Pathfinder - proving what I have been outlining about the MMO industry.

[Chai]

Yes, the non ad hominem defense! Two more to go.

It's difficult to refrain from personal issues when you are so clearly bring the personal into them. I have outlined very clearly why I am unconcerned with what Goblinworks is attempting. In doing so you accused me of not caring and suggested I was being ironically hypocritical by even posting about the topic with such an attitude. So, if you'd like to keep the "personal" out of the conversation, please stop lobbing volleys my way.

You take care now!

As I suspected, couldn't be done.

Also misconstruing the attitude of the OP, while failing to address what was quoted.

I am not "seeing what I want to see" here as you claim. I watched the pitch video and commented on how this is exactly what I have been describing as far as the direction for the industry. Did you watch the video yet? When/If you do, youll see any objective reader will clearly understand your claim of seeing what I want to see, is false. Its right there, in the video.

There are no answers to statements. You have once again confused what you consider to be a problem with something that is not. The business model Goblinworks is attempting will either succeed or fail. How you "feel" about it personally is relevant only to you.

This is not a thread about how I feel about it. Its a thread commenting on how they posted a pitch video outlining the same thing I have been outlining about the direction of the MMO industry. There is nothing personal about that statement whatsoever, for those who read and respond objectively.

[sebastianosmith]

As I suspected, couldn't be done.

HAHAHAHA!!! But you see, I'm not like the whisper-quiet mumblings of your ego. I don't have to defend against whatever misdirection tactics you throw my way. While you may attach some importance to whatever it is you're on about, I don't.

Also misconstruing the attitude of the OP, while failing to address what was quoted.

I am not "seeing what I want to see" here as you claim. I watched the pitch video and commented on how this is exactly what I have been describing as far as the direction for the industry. Did you watch the video yet? When/If you do, youll see any objective reader will clearly understand your claim of seeing what I want to see, is false. Its right there, in the video.

The attitude of the OP is "You'll see. You'll all see!!!". The problem with your argument is that you are tilting at windmills - No giants there DQ. You see the monetization models of PFO and similar endeavors as a "bad thing". However, you have given no credible evidence as to why it won't, can't or shouldn't work. Your entire argument is "I told you so", to which I reply "So what?"

I've watched the video and heard no hint of plans for massive fraud, morally questionable practices or world domination. What they are doing is no different than what thousands of other companies do every day; like HP selling printers at a loss that they more than make up for with the cartridges. Do I like that? No, not particularly. My solution was to not buy HP printers. Yours would be to rant against the printed page and admonish anyone not handwriting with charcoal sticks.

This is not a thread about how I feel about it. Its a thread commenting on how they posted a pitch video outlining the same thing I have been outlining about the direction of the MMO industry. There is nothing personal about that statement whatsoever, for those who read and respond objectively.

This thread is soooooo about how you feel. It's another attempt to imply that what you see as a problem is really a problem and that you, oh seer of seers, are the one with true vision. You might as well be walking the streets with a sandwich board telling us the End Is Nigh. So, OBJECTIVELY - You've got an ax to grind for some reason. I don't know the genesis of your issues, but I am really tired of you bumming people out with your need to be right in all instances and crusading against imagined problems at every opportunity. If you would just stick to discussing game mechanics, build designs and the like (at which you are extremely knowledgeable and proficient), we'd be a happier group of people.

I guess I should be thankful you didn't pull out the straw man gambit and leave it at that.

[Enoach]

Watched the Pitch Video, and coming from a software developer view point, I found the approach to be very interesting in development/funding

Issues that any Project have to deal with:

1. Size/Scope
2. Cost
3. Time to ROI

The approach they are taking appears to be to first bring to the community a usable world that the back end is still flexible enough to be added onto without having to Frankenstein the core system.

Is this the approach of the future? Well Micro-transactions proved to work and was not well received by critics at the onset. Only time will tell. I don't see anything wrong with the direction they are taking. It is actually a cleaver way to actually get an initial player base as well as limit risk. If they don't get enough support to continue development they can pull out earlier or even change direction until they get the support they are after.

Basically this is a way to lower the financial risk as well as get the product out sooner thus getting a quicker ROI and spending less time with the product before delivery. This also means the Size/Scope of the product can be managed with a smaller overhead.

I applaud them for taking this approach instead of attempting to garner a large investor also means the end product can belong to those who enjoy the product instead of someone behind a desk that has never seen anything past a demo video.

This can also mean that other good ideas will have a chance to start as they won't be killed simply because a lack of funding from a deep pocket. Or even loss of direction due to a requirement to boost profits and cut costs.

