The reason they prevent investment into just any scheme is that otherwise they can't have oversight into reporting (e.g. SEC Filings) and the like. That's why offering stock is called a "public" offering when you offer stock to everyone. You can offer all you want to sophisticated investors, the legal beagles take a dim view of the possibility of defrauding grandma and grandpa, though (not that that stops the fraudsters).

I'll probably contribute, once I have completely got through my GOG wishlist, I like the concept of kickstarter because it makes the developers completely dependent on the expectations of the fans, which is a different "business model" than simply a huge corporation.

I'm extremely doubtful that this project will take off, and it almost certainly won't get the $300,000 it's asking for. Heck, it's only managed to raise $2,000 in over a week. If much of the work is complete, then why do they need $300,000?

The Kickstarter craze was interesting when it first started, but an inherent flaw in the idea means that it is almost certainly going to collapse in the near future. Many backers assume that they are guaranteed to get something for their donations, but I very much doubt that many of these projects are going to reach completion. When this becomes apparent to the people donating to these projects, there's going to be a lot of rage flying around, because people seem to believe that they are "investing" or "preordering"; not making a non-binding donation.

It's a little disconcerting to see that three people have donated $100, although the cynic in me tells me that these donations were made by "related parties" for PR. If not, then I'll bet there'll be hell to pay if it never goes gold.

I've donated to one crowdfunding project - the IUP Bundle - because there was a definite return on the "investment" (meant liberally) even if the projects being funded do not reach completion. I believe that this is the way to go with crowdfunding - provide a guaranteed return on the investment, for example with licences for older games, and then use the funding for newer projects, providing backers with a pre-order bonus.

I'm sorry if this sounds cold-hearted, but if I want to donate, I'll donate to cases that actually are in need. I'll donate to children's charities because they have a right to a good life. I'll donate to homeless charities because everyone has the right to have a chance to pull themselves out of the gutter. Game development is not a charity, and I want some kind of guaranteed return on my investment, if only a legal assurance that said game will at least reach maturity.

Why the hell would you donate to children's or homeless charities, what possible material benefit would that bring to you? None. People are in charge of their own personal situation, what a waste. But you are right about one thing, it is an investment.

I donate when I can see that these charities do some work that is actually constructive and beneficial to the greater good. Not just money - I donate tinned food to my local Tafel here, because they really are indispensible charities that help people in poverty. I know how indispensible they are, because I myself was forced to rely on the Tafel for a few weeks some years ago just to get some food in my stomach.

My motivations are not solely to serve my own material benefit, but I do need to have the sense that I'm donating to a worthy cause. I don't donate to these Africa charities or the like because donations don't really make much of a difference (considerable amounts get lost in bureaucracy alone, and using these donations to buy food only helps to drag out the underlying problem even further).

A game, on the other hand, is not something worthy of charitable donations. It is a business undertaking - if it cannot survive on its own two feet, then it should be allowed to die. If I pay an investment, I want some kind of guaranteed return.

Sure, different people have different perspectives on what makes a charitable undertaking deserving of unconditional help, but I'm not sure that game development counts among them for many people.

The answer is simple. The story was done by two people, for 4 years, for free. This is what we could do on our own. But it's still not a complete game in its current form. It needs the graphics, the music and the combat system. For that, we have to pay a good couple of people for 18 months. Plus various licences, equipment, taxes and ofc the rewards.
Don't think of the story as it was the story of a hack and slash RPG. This is a highly detailed world you can hardly find these days, in the spirit of good old times.

That's fair enough, but as I said above, think of it as a business undertaking.

Why should gamers donate to your project? What kind of guaranteed return can gamers expect from their investment? What have you done to establish the kind of reputation that would attract this kind of investment?

Tim Schafer's Kickstarter project took off solely on the basis of the fact that it's well...Tim Schafer. Everyone knows him and Double Fine. He's got a big reputation to put at stake in this project, and he knows that if he fails to make good on his promise, he'll probably never be able to show his face again.

Who the hell are you? And I don't mean that in a spiteful way. I just want to ask what claim you have to the confidence and trust of the wider community. You have much less of an established reputation. Just looking through the developer list, the only one that has any noteworthy background is Zoltan Gonda, whose last major project was the mundane Codename Panzers: Cold War (which I picked up for 3 euros new less than a year after release and I still wanted my money back), and apart from that the fairly respectable but not astonishingly great Haegemonia.

I see little in your project work to date to really convince me. The dialogue seems competent but very fan-ficish, and the fact that you have relied on forum members to proofread it for a project worth six figures sounds a little odd to me.

