gaming Crowdfunding Is a Bad Idea

[Guest]

So with the news today of Allison Road, a spiritual successor to Silent Hills (the cancelled game), this brings up a topic to me that I have been saying for close to 2 years. Now I know Allison Road didn't actually get fully funded, but the point still stands: Kickstarter just doesn't work all the time. If I recall, they actually proved that only about 30% of Kickstarter projects actually deliver and when they do, well... They don't always deliver what they promise sadly.

 

Yogventures - A game that was to be made about the Yogscast. It received successful funding of over $567,000 and the game was expected within 8 months of funding, but it got delayed over 2 years and finally cancelled because of poor money management.

 

BronyDoc - While not a video game, BronyDoc was a project by John De Lancie and Tara Strong for $60,000 upon Kickstarter, they increased the budget to $200,000 and that was met, then they increased it to $270,000 which was also met with over $322,000. In other words, more than the money they were asking for and then they turned around and tried to sell the DIGITAL copies of the film which they should have paid nothing out of pocket for for a whopping $15 a pop. When people responded by torrenting the film, De Lancie attempted to guilt trip the fandom and claim that they were out money on a project that they were GIVEN more than they asked for. The final product of course was a pandered video that didn't even fully cover all sides of the fandom was was clearly made to toot the brony horn to get a quick and easy payday.

 

Skullgirls - Another example of a "successful" Kickstarter that produced a game that more or less fell off the face of the earth. Skullgirls failed to truly attract a huge audience and now the developers to make a second game are relying on Kickstarter again asking for over a million dollars. Kickstarter more or less just created a no risk business model for them where even after their game tanked they themselves suffered no consequences.

 

 

And now Them's Fightin' Herds is trying to get out there... Honestly, Kickstarter projects that are made to circumvent copyright generally fail. On top of this, they are often always run by people who have no idea how to run a business. Them's Fightin' Herds doesn't really have a competitive scene lined up for it, which is kind of necessary for a fighting game and it's why Skullgirls tanked. People keep not listening thinking Crowdfunding is a good idea, but a majority of the time, you're just paying for someone to have a no risk business venture so their ambition to actually finish the product or make a quality product is low because they are not having to repay investors.

[Megas 27,742]

Crowdfunding sounds like a good idea, but more often than not the people starting these KS are rarely fully committed to the projects and either release a poor product or cancel it completely, wasting everyone's money. Remember the Ouya?

 

Sure there are some actual success stories like Shovel Knight but those are far and few in between

[Guest]

Crowdfunding sounds like a good idea, but more often than not the people starting these KS are rarely fully committed to the projects and either release a poor product or cancel it completely, wasting everyone's money. Remember the Ouya?

 

Sure there are some actual success stories like Shovel Knight but those are far and few in between

Exactly, why throw your money at things that "might" happen? And honestly, if the product IS successful, you deserve more than a "copy". You just funded their company, you deserve a cut of the profits. Crowdfunding is just an easy way for people to circumvent needing investors for a 100% profit venture.

[Celtore 2,770]

I have to agree, crowd funding is pretty hit or miss, leaning more towards miss. There's no security for my $20, where it goes, what it does and whether the project that money went to will actually succeed. The humble bundle guys are really good with that regard, letting you split your donations to various causes of your choosing.

 

Some projects are pretty safe though, the Krita guys have been doing a pretty fantastic job with their crowd funding efforts thus far. But seeing as they're open source guys with an already existing project, they don't really have much to lose.

[Concerned Bystander 2,903]

I wouldn't say it's a bad idea per se, the whole point of crowdfunding is to raise money for the type of projects that cannot attract conventional funding due to being too risky.  It gives enthusiasts of the project a chance to contribute to realising it.  However, it should never be viewed in the same way as more conventional investments and you should never pledge money that you can't afford to lose completely for no return.

 

A lot of these projects are 'labours of love' so to speak, that will never make any significant money, and so any financial return to the maker will be negligible if there is any at all.  Because you want to see this thing made, you are making a contribution, not an investment.  If it's an investment opportunity that you're looking for, that offers a financial return then you should be looking at stocks or shares instead of expecting to get it from crowdfunding campaigns.

[Guest]

 

 

I wouldn't say it's a bad idea per se, the whole point of crowdfunding is to raise money for the type of projects that cannot attract conventional funding due to being too risky.

 

That's part of the problem. If it's too risky to attract people who are professionals and know how to gauge if something is a good business investment, then it's probably too risky overall. It's more or less taking advantage of those who don't know any better sadly.