[Seikojin]

Watched the Pitch Video, and coming from a software developer view point, I found the approach to be very interesting in development/funding

Issues that any Project have to deal with:

1. Size/Scope
2. Cost
3. Time to ROI

The approach they are taking appears to be to first bring to the community a usable world that the back end is still flexible enough to be added onto without having to Frankenstein the core system.

Is this the approach of the future? Well Micro-transactions proved to work and was not well received by critics at the onset. Only time will tell. I don't see anything wrong with the direction they are taking. It is actually a cleaver way to actually get an initial player base as well as limit risk. If they don't get enough support to continue development they can pull out earlier or even change direction until they get the support they are after.

Basically this is a way to lower the financial risk as well as get the product out sooner thus getting a quicker ROI and spending less time with the product before delivery. This also means the Size/Scope of the product can be managed with a smaller overhead.

I applaud them for taking this approach instead of attempting to garner a large investor also means the end product can belong to those who enjoy the product instead of someone behind a desk that has never seen anything past a demo video.

This can also mean that other good ideas will have a chance to start as they won't be killed simply because a lack of funding from a deep pocket. Or even loss of direction due to a requirement to boost profits and cut costs.

I got pretty much the same thing from looking at it. Coming from A PM level, this could be a nightmare, since doing something the first time costs less both in finances and man hours than doing it after it has been done. By a large factor too.

[Chai]

I applaud them for taking this approach instead of attempting to garner a large investor also means the end product can belong to those who enjoy the product instead of someone behind a desk that has never seen anything past a demo video.

This is one potential positive, that the control rests in the hands of those who are passionate about the game but....

This can also mean that other good ideas will have a chance to start as they won't be killed simply because a lack of funding from a deep pocket. Or even loss of direction due to a requirement to boost profits and cut costs.

Who will really have the control. Those authoring the game, or those in the crowd being crowdsourced who are actually funding it. While its semantically different than a board of directors or a VP making a decision, its still a need to please specific groups of people who may or may not have differences in vision as the game grows. The need to please all of them or watch their fundingdiminish is somethign they are going to have to monitor far mroe closely than an agreement with an investor, backed by a legal contract etc.

[Chai]

HAHAHAHA!!! But you see, I'm not like the whisper-quiet mumblings of your ego. I don't have to defend against whatever misdirection tactics you throw my way. While you may attach some importance to whatever it is you're on about, I don't.



The attitude of the OP is "You'll see. You'll all see!!!". The problem with your argument is that you are tilting at windmills - No giants there DQ. You see the monetization models of PFO and similar endeavors as a "bad thing". However, you have given no credible evidence as to why it won't, can't or shouldn't work. Your entire argument is "I told you so", to which I reply "So what?"

I've watched the video and heard no hint of plans for massive fraud, morally questionable practices or world domination. What they are doing is no different than what thousands of other companies do every day; like HP selling printers at a loss that they more than make up for with the cartridges. Do I like that? No, not particularly. My solution was to not buy HP printers. Yours would be to rant against the printed page and admonish anyone not handwriting with charcoal sticks.

I guess I should be thankful you didn't pull out the straw man gambit and leave it at that.

Please refrain from further personal discussion and address the topic.

This thread is soooooo about how you feel. It's another attempt to imply that what you see as a problem is really a problem and that you, oh seer of seers, are the one with true vision. You might as well be walking the streets with a sandwich board telling us the End Is Nigh. So, OBJECTIVELY - You've got an ax to grind for some reason. I don't know the genesis of your issues, but I am really tired of you bumming people out with your need to be right in all instances and crusading against imagined problems at every opportunity. If you would just stick to discussing game mechanics, build designs and the like (at which you are extremely knowledgeable and proficient), we'd be a happier group of people

This is false and again, only done due to wanting to disagree, but having no logical rebuttal for anything Ive stated. So again you attempt to misconstrue the tone of the posts into something personal which does not exist anywhere else but your own mind. Please refrain, and stick to the topic at hand, as other posters are doing.

I've watched the video and heard no hint of plans for massive fraud, morally questionable practices or world domination

Please quote where I claimed any of the above. The fact that you cannot do so will prove to any objective reader how far your mischaracterization of my OP here has gone. Dont worry, I'll wait...

[sebastianosmith]

Please refrain from further personal discussion and address the topic.

What topic? I've watched the video, listened to Goblinworks marketroid spiel and have come to a vastly different conclusion than you which I have already stated three times. I suspect this has something to do with me not being on a damned crusade. Could just be me though.

This is false and again, only done due to wanting to disagree, but having no logical rebuttal for anything Ive stated. So again you attempt to misconstrue the tone of the posts into something personal which does not exist anywhere else but your own mind. Please refrain, and stick to the topic at hand, as other posters are doing.

