General / Off-Topic I Guess I'm Just Too Old To Understand Modern Business. Especially Games.

In my day, I had to come up with something called a "business proposal/case", write it, have it analyzed by an accountant, and go find financing from sources other than fans on a internet forum.

Isn't that just about the same model as Kickstarter anyway???? Write a proposal, have it looked over by thousands of people and then see who will finance your model.

I for one, reviewed their proposal, decided that a lifetime of free updates to a game that I have been wishing would be made since the 1980s was an excellent return, and invested my £100.

If you don't like what Frontier are doing, then don't buy the expansion.

See you in space (but I guess, not on a planet!)
 
Last edited:
Sadly the OP won't get to see this, he 'ignored' me 'long' ago (Only been here 6 weeks!) but here is my take on it.

In the old days, I am 48, you had to follow the model laid out by the OP as the only people who would invest in you were those people... Now the internet allows you to put your idea to lots of potential people, you potential customers.

It is their desire for your product/service which generates the seed capital, it's still all about the pitch and the idea but now you can present it in new ways.

This changes the investment model quite a lot as there is no share issue involved so no dividends to be paid once profits are being made with the likes of a kickstarter. This also means a different approach to the so called non-executive board members, these are normally made up of experts in their field who will lend their knowledge to your company, they get paid but do little. You new non-executive board can be a community of your customers who backed you to a certain level.

This new model is far more democratic than the old, which has left so many companies just owned by the banks. The software industry likes to think it's something special but in reality it is funded in the same ways as any other business... They will take funds from anyone who wants to give to them based on ROI plus the new models.

Look at FD, kickstarter, share issue and investment from a bank (Details are available via the LSE trading page for Frontier Developments Ltd.). They have repaid the investment, shares are stable after a downward trend (may have changed after Horizon's announcement). A wide net was cast to raise funds, just as in the old day, you get the funds where ever you can.


Great points and I'll quote you so the OP will see your arguments :).
 
Same as you - although wasn't there meant to be an art book at some point? What happened to that? Or am I imagining it?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I think the digital art book was added along the way... it wasn't listed on my original KS rewards list:

Clipboard01.jpg
 
Now, it seems that all I have to do is make a promise of future delivery to either Kickstarter backers, or existing customers who are awaiting delivery at some (generally) unspecified point in the future. It is even possible to shame existing customers into buying products or services that they do not want or need, due to peer pressure and social media (or addiction). The use of fear tactics, particularly the mantra that if monies are not provided, the business will fold, seem especially effective.

I guess that I'm not sociopathic enough to make it in today's business world. Especially online games. Being honest is a design flaw I have long suffered from. :(

Help me out here. I need to learn how to be a ruthless (redacted), and young gamers are a great resource for finding that talent. :)

As one of the young kids still technically a student my personal feelings are that kickstarters were meant to be a community driven project such as 20 people from a local village trying to club money together for a village concert or something. However, the success of the online kickstarter has led (for better or worse) to even large companies like Frontier using it as a new source of capital and also in many ways to get their fans more invested/energised about the product.

Given the size/scale of this game I can kind of see it requiring some additional funding, however, if I'd have in theory become an investor in Elite by participating I'd have expected a monthly meeting, perhaps done over an online IRC with all other "investors" and the developers with lots of 2 way communications on what went well, what didn't. I would also expect more details on what is being worked on and the state of play behind the scenes. This could easily be done with a Non-disclosure agreement, such as anyone that discusses anything from those private meetings gets removed from the kickstarter/beta program.

Sure this is a pipe-dream and seems unrealistic but thats my personal feelings when kickstarters are used by larger companies for what in essence used to be a charity and local community fundraising method.

Edit: Further points more on topic:
I'm against fear tactics being used openly but compared to other companies (one example: Ubisoft blocking reviewers from posting reviews prior to the release of AC Unity) it doesn't really bother me too much. I mean it can be quite brazen but in the most case its a generally understood principal that if companies do not have funds to develop games will get dropped or features changed/removed.
Maybe I have chosen wisely or maybe I've got lucky but the 4/5 early access I've joined have all been successful (Kerbal Space Program, Elite, minecraft etc).
 
Last edited:
The only thing you need to do is what was done in the past and what should always be done: wait until you have enough facts to base a decision on.

Kickstarter projects, pre-orders, early access, paid betas/alphas, etc are for a certain crowd that want to get into that sort of stuff - and good on them if they're ok with it; the rest can just wait for either facts/footage/reviews in the forms of videos or (gods forbid) text and decide if they want the product/service.

That's what I'll be doing with Horizons: I like that something more is coming, I don't know what it is though or if it's actually to my liking so I'll just wait and see; if I judge it to be something I want to and can justify (to myself) purchasing then it's extra profit for FD, if not then we keep on going our merry way with the product I already enjoy from them. All I wanted after all when I got in to this was a better version of the original game I played in '84 and I've gotten that.

