Demi-fiend
Metempsychosis
To start off, I'd just like to bring up something that's been bothering me for a while.
Please keep in mind that this is all just my opinion, and nothing more.
At first, I had thought that it would be best to stay quiet and out of the crossfire, but from where I'm standing, a situation like this requires closer inspection.
-----------------------------
What I'd like to say is, I don't think these "tests" (Kickstarters, Paypals, or buying DMC4SE to "support" DMC5) should be held in the same regard as Microtransactions, Patches, Gamestop pre-orders, and Streaming Services (the absolute worst form of "rental gaming" in my brutally honest opinion).
Or even DLC for that matter (I saw it coming when those old PC games had those eye-rolling "expansion packs").
However, I honestly do think that these crowdfunding litmus tests are necessary in these uncertain, changing times. In other words, I'm all for it.
------------------------------
See, here's the thing; I don't feel as though any of this is being "greedy." Not even when these practices come from large corporations.
If there's a certain risky product that people are asking for, I don't think the company behind it has to invest in said product if it might not end up doing well on the actual consumer market (as opposed to the "hypothetical" one -- the one where customers say they'll buy something, but never end up doing so).
------------------------------
If a business can survive without devoting any resources to a project like this, then I think there's very little incentive to take a gamble on a commodity that could make things even worse for their bottom line.
------------------------------
For example, the development team behind The Order: 1886 closed down after just one game. The reason for this was because it didn't sell enough units.
Most of the time, the majority of businesses out there get two or more chances. Ready at Dawn (the name of the studio) only had one.
------------------------------
These companies, whether they're part of the movie or game industry, don't have to take risks that they feel wouldn't make enough of a profit for them.
Capcom for instance, can continue to develop Monster Hunter games and not have to worry about staying afloat... for now anyway.
Of course, we're all aware that Capcom's situation could change at any time... which would explain their rather lackadaisical attitude as of late.
"Why worry about the iceberg if you can't change the direction of your ship?" This also applies to Sony's recent monetary and PR ordeals as well (really Sony? No backwards compatibility?).
------------------------------
But let's look at the worst case scenario, here. Let's say the business in question does close down because it refused to roll the dice.
If that happens, then the recently-fired employees (especially the executives) of that company will just end up finding work somewhere else. It's a big deal to them obviously -- but they're also very much tuned in to the fact that companies close their doors all the time in this day and age...
Particularly former businesses like THQ and 38 Studios. The ones that actually took the plunge on certain games and ended up losing so much money that they had to shut down as a result.
-----------------------------
Besides, it could be argued that holding a club over a company's head ("make this product or we'll boycott all of your other products") might actually be more immoral than a company asking the customers to prove that they'll buy the very product that they had asked for in the first place.
------------------------------
So again, in my personal opinion, it's not greed at all. It's merely asking for help.
I don't see anything wrong with asking the customers to put their money where their mouth is, either. Specifically when regarding niche markets.
------------------------------
If a company asks for "donations" more than three times on a single project and there's no game (or movie, or program) to show for it... then yes, stop contributing funds and let them figure it out on their own.
Inafune for example (when developing Mighty No. 9), actually had to go back to Kickstarter three times to fully fund his project. So, it's not always just the big companies out there that end up asking for more than they should.
----------------------------
There's also potential issues concerning fraud, but that's a situation that's almost fully rectifiable. It's the responsibility of the customers themselves (when concerning places like Steam, for instance) to inform each other on who's most likely to deliver on the final product or not.
So, while I am against most "Early Access" games on Steam, I'm not against them actually being sold.
Recently, the market had managed to expose a good amount of the charlatans while keeping the majority of good games (and the indie devs behind them) out there alive and in good standing with the masses.
Besides, we did manage to shut down the "paid mods" model after we protested against it, so that in itself is proof that we can take care of ourselves just fine when it comes to these types of situations.
---------------------------------
What we need to do now (for the companies we trust "just enough" anyway), is show a little more faith, and a little less scorn.
The best part about all this is, is that no one is being forced to help crowdfund these projects; and for those that disagree with these companies, are free to both keep their money and convince anyone else to not donate.
Doing that however, would most likely force the company's hand to put the product on ice (if enough people decided not to chip in, I mean).
Either option is valid, really. These companies might appear to be selfish (and maybe even desperate), but all they're really doing is asking for help -- and proof that we'll end up buying what we asked for.
I reiterate: There's really nothing inherently wrong with this, in my opinion. It's not nearly as nefarious as some people out there make it out to be.
