|
XboxPants posted:Yes, you are. First of all, if you feel that way you've demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what Kickstarter is. The point of Kickstarter is to raise money for a group so they can make an attempt at a project. It is not a store and if that's what you thought, you were either a fool, or someone who didn't even make glance around the sight you were paying money to which, again, makes you a fool. It's like you didn't read my post at all. There are two elements to a Kickstarter campaign: the final product and the pledge rewards. There's no guarantee that the creator can deliver the final project. But there is a guarantee that they deliver the pledge rewards or refund backers. That's stated outright in Kickstarter's Terms of Use. When creators choose to offer the final product as a pledge reward, the rules for pledge rewards apply.
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 10:29 |
|
|
The OUYA example is an interesting (and extreme) one since we know the company was able to fulfill the backer rewards, since they had surplus OUYAs to sell in shops. They have just declined to. They're surely as liable as it's possible to be, but how much is that?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Peel posted:The OUYA example is an interesting (and extreme) one since we know the company was able to fulfill the backer rewards, since they had surplus OUYAs to sell in shops. They have just declined to. They're surely as liable as it's possible to be, but how much is that? I fully feel that OUYA didn't uphold their end of the bargain on this one. They probably should be held accountable to some end or another. (I would say definitely but that's getting into another can of worms with Kickstarter precedents) Christian Knudsen posted:It's like you didn't read my post at all. There are two elements to a Kickstarter campaign: the final product and the pledge rewards. There's no guarantee that the creator can deliver the final project. But there is a guarantee that they deliver the pledge rewards or refund backers. That's stated outright in Kickstarter's Terms of Use. When creators choose to offer the final product as a pledge reward, the rules for pledge rewards apply. You're right in your understanding of the rules. You're wrong if you think that the rules of the site influence the rules of reality. You can't excuse responsibility from yourself just because someone makes you a "guarantee". Let me ask you this, and please answer seriously: If a car dealer offers you a used 1985 Dodge Ram for $2000 with a "guarantee" that there will never be any problems with it or you'll get your money back, would the smart choice be: A - Buy the car, it's a sure thing! B - Don't buy the car, the guarantee is worthless. Like, completely serious, what would you do in this case? Note that I'm not asking whether you should expect to get your money back if you did buy it, of course you should. That's a different question. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 12:22 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
No matter my choice, I should expect to get a refund per his guarantee. Just like Kickstarter backers should expect to get a refund on their pledge if the campaign creator doesn't/can't fulfill the pledge rewards.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:No matter my choice, I should expect to get a refund per his guarantee. Just like Kickstarter backers should expect to get a refund on their pledge if the campaign creator doesn't/can't fulfill the pledge rewards. drat, just edited my post but I see you missed it. But thanks for completely dodging my question. Here's the thing. As you say, you should expect a refund. So, then, should I take that to mean that you would buy the car? Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't buy the car because you know the "guarantee" is worthless. Just like the Kickstarter guarantee.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I fully feel that OUYA didn't uphold their end of the bargain on this one. They probably should be held accountable to some end or another. (I would say definitely but that's getting into another can of worms with Kickstarter precedents) That is the loving worst analogy ever. I mean for one I know a shitload of car dealers who offer 12 months warranty's that are legally binding. XboxPants posted:drat, just edited my post but I see you missed it. But thanks for completely dodging my question. I don't even know what the gently caress you're trying to say here 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
I'm dodging your question because it's not relevant to the discussion. The issue is: Are campaign creators required to fulfill pledge rewards. The answer is yes. Are campaign creators required to refund backers if they can't/don't fulfill pledge rewards. The answer is yes. Is a backer an idiot for expecting pledge rewards to be fulfilled or getting refunded if not. The answer is no (at least not if the campaign didn't seem like an outright scam -- and we're not talking about obvious scams).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
