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

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

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.

LOL, I don't know how much we disagree. I can agree with what you said there. What we are both saying is more than enough for oversight, and to see better safeguards in place. There should be laws requiring disclosure that simply do not exist now. With the ease of transferring funds due to the advent of the internet, crowd-sourcing rules are needed today, not tomorrow or next week or whenever we get to it. Change is slow and inevitable, but this model needs to be corralled in now, because it's gaining serious traction, worldwide, and consumers are NOT protected at all.

[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.

[sebastianosmith]

consumers are NOT protected at all.

That is the crux upon which our fulcrum of disagreement pivots. Kickstarter contributors are really no different than any uninformed investor. They have a hope which they desperately wish real despite any evidence to the contrary. Investors must protect themselves in light of non-existent or weak oversight by a higher authority. Even with oversight they should never allow themselves to fall prey to their own misconceptions. The currency of trust, as the Kickstarter community must learn quickly, is earned and not given. I realize this is counter to the philosophy to which many in that community subscribe, but it is an old, old adage for a reason.

[sebastianosmith]

So long as the positive gets more reports/publicity than the bad, Kickstarter won't be regulated.

It eventually must be regulated. Right now the crowdsourcing pie is too small to attract real investors. Once a Kickstarter-backed CalcStar (showing my age here) makes it to market, all bets are suddenly moved to the no limit table. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the volatile "smart money" won't move to a completely unregulated arena with all the tech in place once only hosted by the NYSE or NASDAQ is a fool. If the model proves to be profitable, the money will follow.

[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.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

It eventually must be regulated. Right now the crowdsourcing pie is too small to attract real investors. Once a Kickstarter-backed CalcStar (showing my age here) makes it to market, all bets are suddenly moved to the no limit table. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the volatile "smart money" won't move to a completely unregulated arena with all the tech in place once only hosted by the NYSE or NASDAQ is a fool. If the model proves to be profitable, the money will follow.

Unfortunately I too know of CalcStar, for the same reason as you {cough...weareoldbastiges...cough}

Here's the thing, I believe Goblinworks Pathfinder will be just that game that raises suspicions, if they dont get the game to market. Basically Pathfinder better hit it out of the park, because if they dont, they are going to be dealing with a LOT of ticked off donors. And if in fact this game does not actually ship, for ANY reason at this point, it will draw the ire of the entire gaming community, lawmakers and crowd-sourcing as a business model AND platform, and "business as usual" for this model will implode.

That's why I think the OP raises a great question, even though quite frankly I didnt bother reading the back and forth between you 2

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

That is the crux upon which our fulcrum of disagreement pivots. Kickstarter contributors are really no different than any uninformed investor. They have a hope which they desperately wish real despite any evidence to the contrary. Investors must protect themselves in light of non-existent or weak oversight by a higher authority. Even with oversight they should never allow themselves to fall prey to their own misconceptions. The currency of trust, as the Kickstarter community must learn quickly, is earned and not given. I realize this is counter to the philosophy to which many in that community subscribe, but it is an old, old adage for a reason.

I think the EU courts are ahead of the American courts on this issue. Check this ruling out. By using the platform argument, as the Kickstarter's Bates did, she put her company square at odds with UK law.

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/20933...nterfeit-sales

and then there's the Wizards of the Coasts lawsuit this year against Crypotozoics, a company they feel is infringing on their copyrights. I think the case has legs too, its a pretty blatant use of mechanics that WoTC copyrighted for the game Magic: The Gathering.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...ozoics-HEX-MMO

I guess those kickstarter donor folks are really sitting pretty satisfied now huh? I know the lawyers are.....

[Mercureal]

Notwithstanding how the gameplay appears, or the potential abuses inherent in the crowdfunding approach, I thought this blog post by the guy behind the game was interesting. In it, he defines what he means by "minimum viable product".

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/03...minimum-viabl/

Excerpt:

Becoming a "minimum viable product"

As we have been working on Pathfinder Online, we discovered Eric Ries' work on "lean startups" and his thoughts about the minimum viable product. We've adopted his terminology as a way of communicating our plans to the public. To summarize, Ries defines an MVP as "that version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort."

The point of an MVP is not to make one and stop work. The point is to make one and use it as the very first point of interaction with real customers, and then start iterating on the design by tightly integrating the users' feedback into the development of new features and expansion of existing features. It's a perfect fit for a sandbox MMO. If we make a successful MVP, we know we'll be able to continuously add new features and game systems essentially forever, making the game more and more complex over time, more and more beautiful, and larger and larger in scope. A "minimum viable product" is not a "minimum" product. The key word is "viable," not "minimum." To make a viable MMO, we need to deliver a compelling game loop and a way to generate revenue.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Notwithstanding how the gameplay appears, or the potential abuses inherent in the crowdfunding approach, I thought this blog post by the guy behind the game was interesting. In it, he defines what he means by "minimum viable product".

