next »

[Nix]

You can't make an "alpha" without a serious investment of time and resources. It all comes down to the same thing: who takes on the risk. Kickstarter is a way for lots of people to willingly take on small amounts of that risk rather than an individual taking it all on. That individual may not have the risk-tolerance to make the project happen on his/her own. Why Kickstarter donors are willing to take on that risk is up to them.

[PompiPompi]

I don't understand, so you are saying only teams of several people or more should get kickstarter funding?
It seems to me, in most cases, the only real parameter is popularity or fan base. It has nothing to do with team size, or if you have an alpha already or not.
You can say that people with proven past record also happen to be popular to some degree, but I believe there are enough exceptions of people who are popular that arn't experienced with making games, or unkown people who can make a pretty good game.
Well, I don't know.
I guess my point is that I thought Kickstarter could have helped unkown indies who are willing to work hard, have a good idea(=good alpha) but don't have a fan base. Instead it seems(to me) that people are willing to give money to those who are already in a better position to fund a game.

[Nix]

I don't understand, so you are saying only teams of several people or more should get kickstarter funding?

No, I didn't say that at all.

[ANtY]

Instead it seems(to me) that people are willing to give money to those who are already in a better position to fund a game.

Because it's true 

[Christian Knudsen]

And thank god for that. If people were uncritically giving money left and right to the hundreds of game projects on Kickstarter started by people that have no experience in making games and only a vague idea of the game they want to make, the entire model would collapse on itself in no time.

[PompiPompi]

Well, I didn't say to give money to inexperienced game developers. You can see if someone is on the right track if he got a good alpha though.
On the other hand, people give money based on popularity, even if there is no alpha to show.

[Garthy]

With such things, it's going to be the pitch that sells the game. However, the pitch is always going to implicitly include things such as star power (ie. popularity of the people pitching the idea) alongside experience. "Ideas guys" are going to need an amazing pitch to pull in decent coin if they don't have past successes to point to.

I don't think there is necessarily any idealism associated with it directly, ie. that it is out there to support the little guy, the people with the best ideas, or the coolest concepts. I think any such idealism is more an occasionally fortunate side effect that comes about from people supporting what they *want* to see, rather than anything deliberate. For example, if there is a good idea out there and a team that has established that they can do it (through past successes), but they need the funding, and they can't find a publisher who gives enough of a damn to green light it, it gives those developers another way to source the funds without signing over 95% of the profits and taking the funds as an advance (ie. loan). Everyone wins, except the publisher, who gets a rude shock, which they deserved.

However, just as easily, a less-well-known developer might have the best idea in the world, a cool demo, and the skills to pull it off, but if not enough people know about it, the target may not be met.

And again, just as easily, someone with high exposure might bring very little to the table, apart from their name, and get funded to an extent far greater than the more "worthy" project above.

So, again, I don't think there is necessarily any direct idealism attached to it, apart from being a neat way for a popular concept to get funded, rather than begging to a publisher and hoping for a break (or selling your soul for it, and by "soul" I mean all of your assets and most of your profit). It also lets "the people" decide if they'd be willing fund something, rather than a publisher or investor being the bottleneck. Having said that, that sounds a little idealistic, so perhaps I have contradicted myself!

[nico]

I skimmed parts of this thread so I might have missed a couple posts, but from what I see it seems the problem is you feel you don't DESERVE the money.

When you try to market anything (a kickstarter or anything else) backed by a feeling of guilt, it will bleed through. People will notice. You will be less enthusiastic. You will be overly concerned with finding 'justification' for your needs, and with trying to 'convince' people. The underlying subconscious subtext is that you are afraid people will discover your conceit and be angry at you.

My suggestion would be that instead of trying to build a justification, build an great vision, and make a great plan to back it up. Then share those, and you won't need any justification. People will either like it or dislike it, you keep the ones who do and ignore the ones who don't.

[Archibald]

PompiPompi, I think you are looking at it too much from a morality and idealism point of view. It's much simpler actually.
There is someone who wants to make a certain game and some people who want to play a certain game. The maker put down the requirements for the game to be done (like funding a vacation on Hawaii for research purposes) then the people estimate if that's the kind of game they would like to play, how probable is the project completion and how much they would need to pay to make this happen. If all these variables are above their personal thereshold they will fund it, if it is below they won't.