I think it's great that you have a vision for an epic and imaginative RPG world, I really do, but I see little to convince me that you can weave this into a coherent and high quality game.

Again, please don't think I'm being spiteful, but I do feel the need to say things as they are.

Jamy, you talk as if you're a millionaire who could somehow make this project eventuate out of thin air, if you so pleased. Seriously, who cares, and what value does your opinion hold? If someone sees this project as a worthwhile project, worthy of putting money towards, and they have the ability to donate, presumably they will. I mean, come on, nice wall of text, but don't you have anything better to do, like maybe play some video games? And what's this about Tim Schafer, so you only fund celebrities? You say you won't put anything towards a project you have no assurances will come to fruition, but that itself is a contradiction, because if everyone took such an attitude to Kickstart, nothing would ever get funded as everyone would be waiting for someone else to get the ball rolling.

You're a spiteful little man.

Duly noted.

Funnily enough, my position comes from the fact that neither I, nor many gamers, are made of money and not many of us are in a position to throw money around at projects that we hope may or may not come to fruition, regardless of how interesting they sound.

I quoted Tim Schafer as an example not because he's a celebrity, but because we know what to expect from him. I quoted the IUP bundle because they had established precedents and solid backgrounds. Or do you seriously fucking think I'd have paid $25 for the IUP just for the bundle?

Of course, we have to put a little faith that they will actually complete their projects, but the fact of the matter is that we cannot throw money at every fucking conceptual project that unestablished developers throw out.

If you think that makes me spiteful, then you are entitled to your opinions, but I can only say in response a deep and heartfelt FUCK YOU. I'm done with you.
I'm well aware that it's about donating - read my posts above.

But the fact of the matter is that there is no moral precedent for merely donating to for-profit undertakings. They're making games for a living, and that is their perfect right. As soon as you present funds to a project whose aim, however partial, it is, to make money, then it becomes an investment.

I am one of those mentioned that donated $100, not some PR stunt as you claim. I do have plenty of money at the moment but I would still not back unless I thought it was worthwhile.

I was initially quite skeptical (just read my opening post) but I'm right behind this project for a few reasons:
1. I want to support a dwindling genre of "oldshool" RPGs
2. I want to support a promising developer who may not have another way to get this project done.
3. I have confidence this project will be completed. Someone who has spent 4 years and has the foundations for this massive game, is going to make sure one way or another the game is done.

You may not think gaming needs donations, however, I think it is absolutely fantastic that those of us who value good games from dying genres have a chance of making them happen. (can't wait for Tex Murphy kstart)

i'm not sure you do understand this kick-starter thing.

although it may be described as a donation, it's clearly not. you are receiving something for your "donation/investment" - a promise to receive an item on completion of the project.

it's a pre-order. sure there is some risk that what is ordered will not materialise, but that is a risk that people using kick-starter are, or at least should, be aware of.

and you definitely don't need to be a big name to have a successful crowd funded game. FTL and the banner saga are two pretty good examples.

only time will tell whether they deliver the promised result, but there is a general desire in most people not to take other people's money without delivering something in return. also, if the people programming actually want to make a career out of programming, or any kind of business, have a failed kick-starter project is unlikely to assist.

Hello,

kickstarter is only a data mining facility of amazon.com. When you are creative artist with a superb idea for an project. Why the hell do you use kickstarter? You have to get your own donors for your project. You have to build your own website. You have all the work and you get nothing from kickstarter but a 5% fee to pay. The heck.

When you have a good idea, make a website, promote your game on all social networks, forums, retirement homes, schools, Superball (tm) halve time shows, tell some gaming jounalists what you are up to, make a paypal account, put a donation button on your website and ask people directly for their support.

I do not get it, why people are so hyped about kickstarter. Crowdfunding, a new nice word for the good old investment company. Some guy has an idea and then looks for people to support it. Kickstarter is a little overhyped.

Before giving your money to kickstart projects you can give it to me. I want to fund a The Great Crusade, to conquer our galaxy for humanity. Just pm me and i will give you a donation adress. As reward i promise you my eternal gratitude and to conquer our galaxy for humanity. Oh and when you have donored your money please be patient. It costs a lot of planing and building up of fleetstrenght and menpower to conquer the galaxy.
Edit: It could take some tenthousands of years.

Have a nice day.

jamyskis

The concept of KS is based on mutual reliance. Believe me, we can lose much more if we fail.

Luckily, it's not mandatory to pay. :) You like the project, you pay a few dollars, if you don'tt, you skip it.

As for me being a no one. Would it have been better if I hadn't given you any information about myself and other people on the team?

Update 8 features a new project video. GUI mockup coming soon...