

    @Elias289 But KS doesn't need regulating. And there's nothing in your reply that suggests it does. So, you're still not actually presenting anything with which to discuss, despite spending several paragraphs having a go at me, which I'm sure you enjoyed. Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 19/07/2014

    @Elias289 "@TarickStonefire Yeah yeah blah blah, whatever you say, genius."

    Wow, two responses and not a single one even attempting to engage on the points I made. Both just pitifully childish 'comebacks'.

    You're special.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 19/07/2014

    @c0br4_BR "This is why kickstarter for games should be banned from the face of the world. Its pure scam, only the one who have money to give away contribute, and AWAYS the consumer are pushed.. Like oculus VR and a few another projects."

    No, this is actually why KS is a good thing. It teaches idiots easily parted from their money to read, and consider, and understand the risks involved. And it teaches idiots who think they can conjure up a game in a few months and a few hundred thousand dollars that there's a hell of a lot more involved than that.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 18/07/2014

    @kestral "@Agarwel_Idiriz If so many people misunderstand how Kickstarter works, how is this not Kickstate's problem?"

    I guess it kind of is a problem, but it's not a problem that's theirs to own entirely. It's really a problem with the backers who choose to prefer to think they're buying a product, or pre-ordering a game, even though all the wording, everywhere, would suggest otherwise, which like you say makes it a problem for KS too.

    What KS has done to make it clear what a backer is getting themselves into should be more than enough, but perhaps there now needs to be a checkbox next to the final Payment screen that forces backers to acknowledge the reality of the risks involved. That would solve a lot of uncertainty.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 18/07/2014

    @Elias289 "It's painfully obvious from your 3 successive posts you're a bored, angry trolling knob too. Go and have a lie down, you might feel better."

    Assume whatever makes you feel better without having to address any of my points, sure.

    But I just like to correct idiots on the internet. And you're an idiot in need of correction. It's an affliction. But don't worry about me, I'll be okay.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 18/07/2014

    @Elias289 "I'm not a lawyer, I'm speculating, "

    Yeah, it's painfully obvious, too.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 18/07/2014

    @Elias289 "The premise of "you give us ££ and we'll give you this product by this date" sure seems like a retail transaction to me. "

    It can seem like whatever you want it to seem like, it doesn't change anything. You donated money to fund development. You did not buy, or pre-order, anything.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 18/07/2014

    @robertmullane "who do you think you are i payed for a game if you can't complete it well thats fair enough but don't try to turn this around i wan't a refund we all know how much money you guys make so you can refund us but won't. In the last year my opinion of you guys has gone down a lot you should be ashamed of yourself."

    Anothber one who thinks he understands but doesn't.

    YOU DID NOT PAY FOR A GAME. Sorry to let you down. You funded development of a game. Development that crashed and burned. This was the risk you took.

    You did not BUY anything.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 17/07/2014

    @Skirlasvoud "I don't get it. They haven't been able to fulfill the most basic reward in backing the product: an actual game. Doesn't that mean that everyone should get refunded by those terms? "

    That's not the most basic reward, it's the entire project itself. The most basic reward would be 'a badge' or 'a name in the credits'. That's a reward. That's what's referred to by rewards. Getting the actual product of the Kickstarted project itself is not a reward, it's the the risk you take when you contribute funding.

    Another one that thinks he knows what the words all mean, but doesn't.
    Reply -4
  • TarickStonefire 17/07/2014

    @jonbwfc "You know the details, That's great. But the assumption that therefore everyone else must be equally as clued up on the details is idealistic at best."

    It's all right there on the site. Short of forcing everyone that visits the site to sign a disclosure committing that they've read about what KS is, which actually isn't a bad idea in checkbox form at the bottom of a donation page, what more do you expect them to do?

    The info is there. Plainly. For all to see. People refuse to do so but throw their money at projects anyway. You're NEVER purchasing something. You're ALWAYS funding it. Not buying. Funding. Not pre-ordering. Funding.

    People are idiots.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 17/07/2014

    @DonCorleone Pretty sure it's quite easy to spend that kind of money in salaries and costs to developers over more than a year. Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 17/07/2014

    @jonbwfc "And as has been pointed out, the kickstarter met it's target. It's creators are therefore contractually obliged to provide the stated benefits or provide a refund. That sounds to me an awful lot more like a purchase transaction than an investment."

    Contractually obliged to provide rewards, but if the project being backed has gone under I'm not sure they're contractually obliged to provide any 'reward' made up of the product that was being backed.

    And those are the people I'm addressing, the ones that want a refund for not getting the game they thought they pre-ordered.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 17/07/2014

    @jonbwfc
    @TarickStonefire 'Kickstarter is not a shop. It's not a pre-order service. If a project gets funded but fails, that's the risk you took.'
    That's all very well, but it doesn't present itself like that.
    How come I knew that that's exactly what the situation is, then? Is it because I was clever enough to read about KS before using KS, perchance?