 

 

 

A lot of these projects are 'labours of love' so to speak, that will never make any significant money, and so any financial return to the maker will be negligible if there is any at all.  Because you want to see this thing made, you are making a contribution, not an investment.  If it's an investment opportunity that you're looking for, that offers a financial return then you should be looking at stocks or shares instead of expecting to get it from crowdfunding campaigns.

 

Many of these projects DO make a return though, a significant one. One to get companies off the ground and now are making profits. Look at Red Barrel, they made Outlast and it got so successful they now have a company and are making a sequel funded by profits from the first game and making cash. The people who funded the first game are not going to see any of that. It more or less created a "no risk" business venture for them.

 

That's my issue, when people found companies upon crowdfunding and then turn into a company that is generating a profit every year and they don't pay back the initial investors because of technicality. While I agree you shouldn't invest in crowdfunding for a return, a lot of the time what they give people vs. what the creators get in return isn't a fair trade. 

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,661]

Crowdfunding, to me, is becoming more and more exploitative these days. It really seems like at this point as way for some people to get heir 'project' funded the easy way, by taking money from the public to do so. It can be an awesome idea, things like Yookalaylee and Bloodstained look like amazing games already so those could very well be the apogee of Kickstarter success stories, but most of them are not like that.

[PiratePony 8,475]

OP summed up my feelings. I wish there was a platform to invest money for a stake in a project, so you get some sort of ROI and hold the project makers accountable. Imagine Shark Tank for the everyman. Because there's some projects I see that I wouldn't mind owning a piece, but I'd rather save a donation for charity.

[Soren Vigil 2]

Crowd funding is hit and miss, sometimes you'll find something actually worth supporting and it'll do amazingly though a lot of it is Kickstarter crap and Indiegogo excrement.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I disagree entirely. People should be allowed to do with their money what they wish and it has yielded genuine successes. You don't want to crowd fund, fine, but if someone says they have an idea and they need some scratch to do it, crowd funding is a good grass roots alternative to the conventional route.

[cmarston1 5,959]

After the sheer amount of disappointment that Mighty No 9 caused, I can see why crowdfunding isn't the best idea.

Edited July 2, 2016 by cmarston1

[Discordian 6,015]

Crowdfunding by itself is a great way for people who don't have the fame or resources to get money from big business investors. The fact that so many campaigns have failed to deliver is on the people behind them, not the idea itself.

 

Sometimes things cost money to get good production values out of them. Game developers need to buy fancier software, musicians need better equipment and a studio to record things in, etc. It's extremely hard to get the kind of money these things cost through your day-to-day jobs. Legitimate game development software, for example, can cost thousands of dollars. You aren't gonna save up that much money for several years depending on your job.

[Steve Piranha 29,428]

The way I see it, crowdfunding is a way for not well known projects to be funded, as not everyone is willing to invest. It in itself it's not a bad idea, problem is you're basically gambling in them, as they can either underperform or not deliver at all. People are free to spend their money in them, but they must have knowledge of the risks involved

[Rescue Sunstreak 13]

Not too sure where you get "Thems fighting herds" is vaporware. They are on track for release, artwork is done, engine is done. They are two characters away from done with the product. I would say that is pretty much a done deal at this point. 

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

People are free to spend their money in them, but they must have knowledge of the risks involved

 

 

I think that sums up the situation fairly well.

 

Crowdfunding shouldn't be confused with investment, but in an ideal world it would have a similar level of scrutiny and oversight. So when someone comes along claiming to be able to make X with Y amount of money to a given timetable Z, someone with an appropriate level of qualification and experience should examine their claim (which should be detailed with a clear structure and mileposts that its progress can be checked against.)

 

But until such an ideal system is found, it's basically a way for people with disposable income to help fund a game they want - with all the pitfalls that game development has.

[TinkyBlue 71]

I think it's all about trust. I wouldn't give money on a project just because the idea sounds great, but also because I can be sure the people behind it will actually put all their strength in its realization.

For example, few years back, I donated money for a French webserie. They wanted 35000€ to make a film, they broke the european record when ended up having 681 046 € instead. In the end we got 3 full length high quality movies, which were actually pretty awesome by the way.

 

So yeah, crowd funding is great. But you should really think twice before donating. Is this really such a great idea ? If yes, can I trust the team to actually make it happen ? Cause after all, it's your money.