Please keep in mind that this is all just my opinion, and nothing more.
At first, I had thought that it would be best to stay quiet and out of the crossfire, but from where I'm standing, a situation like this requires closer inspection.
-----------------------------
What I'd like to say is, I don't think these "tests" (Kickstarters, Paypals, or buying DMC4SE to "support" DMC5) should be held in the same regard as Microtransactions, Patches, Gamestop pre-orders, and Streaming Services (the absolute worst form of "rental gaming" in my brutally honest opinion).
Or even DLC for that matter (I saw it coming when those old PC games had those eye-rolling "expansion packs").
However, I honestly do think that these crowdfunding litmus tests are necessary in these uncertain, changing times. In other words, I'm all for it.
------------------------------
See, here's the thing; I don't feel as though any of this is being "greedy." Not even when these practices come from large corporations.
If there's a certain risky product that people are asking for, I don't think the company behind it has to invest in said product if it might not end up doing well on the actual consumer market (as opposed to the "hypothetical" one -- the one where customers say they'll buy something, but never end up doing so).
------------------------------
If a business can survive without devoting any resources to a project like this, then I think there's very little incentive to take a gamble on a commodity that could make things even worse for their bottom line.
------------------------------
For example, the development team behind The Order: 1886 closed down after just one game. The reason for this was because it didn't sell enough units.
Most of the time, the majority of businesses out there get two or more chances. Ready at Dawn (the name of the studio) only had one.
------------------------------
These companies, whether they're part of the movie or game industry, don't have to take risks that they feel wouldn't make enough of a profit for them.
Capcom for instance, can continue to develop Monster Hunter games and not have to worry about staying afloat... for now anyway.
Of course, we're all aware that Capcom's situation could change at any time... which would explain their rather lackadaisical attitude as of late.
"Why worry about the iceberg if you can't change the direction of your ship?" This also applies to Sony's recent monetary and PR ordeals as well (really Sony? No backwards compatibility?).
------------------------------
But let's look at the worst case scenario, here. Let's say the business in question does close down because it refused to roll the dice.
If that happens, then the recently-fired employees (especially the executives) of that company will just end up finding work somewhere else. It's a big deal to them obviously -- but they're also very much tuned in to the fact that companies close their doors all the time in this day and age...
Particularly former businesses like THQ and 38 Studios. The ones that actually took the plunge on certain games and ended up losing so much money that they had to shut down as a result.
-----------------------------
Besides, it could be argued that holding a club over a company's head ("make this product or we'll boycott all of your other products") might actually be more immoral than a company asking the customers to prove that they'll buy the very product that they had asked for in the first place.
------------------------------
So again, in my personal opinion, it's not greed at all. It's merely asking for help.
I don't see anything wrong with asking the customers to put their money where their mouth is, either. Specifically when regarding niche markets.
------------------------------
If a company asks for "donations" more than three times on a single project and there's no game (or movie, or program) to show for it... then yes, stop contributing funds and let them figure it out on their own.
Inafune for example (when developing Mighty No. 9), actually had to go back to Kickstarter three times to fully fund his project. So, it's not always just the big companies out there that end up asking for more than they should.
----------------------------
There's also potential issues concerning fraud, but that's a situation that's almost fully rectifiable. It's the responsibility of the customers themselves (when concerning places like Steam, for instance) to inform each other on who's most likely to deliver on the final product or not.
So, while I am against most "Early Access" games on Steam, I'm not against them actually being sold.
Recently, the market had managed to expose a good amount of the charlatans while keeping the majority of good games (and the indie devs behind them) out there alive and in good standing with the masses.
Besides, we did manage to shut down the "paid mods" model after we protested against it, so that in itself is proof that we can take care of ourselves just fine when it comes to these types of situations.
---------------------------------
What we need to do now (for the companies we trust "just enough" anyway), is show a little more faith, and a little less scorn.
The best part about all this is, is that no one is being forced to help crowdfund these projects; and for those that disagree with these companies, are free to both keep their money and convince anyone else to not donate.
Doing that however, would most likely force the company's hand to put the product on ice (if enough people decided not to chip in, I mean).
Either option is valid, really. These companies might appear to be selfish (and maybe even desperate), but all they're really doing is asking for help -- and proof that we'll end up buying what we asked for.
I reiterate: There's really nothing inherently wrong with this, in my opinion. It's not nearly as nefarious as some people out there make it out to be.