What? This thread is all over the place. We've got discussions about Kickstarter, the carptactular graphics in the PFO demo videos, how DDO still rox over the competition; to name a few. Which of those would you like to declare forbidden and show me a yellow card for mentioning again? And as for rebutting you logically... All you've made are statements of opinion. I can't logically debate your opinion any more than I can claim to know the number of angels shakin' it on a pinhead.

Please quote where I claimed any of the above. The fact that you cannot do so will prove to any objective reader how far your mischaracterization of my OP here has gone. Dont worry, I'll wait...

Oh, you thought I was talking about you?!?! The fact that you always do so will prove to any objective reader that how far your mischaracterization of any post will go. Dont worry, I'm not waiting.

[Chai]

What? This thread is all over the place. We've got discussions about Kickstarter, the carptactular graphics in the PFO demo videos, how DDO still rox over the competition; to name a few. Which of those would you like to declare forbidden and show me a yellow card for mentioning again? And as for rebutting you logically... All you've made are statements of opinion. I can't logically debate your opinion any more than I can claim to know the number of angels shakin' it on a pinhead.

And none of them contain any one sided personal banter back and forth save for one, and the initiator of that one cannot quote me saying any of the things they claim I have.

Bolded is false. Ive made statements about what was literally stated in the video.

Your claim of not being able to logically debate that is correct however. Instead of doing so youre attempting to misconstrue the tone of the OP into something that it is not, and turn it into a personal discussion, and no ones buying it. My thanks to everyone else for discussing the actual topic.

[sebastianosmith]

And none of them contain any one sided personal banter back and forth save for one, and the initiator of that one cannot quote me saying any of the things they claim I have.

Once again, I have made no claims you've said anything at all. Quite the contrary in fact.

Bolded is false. Ive made statements about what was literally stated in the video.

You sure did. You then proceeded to inform us of what it meant IN YOUR OPINION. I CAPPED WHAT IS TRUE IN CASE YOU MISSED THE REFERENCE.

Your claim of not being able to logically debate that is correct however.

Finally! You admit your opinions are logically undebatable. Praise Jeebus!

Instead of doing so youre attempting to misconstrue the tone of the OP into something that it is not, and turn it into a personal discussion, and no ones buying it.

You keep holding that one note and let me know when it miraculously transforms into a symphony. I'll get John Cage's ghost on the line. He'll be so excited.

My thanks to everyone else for discussing the actual topic.

And close with a disingenuous platitude to drive the point home. Classic Chai.

[Chai]

Once again, I have made no claims you've said anything at all. Quite the contrary in fact.



You sure did. You then proceeded to inform us of what it meant IN YOUR OPINION. I CAPPED WHAT IS TRUE IN CASE YOU MISSED THE REFERENCE.



Finally! You admit your opinions are logically undebatable. Praise Jeebus!



You keep holding that one note and let me know when it miraculously transforms into a symphony. I'll get John Cage's ghost on the line. He'll be so excited.



And close with a disingenuous platitude to drive the point home. Classic Chai.

Your unwillingness to discuss the topic at hand and need to make personal jaunts around every corner is disruptive to any and all on topic discussion that is occurring here. It is also against the forum guidelines. Ive asked you to refrain from making this a personal discussion and you have refused to do so here yet again. There is but one thing left to do here, and from here on out when this occurs.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Take it from Sunny Bates herself, who is an actual Kickstarter board member.

"Here’s the deal, it’s one thing to be scammed like Bernie Madoff, where you’ve gone and you’ve been seduced by something and put in all your life savings. It’s another thing for something not to come through for $US25. When it’s syndicated out so broadly with backers, even if somebody is scammed — and it looks too good to be true and you still take a risk on it anyhow — you feel ****ed off and upset at the creator and then, you know, some of that may lead over on some people feeling ‘why can’t Kickstarter control this?’ Well, it’s a platform — we can’t.”

She went on: I think that because where the bulk of the projects are is between the $US25 to $US1500 range, are you going to go take legal action on something that you put $US50 into? I mean you tell me. Maybe if you put $US10,000, sure. Or $US1000, maybe. But if you lost $US25 or $US50 then you’re a little disappointed and you think the [project creator] sucks. But that’s the beauty of crowdsourcing, it’s not really worth your effort – you’re disappointed and you’re angry that somebody would do this because it does feel like they’re duplicitous and they’re trying to pull the wool over the crowd’s eyes, and clearly they can’t."


This absurd public opinion is my #2 salvo (right behind the scams themselves) for the necessity for oversight at the federal and state level. The case Bates is trying to make that its "just a platform" so they cant be blamed is a pure-bread malarkey. As soon as they took a cut, it stopped being just a platform, and started being a business, a paid service. Down the road, more and more scams will hurt the reputation of Kickstarter, but it's not happening fast enough. This "Meh lol you took the risk" cavalier approach is a disgrace, yet it's exactly a piece of her company's vision. She'd be booted from the board of most legitimate companies that cares one iota about it's own integrity.