Admittedly, as far as consumer rights go I am not pleased with the fact that my purchase was not fulfilled as far as the non-game content in its description (artbook? ehem...) and I also still chuckle with the vague fluff that was typed in there as well ("loads of digital goodies to be revealed in coming weeks"? ehem...) - but hey, whatever; I already sort of had it figured that was all just last minute "oh what should we also toss in there to make it sound more appealing?" decisions by their marketing department.
 
Last edited:
OP gets it. Crowdfunding and pre-orders are the new confidence scam.

The world of digital distribution is evolving. You have to pick and choose which projects are worth throwing money at, and basically take a risk on success and failure.

I'd like to eventually play Star Citizen, but I'm not confident enough in its development to pay ahead of release. This will likely mean that I miss out on some early backer extras. Or it might mean that I don't lose my investment.

You pays your money, you takes your chance.

Its not necessarily a confidence scam - its just the modern world.

There's only one thing that you can be certain of, and that's change. You have to embrace change, or you'll always be unhappy. The wisdom of Roy Cropper.
 
Its not necessarily a confidence scam - its just the modern world.

When it works right it isn't, that's true enough, and I'd like to think that that is the modern world on it's way to post-capitalism.

But to a large degree it sadly does work much the same way as a confidence scam works, only it's a totally legal one (usually), or at least it opens up the path to work in that fashion. Several such projects have turned out to be sea-monkeys; but like back then you just need to have the sense (and perhaps knowledge) to sort out what to expect and what not when you add the water.

For example the phrasing currently in the marketing of Horizons that got my interest the most was "gameplay extends seamlessly from space to the surface" which was repeated several times. Here the community, at least those coming from the previous iterations of Frontier 1 & 2, immediately co-relate "seamless" and "planetary landings" to there being a seamless transition from deep space all the way to the planet's surface. But "gameplay extends seamlessly" can easily be a much different thing despite using that keyword "seamless" - one can say that currently the gameplay from supercruise to normal freefall is seamless (although various experiments have shown it's not quite so, even in gameplay terms). And that's the bit that gets the excitement going and the pre-orders flowing: leave it open to interpretation.

Building up the confidence is mostly in the things you do not say and allow your target to fill in by themselves thus making them accomplices in their own deception/illusion. Mind you, this is also one of the pillars of modern marketing/advertising: sell the expectation/dream this product might evoke not the product itself.
 
Last edited:
So are we complaining about kickstarer scams on the forums of a company which didn't use kickstarer as a scam nowadays?

Is this the new fancy thing to do?

FD has broken only one promise, the single player. Everything else has been gradually fulfilled and within reasonable time-frames which kept on speeding up the more successful the game became. It's quite obvious that FD is not a company that isn't willing to invest into their game when possible.

And since I have a hunch this might have something to do with horizons. They never said that the planetary landings expansion would be free. It was specifically stated it would be a paid expansion. In fact, the only way they broke their promise is that the expansion includes MORE than just the planetary landings over time. I don't think that's something to complain about.

P.S: Nothing has changed as far as economics go. It's still the same banks allowing the same companies to profit from scams that use badly written laws from the same governments as a shield.
 
Last edited:
So are we complaining about kickstarer scams on the forums of a company which didn't use kickstarer as a scam nowadays?

Is this the new fancy thing to do?

FD has broken only one promise, the single player. Everything else has been gradually fulfilled and within reasonable time-frames which kept on speeding up the more successful the game became. It's quite obvious that FD is not a company that isn't willing to invest into their game when possible.

And since I have a hunch this might have something to do with horizons. They never said that the planetary landings expansion would be free. It was specifically stated it would be a paid expansion. In fact, the only way they broke their promise is that the expansion includes MORE than just the planetary landings over time. I don't think that's something to complain about.

Oh, now, shush.

You're letting logic and facts distract you from perfectly good paranoia.
 
So are we complaining about kickstarer scams on the forums of a company which didn't use kickstarer as a scam nowadays?

Actually I think it has more to do with discussing the inherent vagueness in describing products/services advertised and the complications that arise from that.
 
The world of digital distribution is evolving. You have to pick and choose which projects are worth throwing money at, and basically take a risk on success and failure.

I'd like to eventually play Star Citizen, but I'm not confident enough in its development to pay ahead of release. This will likely mean that I miss out on some early backer extras. Or it might mean that I don't lose my investment.

You pays your money, you takes your chance.

Its not necessarily a confidence scam - its just the modern world.

There's only one thing that you can be certain of, and that's change. You have to embrace change, or you'll always be unhappy. The wisdom of Roy Cropper.