Okay, I'm going back to the first post. First:Christian Knudsen posted:The spirit of Kickstarter is that pledge rewards should be small tokens of appreciation that can be fulfilled immediately. You could not be more wrong here. The first Kickstarter campaign was for "preorder" pledges of concert tickets. Allowing for these type of pledges is fundamental to what makes Kickstarter work. Christian Knudsen posted:If you pledge X amount to a campaign and part of the pledge reward is "get a copy of the game, delivery December 20XX", you're not an idiot for feeling that you were promised a product. I'll admit that I misunderstood what you were saying here. I thought you were saying "you're not an idiot for expecting the promise to hold weight", but you're just saying "you're not an idiot for thinking there was a promise". But here's what I'm saying: in what way is a promise that doesn't hold any weight actually still a promise? XboxPants fucked around with this message at 12:36 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Note that I'm not asking whether you should expect to get your money back if you did buy it, of course you should. That's a different question. No, that's not a different question. This is THE question. Backers are entitled to a refund if a campaign creator can't/doesn't fulfill pledge rewards.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:I'm dodging your question because it's not relevant to the discussion. The issue is: OK, this is the part that's different from what you said before. Now I'll agree with you.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I'll admit that I misunderstood what you were saying here. I thought you were saying "you're not an idiot for expecting the promise to hold weight", but you're just saying "you're not an idiot for thinking there was a promise". I'm having a really hard time wrapping my mind about what you're trying to say. You just said that you should expect the car dealer to refund you? Is your entire point that we just shouldn't trust other people's promises and guarantees? That's a lovely world you live in.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:Is your entire point that we just shouldn't blindly trust other people's promises and guarantees? That's a lovely world you live in. Yes, that's my point, and it's the same world you live in.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:OK, this is the part that's different from what you said before. Now I'll agree with you. Seriously, please read the posts you're replying to. I said that in my very first post: Christian Knudsen posted:There's no guarantee that a project will be successful -- that's part of the Kickstarter spirit -- but there is a guarantee that you should receive your pledge reward (or a refund).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Yes, that's my point, and it's the same world you live in. What the gently caress? So now you're just adding words to my posts? I didn't say blindly.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:What the gently caress? So now you're just adding words to my posts? I didn't say blindly. Yeah it's probably hosed up that I edited your post without mentioning that I did it. I hope it got my point across, at least.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
What point? On the one hand, you say that backers should expect to get a refund per Kickstarter's/the campaign creator's promise and guarantee if the pledge rewards can't be delivered. On the other hand, you're saying backers are idiots for expecting those promises and guarantees to hold any weight? So what is it?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
The Ouya has been dead for months and people are still arguing with XboxPants.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:What point? On the one hand, you say that backers should expect to get a refund per Kickstarter's/the campaign creator's promise and guarantee if the pledge rewards can't be delivered. On the other hand, you're saying backers are idiots for expecting those promises and guarantees to hold any weight? So what is it? I'm saying that as the rules are written, it's reasonable to demand a refund if the campaign creator can't deliver, but not reasonable to expect them to definitely deliver in the first place. I'm saying it should be obvious to anyone that Kickstarter campaigns shouldn't be treated as reliable stores. This is relevant to a common point that Rudager makes here: Rudager posted:in my opinion Kickstarers as they are are deceptive as gently caress since 95% of them promise an end product in turn for donating. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't think of a Kickstarter page as a store. They're not saying "if you give us this money, we'll send you this product". They are instead saying "if you give us this money, although we can't guarantee our success, we'll do our best to create this product, and if we do succeed we'll send one to you" - which is an extremely different proposition! It's different because, if that's what they're saying, then the campaign is no longer so deceptive. As you say, as the rules are written it's currently a reasonable consumer reaction to demand a refund, but honestly it doesn't always make sense to me. There's a reason people who pay to Kickstarters are called "backers" rather than "consumers" or "investors". The role you're playing is not someone who buys something, but rather of a Patron. If you were trying to help someone out and gave them money, and they failed and now they're in a really bad situation and can't afford to repay you, it's kinda lovely to ask for your money back. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 13:08 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