A great article on this topic (which includes Bates' commentary) :
http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/6...en-they-pledge

[Chai]

Take it from Sunny Bates herself, who is an actual Kickstarter board member.

"Here’s the deal, it’s one thing to be scammed like Bernie Madoff, where you’ve gone and you’ve been seduced by something and put in all your life savings. It’s another thing for something not to come through for $US25. When it’s syndicated out so broadly with backers, even if somebody is scammed — and it looks too good to be true and you still take a risk on it anyhow — you feel ****ed off and upset at the creator and then, you know, some of that may lead over on some people feeling ‘why can’t Kickstarter control this?’ Well, it’s a platform — we can’t.”

She went on: I think that because where the bulk of the projects are is between the $US25 to $US1500 range, are you going to go take legal action on something that you put $US50 into? I mean you tell me. Maybe if you put $US10,000, sure. Or $US1000, maybe. But if you lost $US25 or $US50 then you’re a little disappointed and you think the [project creator] sucks. But that’s the beauty of crowdsourcing, it’s not really worth your effort – you’re disappointed and you’re angry that somebody would do this because it does feel like they’re duplicitous and they’re trying to pull the wool over the crowd’s eyes, and clearly they can’t."


This absurd public opinion is my #2 salvo (right behind the scams themselves) for the necessity for oversight at the federal and state level. The case Bates is trying to make that its "just a platform" so they cant be blamed is a pure-bread malarkey. As soon as they took a cut, it stopped being just a platform, and started being a business, a paid service. Down the road, more and more scams will hurt the reputation of Kickstarter, but it's not happening fast enough. This "Meh lol you took the risk" cavalier approach is a disgrace, yet it's exactly a piece of her company's vision. She'd be booted from the board of most legitimate companies that cares one iota about it's own integrity.


A great article on this topic (which includes Bates' commentary) :
http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/6...en-they-pledge

Yes.

The question is, how hard does it have to implode before that regulation occurs. Is it going to take them being named to a lawsuit and losing the case - the "its just a platform" defense failing miserably and costing them money - before the crowdsourcing "platform" becomes regulated like most other cash moving "platforms" are?

[sebastianosmith]

This "Meh lol you took the risk" cavalier approach is a disgrace, yet it's exactly a piece of her company's vision. She'd be booted from the board of most legitimate companies that cares one iota about it's own integrity.

This is where we must slightly disagree. Anyone who makes a bet and does not realize that 1 - it's a bet and 2 - they might lose their money - is not savvy enough to be betting. Yes, Kickstarter takes a cut as do the NYSE, NASDAQ and OTC penny stock traders. Yes there should probably be some form of federal-level oversight of this new capitalization market to prevent (hopefully) the sort of fraud that ran rampant before the SEC was established (and does again but that is another topic entirely). However, right now caveat emptor is the only rule. Ms. Bates is incorrectly interpreting Mr. Friedman's ideal of maximizing shareholder profitability, but so are countless other CEOs and board members. Change is slow but inevitable.

[Missing_Minds]

Down the road, more and more scams will hurt the reputation of Kickstarter, but it's not happening fast enough.

Because while "potato salad" is quite common, seldom does it get the same amount of backing that THE potato salad kickstarter just did.

Let alone there are some hugely positive kickstarters on occasion as well such as Reading Rainbow.

So long as the positive gets more reports/publicity than the bad, Kickstarter won't be regulated. Frankly I expect them to be put to task in so far as rules just as Ebay and other auction sites are. I don't know if more regulation other than existing rules need to be applied. Then again I have next to know knowledge of law when it comes to those sites so the best I can offer is meaningless opinionated common sense.

[Catteras]

Take it from Sunny Bates herself, who is an actual Kickstarter board member. [snip]

Bates might be correct that a single person who got taken for $50 will be ****ed but do little about it. That single person probably realizes that the cost of legal action over $50 will far exceed that $50 his lost. However, when 5000 single persons get taken for $50 each, that's a wonderful quarter of a million dollars stolen by a fraudulent company. And that's scamming. And eventually an implosion will occur. (And the sooner the better). And regulations will be put into place.

What I also hate about Bates argument is that she is justifying the scam because it is only taking the person for a small amount of money. If I steal $500,000 from a bank or $5 from my daughter's piggybank, it's still wrong. Her justification and pish-poshing of immoral behavior is disgusting.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that there is precedence for this sort of thing. Take Napster. They were just a platform; they provided a means for illegal activity but supposedly did not contribute to it themselves. I believe ultimately they were held responsible for the illegal activity that occurred on their platform. If Kickstarter simply provides a platform, but companies that use it are engaging in fraudulent activity, it seems that Kickstarter could be held liable, too.