What you just described isn't a Business, it's gambling. When someone is ensuring you that it isn't a gamble, and that you are guaranteed a return, they are inspiring you with confidence that you are making a safe decision. That is one of many forms of fraud called a confidence scam.
|
The wisdom of modern economics.
|
Please review this list for your own sake.
|
Did FD set out to scam us? No, they just screwed up. However crowd funding has been catching fire with scams recently, and that "You win some you lose some" mentality is exactly why these scams work. Stop being part of the problem.
 
@ Ralph Vargr,

I'm not here to defend Frontier and how they are running the development of ED. In fact i've been that dissapointed by the game 'so far' that i have not even started playing. As a long time fan of the Elite games i need more in my Elite game these days (say compared to 1986 when i first played Elite), and there is more to it than that. So just to have that clear before the next bit.

I have no problem with Kickstarter as a method to fund a game, really it is a liberating and unrestrictive method of game dev. The general game dev system, especially in the AAA space has become so restrictive and controlled by the publishing arm of the industry that for people like myself we have become less interested in buying new games from that production system. It is, in part, why there has been a huge boom in the 'indie' game scene.

So when kickstarter came along it gave another avenue that a game dev could look at to get a game made.

Elite came out in 1984. Frontier (elite II) came out in 1993. FFE (elite III) came out in 1995. ED came out in 2014, nearly 20 years after the last game because the publishing arm that now controls AAA games did not want to fund a new Elite game (they prefer FPS games).

Looking at how much 'silly' money people have thrown at Star Citizen (another crowd-sourced space game), there is obviously a demand for these games again, even where AAA publishers do not think so.

So crowd-funding (the type of method of funding that Kickstarter is) is a great new option to get a game made, that would not otherwise be made due to the conservative and established publishing method in AAA games. This is a good thing, as it allows more games of different genre's to get funded and made.

Yes it can go wrong, yes you can 'lose' your money if you get a broken game (or none at all!). This is why when you support a crowdfunded game you have to understand this is a gamble, plain a simple, like an investment in the stock market or being an invester in any other market, you may not get what you were hoping for.

The hardest part of using crowdfunding for your game is, these days, the very high cost of game development in general. People expect very high quality graphics and those 'cost' a lot of money/production effort, so only on a few rare examples has the crowdfunding method provided enough money to cover a AAA like game. For ED it did not, but it made enough to get the ball rolling and we are where we are today.

Is David and Frontier out to simply scam us all for our money and provide nothing in return? Well no, not at all as is evident in what they have produced upto this point.

Could David and Frontier maybe delivered things in a way that would have caused less outcry amongst their crowdfunding backers (thinking on the dropped SP game, the hit and miss nature of Power Play etc)? Sure, but hindsight is what it is and at the time it is very hard to see an exact future, in any business. So yeah there have been dissapointments on the way, but the game is still being worked on and seems set to carry on, and the more fans of the game keep supporting it the more complete, feature rich an experience it will become.

They are not snakeskin salesmen or whatever other phrase fits that, they have delievered one of the current best modern space games of recent years, and yes it is not perfect, but has the potential to be.

I personally fund more crowd-funded projects than i buy games from traditional publishers as there is just so much more potential to create something unique and different from the slew of 'face-shooters' that AAA games dev seems to have devolved into, and i hope crowdfunding is here to stay.

In terms of the current anger over the new expansion i would say i do agree that people that already have bought the game have been a little shortchanged. If Frontier released a stand alone expansion pack for Horizons at a reflective price ALL that angst would go away, so that would be my advice to them, don't annoy your backers as much as you have appeared to because the cost in terms of reputation of the game around the internet is not worth the potential loss it will cost overall.
 
I was born when Johnson was in the White House, and I started playing Elite back when Reagan was installed there. So, OP, this is a message from one old-timer to another ;)

... and I think Kickstarter is a great thing. Particularly and specifically because it meant that David Braben and colleagues could get the Elite franchise re-launched.

I don't see what you (OP) are complaining about. I (and a bunch of others) trusted Braben well enough that we were prepared to put some money into his venture. He executed on his promises (not 100%, but well beyond what might have been expected), and he's developed (actually, is still developing) the game we wanted to see. We trusted; he delivered. Your post harks back to other business models, but - just like Kickstarter - they still come down to trust.

Getting funding these days is the same challenge it was Back In The Day (TM) - and if you're finding business hard, I'd suggest you focus first on doing whatever it takes to get your stakeholders (customers, investors, peers) to *trust* you.
 
By allowing you to pre order something a company is improving its solvency!
<PENDANTRY>
Actually no; by receiving cash now against a future promise of delivery it's increasing its cashflow, and growing its balance sheet. But its solvency stays the same, because assets & liabilities are both increasing, by the same amount.
</PEDANTRY>
 
Back
Top Bottom