I agree with regards to the final product itself. The issue is (as I've said repeatedly and in my first post) that pledge rewards are different. Pledge rewards are exactly "if you give us this money, we'll send you this product". Which is why campaign creators shouldn't offer the product as a pledge reward, or only do so when they're sure they can deliver it (or refund when not). In that sense, campaigns that offer the final product as a pledge reward really are similar to pre-ordering or buying from an online shop. In both cases, you can and should expect to get a refund if you don't get the product. And that's also why backers aren't idiots, but are in fact rightfully incensed when they get neither the product (as a pledge reward) nor a refund. The problem isn't when a campaign doesn't deliver and instead offers a refund. The problem is when backers get neither (as is in the lawsuit case).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:I agree with regards to the final product itself. The issue is (as I've said repeatedly and in my first post) that pledge rewards are different. Pledge rewards are exactly "if you give us this money, we'll send you this product". Which is why campaign creators shouldn't offer the product as a pledge reward, or only do so when they're sure they can deliver it (or refund when not). Well, don't get me wrong, I do understand where you're coming from here. What you're saying seems like a reasonable idea. It just doesn't work out in reality, though, 'cause it kinda destroys what it is that makes Kickstarter-type funding work in the first place. What's "fair" isn't always the best choice. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 13:23 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Here let me change something:XboxPants posted:What I'm saying is that you shouldn't think of a
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
I don't think it necessarily destroys the idea of Kickstarter funding. It just puts more onus on the campaign creator to consider long and hard the pledge rewards being offered. Campaign creators either need to not offer the product as a reward (which would likely result in lesser pledges), or wait with kickstarting their project until they're reasonably far into development and/or reasonably sure that they can deliver (which I think would be a good idea regardless).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
Blue Rupie posted:Here let me change something: It's a pretty huge difference in scale between Ubisoft and One-Man Indie Start-Up on Kickstarter, but no you shouldn't make blind pre-orders either. Isn't it pretty much common wisdom at this point that you should wait until a game releases and see how it turns out before plunking down money? Christian Knudsen posted:I don't think it necessarily destroys the idea of Kickstarter funding. It just puts more onus on the campaign creator to consider long and hard the pledge rewards being offered. Campaign creators either need to not offer the product as a reward (which would likely result in lesser pledges), or wait with kickstarting their project until they're reasonably far into development and/or reasonably sure that they can deliver (which I think would be a good idea regardless). "Destroy" is probably too harsh a word, but it would certainly reduce pledges to the point that a lot of projects would be unable to get enough funding. You suggest they can just wait until their further along, but not every group has enough funding to begin with to pay employees to get the project that far. And, even if they're far enough that they're "reasonably sure" they can deliver, you still can't be sure because there are a million things that can go wrong and ruin the project. And if your next step is to say that they can just go to court to prove that the failure wasn't their fault, that doesn't work either because that's not free. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 13:44 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
You're right that there's no sure thing. But as to knowing just how "sure" a thing is, the backers are at an disadvantage. The campaign creator knows his skills and has hopefully done his homework in order to reasonably judge the project. The backers can only trust the creator's word (if there's no prior work to judge by). As such, the creator should be more accountable than the backers and not just be able to throw his hands in the air with a "well, I tried", when he promised to deliver as a pledge reward or offer a refund. You seem to lean more towards backers having to do their due diligence before backing, and I agree to some extent, but like I said, the backers are at a disadvantage here -- and to them, there's really no difference between an outright scam and a creator over-promising. The results are the same. That's a problem. At the end of the day, it's really just a question of whether you prefer a particular campaign not reaching its goal (because the pledge rewards didn't include the final product) or thousands of backers not receiving what they paid for (the final product as a pledge reward). Honestly, I'm not sure that the funding of a project justifies a thousand people feeling that they've been ripped off. When a creator makes a campaign and offers the product as a pledge reward, he should be held accountable. Otherwise creators can offer all manner of crazy poo poo as rewards and just never deliver on it. I know that Kickstarter isn't an investment platform or shop or whatever, but I don't think it should just be free handouts either. When you accept money, responsibility and accountability should be part of that transaction. Sadly, as things stand right now, in some cases going to court seems to be the only way to force flaky creators to live up to that responsibility and accountability. EDIT: Basically, I think there are alternative ways for campaign creators to get funded without outright offering the finished product as a reward, such as access to dev videos documenting the creation of the project, or early access to whatever state the game is in for game projects. Stuff that can be delivered even if the project ultimately fails. Creators currently have more maneuvering room for enticing backers to pledge than backers have in holding creators accountable. Christian Knudsen fucked around with this message at 14:11 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:It's a pretty huge difference in scale between Ubisoft and One-Man Indie Start-Up on Kickstarter, but no you shouldn't make blind pre-orders either. Isn't it pretty much common wisdom at this point that you should wait until a game releases and see how it turns out before plunking down money? But then again WHY would you trust Ubisoft more than the "One-Man Indie Start-Up on Kickstarter"? Surely there must be some reason why so many suckers actually bought many crappy titles such as Aliens Colonial Marines, Knack or Duke Nukem Forever. It's similar because it's notability of the development team and the way they advertised the game. In comparison to a bunch of nobody against one very notable developer in Kickstarter, you would put more money on something assuring; Someone who has a good track record on making something they are experienced at. Regardless if it's a daft idea, if you have some sort of notable name behind this entire product, people will pre-order the crap out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
It is, however, different in that if everybody assumes a wait-until-release approach to a Kickstarter project, there'll never be a release.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:It is, however, different in that if everybody assumes a wait-until-release approach to a Kickstarter project, there'll never be a release. See what could of been DNF.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
That was a pretty good post. The point you make about the knowledge disparity between backer & creator is a good one. But as you say, this seems like the most salient issue:Christian Knudsen posted:At the end of the day, it's really just a question of whether you prefer a particular campaign not reaching its goal (because the pledge rewards didn't include the final product) or thousands of backers not receiving what they paid for (the final product as a pledge reward). Honestly, I'm not sure that the funding of a project justifies a thousand people feeling that they've been ripped off. I feel like the math is off, here. If we say "you can't offer final product pledges", you're going to have a certain group of campaigns that can no longer get funding. As it is, with the "you can offer final product pledges" model, that certain group of campaigns can get funding, but a small subset of them fail to create their product. Rather than applying these rules to a single campaign, I think it's more demonstrative to apply them to a group. By applying the "you can't offer final product pledges" you're sacrificing, let's say, ten projects, one of which would have failed. With the rules as they are now, as you say, hundreds or thousands of backers might get screwed by a failed project, but in return you get many more backers who did get their reward, a whole bunch of new products or pieces of art or technology or whatever, as well as new companies and new jobs. Here's the point. I agree that a single project doesn't justify a thousand people feeling like they've been ripped off. But a dozen projects might - to me, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree in part. It's a balance. But I don't think that some people being ripped off is just a necessary evil for these new products to exist. My edit in my previous post talks about there being alternatives for creators to get backers. So I don't think it's as clear-cut as "remove final product as pledge rewards and campaign fails". These creative creators will just have to be creative. EDIT: Also, as per a previous post, I don't actually prefer the solution to be "remove final product as pledge rewards and campaign fails". I prefer creators to be held accountable when they don't deliver on their rewards and therefore take more care in preparing their project and campaign. Christian Knudsen fucked around with this message at 14:36 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
If most people are using kick starter like a store and misunderstanding it's purpose, kick starter should really do something to change that. If everyone consistently misunderstands you, maybe you need to change. Like xbox pants posts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:Yeah, I agree in part. It's a balance. But I don't think that some people being ripped off is just a necessary evil for these new products to exist. My edit in my previous post talks about there being alternatives for creators to get backers. So I don't think it's as clear-cut as "remove final product as pledge rewards and campaign fails". These creative creators will just have to be creative. I missed that post, but it's a pretty good idea. It's hard to come up with really cool, inventive, practical, non-final-product rewards, but like you say "These creative creators will just have to be creative", and the creators should definitely be rewarded if they can do so. I'll agree this whole issue is a problem and there's almost certainly a better solution than "leave everything exactly as it is".