    You spend money there, you take responsibility for what you spent the money on and what that transaction represents.

    It (IMO intentionally) de-emphasises the risks involved by emphasising supply of the results. The vast majority of kickstarters are 'give me money, get thing', not 'give me money to develop my company'. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can't really then just say to people 'what, you didn't know it was a dog?'
    I fundamentally disagree that KS hides the risks. On EVERY SINGLE PROJECT there is a section called "Risks and Challenges". If you can't work it out, or won't read the full description of each project to understand what you're involving yourself in, that's on you.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 17/07/2014

    @arcam ":I'm a big supporter of Kickstarter, but I think it's good for things like this to happen from time to time, just to remind people that Kickstarter is not a pre-order store and that you should consider your money a donation."

    +1
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 17/07/2014

    @DrJiggles
    "I think the hands off approach Kickstarter takes in not forcing refunds is really gone to hurt it in the long run, especially as these kind of fuck ups occur more frequently. "
    No. Kickstarter is not a shop. It's not a pre-order service. If a project gets funded but fails, that's the risk you took, no refunds.

    I think the default stance of no refunds in the event of a funded project failing works just fine. Make exceptions on a case by case basis perhaps, but expecting refunds just shows how badly people understand what KS offers.
    Reply -4
  • Light review

  • TarickStonefire 19/07/2014

    @neo5h1nj1 Or perhaps the negativity in that rating is because people get tired of whiny kids hating on retro-style graphics, which has nothing to do with being a hipster or being lazy, and everything to do with things like stylistic choice and budget. Reply 0
  • David Braben explains Elite: Dangerous £100 premium beta

  • TarickStonefire 13/07/2014

    @AmmokK "Sorry, i just cannot afford spending so much money to help."

    And that's fine, there's plenty other people who are helping. I'm sorry you can't afford the access. I can't either, and I'd love to get an early look at this. But I don't have that cash and I'm not *that* big a fan as I never ever played Elite anyway (just Escape Velocity, the mid-90s Elite-lite-a-like for Mac).

    Where is it written in stone that he must offer the alpha access for free, given that's his only source of development funding in this business model? I don't get this attitude.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 13/07/2014

    @Shepard_Commander "GTFO with you rip off,scumbag and greedy practices"

    But the game costs £35. I don't understand the problem.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 13/07/2014

    @AmmokK "5-10 years ago developers were happy if they had people to test a broken game that were willing to give it a try anyway and give feedback.
    Nowaday, there are so many trolls and people jump on everything that is free, no matter what, they have to seperate them. Sadly this doesn´t do them any good in the long term since now, mostly fanboys pay to get access and many of them see the game better than it is."

    5-10 years ago developers got paid by publishers. That's not this model. So your comment is entirely irrelevant.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 12/07/2014

    I'm with UncleLou all the way on this.

    The price was set that high to dissuade all but the most ardent of fans, the most committed to helping out and getting involved. Yes, it's a shame it had to be money that made that distinction rather than just asking nicely for just big fans, or limiting a free alpha (which would have generated no funds for the development coffers, what a ridiculous idea that is), but that's what they needed and that's what that price largely guarantees.

    As for why it's still that price: because that's what KS backers paid, so that's what current purchasers pay, to keep it fair.

    There's no concern from me that this will lead to all games costing £100+_ as someone has repeatedly stated - because the game costs £35. The higher prices are for the game, plus DLC, plus paid alpha or beta access. If you want those but can't afford what they cost, tough!

    I don't see the issues, really.
    Reply 0
  • Grim Fandango revamp confirmed for PC, Mac

  • TarickStonefire 10/07/2014

    @Bertie "Grim Fandango is a LucasArts adventure - a point-and-click game from a bygone era."

    No it's not. See other comments.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 10/07/2014

    @Steve8282
    "Great news and all that but

    The Gaming Industry is getting as bad as the film industry for remaking things from the Past and re releasing

    this game is ancient history that should be left alone in my opinion"
    Well either it's "great news" or "this game is ancient history and should be left alone". Which is it? Bearing in mind it's not a remake, it's the same game made playable on modern devices, probably with a bit of graphics cleanup, and that'll be it.

    I think it's a good thing. This was one of the best adventure games, and few modern gamers have had the chance to play it. Without this effort, they probably never would.
    Reply +4
  • Face-Off: Sniper Elite 3

  • TarickStonefire 09/07/2014

    @gizmo "Very tempted by this, but put off by the ragdoll comedy moments - how much do they detract from the whole thing?"

    They're kind of the big selling point. The fact you're asking says to me you should not buy this game ;)
    Reply 0