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/03...minimum-viabl/

Excerpt:

Yeah I've got some guildies that are really excited and hopeful about this game. Thing is we play DDO. Its going to take a game with complex combat and character development to have a prayer of keeping a long time DDO player truly happy... I am just afraid Pathfinder is going to fall short of the hype. Their decision to make PvP so important to the overall world is a really bad sign of modern day game design. If they just try to make the mmo f2p muppets happy, the game will taper off in short order...

[Beethoven]

No "in other words" needed - listen to what is actually stated instead, and compare it to what is actually happening.

Turbine's hybrid model being an amazing success is what he actually said. I provide you with both link and direct quote of his statement and you still accuse me of not listening to what was stated? That's disruptive and against forum policies. Please stop responding with personal attacks and stick to responding to my actual points.

He either has an understanding of the industries and its costumers, including his take on Turbine's model or he has no comprehension of the industries and its costumers in which case the pitch video does not proof anything since it comes from a source who has no clue to begin with. You cannot have it both ways.

They have this pipe dream about long term monetization of a "minimal viable game", but what this turns into is charging people scads of money to play an incomplete product.

They did not start out like this. They tried multiple approaches over the last years, ranging from an original plan of making it a subscription based game to a hybrid model to what they came up with now. This isn't their first pitch, but what they came up with after having exhausted multiple other options and consistently failed.

Also, one guy on the internet hardly talks for the entire industries. There have been a number of games released in the last couple years (from NWO to Star Wars, Guild Wars 2, ESO, etc., all well above the "minimal viable"). There is a problem and several industry experts (defined people with working knowledge and actual success in the industries) have written numerous articles about it -- but they did not relate the issue to a business model, but the involvement of big business. Corporations like PWE, Blizzard, Bioware and the like can afford to throw hundreds of millions into development, hire an army of developers, acquire major franchises, cross market their products and invest another fortunes into marketing campaigns and - if all else fails - bury competitors in law suits. It makes it increasingly difficult for small development companies to compete.

You keep talking about quality being the key to success - how is some dude on kickstarter supposed to compete in quality with a corporations who can afford build a game on a 200 million budget? They have no choice but come up with "pipedreams" like these because they most certainly cannot directly compete with features, graphics, content or any other aspect of game quality.

[Chai]

Turbine's hybrid model being an amazing success

To the tune of multiple eras of layoffs. I wish it were different, but its not, and calling that a success...well.......

is what he actually said. I provide you with both link and direct quote of his statement and you still accuse me of not listening to what was stated? That's disruptive and against forum policies. Please stop responding with personal attacks and stick to responding to my actual points.

But his reply was not to what I actually stated. I made no comment in what he quoted about the success or not, of Turbines model.

He either has an understanding of the industries and its costumers, including his take on Turbine's model or he has no comprehension of the industries and its costumers in which case the pitch video does not proof anything since it comes from a source who has no clue to begin with. You cannot have it both ways.

His take on Turbines model is not relevant in a thread which is not about Turbines model.

They did not start out like this. They tried multiple approaches over the last years, ranging from an original plan of making it a subscription based game to a hybrid model to what they came up with now. This isn't their first pitch, but what they came up with after having exhausted multiple other options and consistently failed.

Yep, and what they came up with is congruent with where I have been stating the industry is going (thread topic).

Also, one guy on the internet hardly talks for the entire industries. There have been a number of games released in the last couple years (from NWO to Star Wars, Guild Wars 2, ESO, etc., all well above the "minimal viable").

Those were released in an incomplete state to monetize them sooner as well. The trend can be clearly seen in those examples. Since most of them are a few years old now, the "minimum viable" isnt as extreme as it is currently with new games who are trying to leverage the same type of model, to more of an extreme.

There is a problem and several industry experts (defined people with working knowledge and actual success in the industries) have written numerous articles about it -- but they did not relate the issue to a business model, but the involvement of big business. Corporations like PWE, Blizzard, Bioware and the like can afford to throw hundreds of millions into development, hire an army of developers, acquire major franchises, cross market their products and invest another fortunes into marketing campaigns and - if all else fails - bury competitors in law suits. It makes it increasingly difficult for small development companies to compete.

You keep talking about quality being the key to success - how is some dude on kickstarter supposed to compete in quality with a corporations who can afford build a game on a 200 million budget? They have no choice but come up with "pipedreams" like these because they most certainly cannot directly compete with features, graphics, content or any other aspect of game quality.

If and when they do profit from the "minimum viable game" model we will see how much they put back into the games on an individual game by game basis. There is a rather large potential for them to pocket the money, as there is little to no regulation that holds them to do what they stated they would once that profit is achieved. Perhaps some of them have the passion and the desire to continue to work on their entities they created, while some others will simply sell to major corporations and ignite the same wellspring of issues you are mentioning with large company control by those who arent really passionate about anything related to the game other than financial success. Then there will be those who simply continue to eat the profits, and continue to provide the "minimum viable game". Office pool on percentages?

[Ancient]

Extra Credits had some interesting points about this trend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmLz00L6CmY