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
So I haven't checked this thread since November, so I figured I'd take a look to see if there were any new developments. All I got was XboxPants and a bunch of random people arguing over stupid poo poo. So basically, no new developments.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Ahahahah XboxPants, you haven't changed at all. Still a dumb gently caress at heart.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Nauta posted:Ahahahah XboxPants, you haven't changed at all. Still a dumb gently caress at heart. Amazing. We thought he was cured; it was just a remission.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Peel posted:Gonna go ahead and agree with Ouyapants here, Kickstarter is a site for patronage, not purchases (and certainly not investment), and people should really stop considering it the latter. These last few pages of xboxpants arguments are awesome because didn't he spend the last 2-3 threads arguing the exact opposite, complete with semantic dickery, and claiming that Ouya kickstarter donations were pre-orders? Something seems to be hosed up with the archives right now so I can't pull any posts, but I swear I remember everyone else explaining to him that Kickstarter is not a store. Ryen Deckard posted:The Ouya has been dead for months and people are still arguing with XboxPants. Honestly it's the best thing the Ouya ever did. O Hanraha-hanrahan posted:Play couch coop on PC regularly and Towerfall is a ton of fun. Some PC coop titles I've tried suffer from poor controls (that recent Sonic kart racer is awful) You mean Sonic Racing Transformed? Unless your version of couch gaming is getting 4 keyboards and passing them out to your friends, I don't know how you can possibly believe this. It's easily a better Mario Kart than the last several iterations of Mario Kart. edit: you may also want to avoid making objective statements about games you played for the first time while drunk. raditts fucked around with this message at 17:22 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Christian Knudsen posted:I'm dodging your question because it's not relevant to the discussion. The issue is: Are campaign creators required to fulfill pledge rewards. The answer is yes. Are campaign creators required to refund backers if they can't/don't fulfill pledge rewards. The answer is yes. Is a backer an idiot for expecting pledge rewards to be fulfilled or getting refunded if not. The answer is no (at least not if the campaign didn't seem like an outright scam -- and we're not talking about obvious scams). Required by the kickstarter terms and services, also known as "not really required".
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Project creators are absolutely required to deliver rewards, and users aren't idiots for expecting their rewards to be delivered. It's in the Kickstarter TOS, it's what Kickstarter themselves think of projects, and it's exactly what Kickstarter wants you to think. Unfortunately, Kickstarter does jack poo poo at enforcing it at the moment, so a class action lawsuit is the only option you have. And that's not cool.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
is xbox pants a non-native English speaker or just socially maladjusted? I get into these arguments with eastern European college students who know what they are trying to say but refuse to admit their grasp on English is poo poo. They think other people are idiots for not understanding them, not because what they are saying makes no sense. Fauxtool fucked around with this message at 06:47 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Rudager posted:That is the loving worst analogy ever. Ahaha, even after all this time XboxPants is still a really dumb poster with an inability to successfully communicate with any normal human being  . Shine on, Ouya thread, you'll never stop giving.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 10:29 |
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Project creators are absolutely required to deliver rewards, and users aren't idiots for expecting their rewards to be delivered. Why? Purely because they've been promised, and you can't be called an idiot for blindly believing a promise, no matter what that promise is? If someone makes a clearly unreliable promise to you, and you completely accept it, how is that not dumb? Something like 1 out of 4 startups fail within the first year. Offering the final product as a reward is basically a promise from the company that won't happen. Why is it reasonable to believe them when reality shows there's no way they can actually back up such a promise?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:15
|
|