[Flipside]

I remember having an interesting conversation once about the difference between kick-starting and buying shares. The argument being that if you bought shares in a company, not only would you be funding the project, but you could also expect a financial reward if that project is a success. The person I was talking to argued that there was just as much risk involved with kick-starting, but not the same level of reward.

The counter-argument was the fact that, in order for this to be the case, the company would have to be in position where it could sell shares, which means relinquishing levels of centralization and control for profit, which can actually dilute the original creative intent of the game. We've all experienced the outcome of shareholder demand causing an early release of a game at some point.

[Luis Dias]

Well the big difference is that in Kickstarter you are potentially talking to the wider world, the consumers themselves or at least a representative portion of them, directly, instead of some capitalists who don't care about games at all, they just care about profit. The investment you got out of such a Kickstarter that I'm alluding to would be more of the sort of how much would consumers really value something like an amazing game to be free forever (and forever moddable, used and further developed by everyone else, etc.).

I like schemes where middle men are cut off. Specially if they are of the capitalistic kind.

What is this... this... communist BS, Luis?

Thing is, yeah it's communistic ideologically, but it does not need any revolution at all, it does not mean people stealing present IPs, it's all voluntary and honest, using capitalistic tools (like Kickstarter) for a communistic goal.

Not that I don't think what all these game companies are doing is good. It is good. Or at least, better than the previous model of having this middle-man vetting ideas based on his small vision of the world.

[pecenipicek]

Not to take this back off-topic, but I agree that the single-player campaign of Minecraft sucks. I don't find that a disappointment at all though, since the core essence of the game is creative/survival (both single-player and multi-player), not a story mode. The story element they did tack on - the endgame text wall - was definitely weaksauce, but that's because it was added to a game that had absolutely no storyline prior to that. It's like reading the last chapter of a book without there being anything else. No, actually, it's like reading the epilogue of a book.

Anyway, the only logic I see in PA's pricing is that that was a KickStarter price level. The only difference is that when you pay $90 in KickStarter, it's to help make a game happen, whereas paying $90 in Steam is "merely" to have early access to said in-dev game.

there was something about kickstarter (the company) actually dictating the price of the game on steam for them. might've been on their webpage, i'll toss a link when i'm not so sleepy.

[NGTM-1R]

there was something about kickstarter (the company) actually dictating the price of the game on steam for them. might've been on their webpage, i'll toss a link when i'm not so sleepy.

That...sounds kind of illegal to me. A third party setting prices between two unrelated parties that does not have any ownership rights to one of them?

[pecenipicek]

there was something about kickstarter (the company) actually dictating the price of the game on steam for them. might've been on their webpage, i'll toss a link when i'm not so sleepy.

That...sounds kind of illegal to me. A third party setting prices between two unrelated parties that does not have any ownership rights to one of them?

http://steamcommunity.com/games/233250/announcements/detail/1658730021561594175

[The E]

I think you've misread that statement a bit. They're talking about "our kickstarter", not kickstarter the company.

[Sandwich]

It's interesting because you are paying for promise, not product, at least not yet, so it becomes a question of trust. The more the outlay, the higher the level of trust required, and the more demanding the expectations on the company, so those factors all have to be balanced.

For what it's worth, I don't view Kickstarter projects as paying for anything. I see them as me (and others OFC) donating towards something we want to see become a reality. Sure, it's nice that we get to have the benefit of not needing to purchase the game in addition to our donation, and that certain tiers of donation come with even more benefits. But in the end, I see it as a donation towards something I believe in. TBH, I hate online multiplayer games where you fight other players - perhaps I don't see my skills as holding up to other people and am afraid of losing - so I don't know if I'll ever even play PA properly. I'll probably just stick to skirmish modes and hold out hope for an eventual campaign mode. That doesn't dilute my joy at having helped make the game a reality.

[pecenipicek]

I think you've misread that statement a bit. They're talking about "our kickstarter", not kickstarter the company.

i was tired last night, so cut me some slack

[Phantom Hoover]

This got lost in the split so:

Anyway. WRT Kickstarter, I think of it as paying for the service of making a game you'd like to play. Obviously there are rough edges in that way of looking at it, since the games are still usually sold afterwards; but I think it's an important development, because the general idiocy that is intellectual property law largely derives from creating a legal framework to protect a wrong-headed business model where non-scarce information is sold as a good by imposing an artificial scarcity of supply.