Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

Recommended Posts

All those reasons are also valid reasons when missing the deadline of an ebay auction.

So, would you now send an email to the seller, stating your undoubted valid reason

for missing it?

No, you´ll life with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All those reasons are also valid reasons when missing the deadline of an ebay auction.

So, would you now send an email to the seller, stating your undoubted valid reason

for missing it?

No, you´ll life with it.

Wow, can you really not see the difference between those two things?

In an eBay auction, there's typically one (or a limited number of) item to claim, which one person wins. Once they have won, there's no more product to sell. Even if someone wanted it after the fact, it would, in principle, be IMPOSSIBLE to give it to them. If you could magic up more product then sure! Why not sell those?

Christian, your point has to be the single worst point I have seen in this discussion so far. And there's stiff competition. I don't intend to be rude, but if we're going to have a legitimate debate about this, we need to be trying a little harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't intend to be rude

Hey, then I do not want to see you give it a try ;-)

It is not that I can´t see your point, but you should also try to understand

people who think that they bought access to something limited.

I bought a print of a picture a couple of years ago, it is limited so the price

has risen until now. That was not the only point to buy it, but still it was

a point. Limitation means higher value. Even if this value is not to be measured

by money.

And yes, you might see that as a stupid point since this is nothing that is not

available anymore, like something on ebay. But for some people it still loses

value if it is available after the window to buy it has closed.

(Don´t pinpoint me on my grammar, it has been a long day at work ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra backers = more money to spend on making game = potential to make a better game. We gain much more from the extra time DF can spend on the game than we lose in having more people with access to the forums (if more backers of adventure games visiting the forums can even be considered a loss + not an benefit).

Sure the forum is currently title "Private Kickstarter Backers-Only Area" and would need a name change to something like "Private Backers-Only Area". In the Kickstarter launch video, Tim says "You'll be able to talk back to us on exclusive online community of people who funded the game", and in the $15 pledge tier it offers "access the private discussion community", neither of which says that it will be Kickstarter exclusive, merely backer exclusive + private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SurplusGamer: We've failed a couple of times to have a legitimate debate. IMO the situation seems similar to certain opposing political views... it seems more or less impossible to reach to an agreement... well, not in a forum - no matter how hard we try. People seem to use Kickstarter with very different motivations. The ebay comparison actually doesn't really surprise me at all. I kinda assumed that for many people here it feels like it (for some people this game is just a good opportunity -so if you're not quick enough... your bad! That's life). But we're many so it's not really surprising that some people come from a different points of view here. I'm just glad that most decisions will be DF only...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't intend to be rude

Hey, then I do not want to see you give it a try ;-)

It is not that I can´t see your point, but you should also try to understand

people who think that they bought access to something limited.

I bought a print of a picture a couple of years ago, it is limited so the price

has risen until now. That was not the only point to buy it, but still it was

a point. Limitation means higher value. Even if this value is not to be measured

by money.

And yes, you might see that as a stupid point since this is nothing that is not

available anymore, like something on ebay. But for some people it still loses

value if it is available after the window to buy it has closed.

(Don´t pinpoint me on my grammar, it has been a long day at work ;-)

I think we understand that, that perceived value is higher when something is time-limited or whatever. But I think focusing on that ignores the bigger picture that changing it being from strictly limited to open to pre-orders is, on the whole, good for everyone. It's good for Double Fine, it's good for people who didn't get to back before, it could be good for us even, bringing some fresh voices into the discussion community.

So it boils down to the following problem: Do you change the terms slightly and risk angering the minority of people for whom those specific terms were rather important, in 'principle'? Or do you stick to the terms strictly to keep those people happy, and forfeit the ability to do something that's tangibly better for a lot of people? Or do you come up with some compromise which risks satisfying neither party?

There's a legitimate debate to be had there, to be sure. But I've already given my reasons why I think the first option is clearly the better, elsewhere in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO the situation seems similar to certain opposing political views... it seems more or less impossible to reach to an agreement... well, not in a forum - no matter how hard we try

I agree. A vote could settle that.

By the way I don´t really care about new people coming on board if the money is going into the game.

But I think it is unfair to assume that ones opinion is the only valid one.

And again, yes it is not limited in a real way, so why not give access to everybody who pays the fee.

But nothing nowadays is really limited, everything can be made over and over again.

But people like buying exclusivity even so it only exists in the rarest cases.

Of course they UNDERSTAND that this is not limited, but they WANT it to be.

And that is a fair point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole (frustrating) discussion (if i may call that an discussion... I doubt it sometimes...) comes to one point:

There are some people who value ther "loss" due to less exclusiveness higher than the "win" other people may gain who love to join the party but couldn't through kickstarter and there are some people (glady the majority) who don't...

Pick your side but stop to try to persuade the opposite side... It doesn't seem possible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a legitimate debate to be had there, to be sure. But I've already given my reasons why I think the first option is clearly the better, elsewhere in this thread.

I know, just felt to state mine.

No hard feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vote could settle that.

The only vote that will help us here is the vote from DF :) (our various polls didn't help here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vote could settle that.

We made many votes already. Unfortunately - obviously - you can't really settle it this way.

Yeah, the votes have come out heavily in favour of pre-orders, but even if only 1% of backers were against pre-orders, that's still 800 angry backers. When does it become too few to worry about? As Mikej points out - it doesn't settle anything, it just establishes a majority. If 20% of people really hate Tim's risky game idea, do we have to listen to those, too? Or is there a certain point where he has to think 'no, by doing this risky thing that not everyone will love, I'm making a better game and being truer to my own ideas. I have to trust that.'

It's clear to me you can't make everyone happy, but you can choose to take the decisions which are, on average, better for the most people. There's no doubt in my mind that allowing pre-orders is the right decision for this reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a vote that can settle everything:

Fun Pills

-OR-

Sleds

----------

You decide. (I choose both).

Smiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wowsers. I'm resisting an intense urge to rant indignantly after that "so they are considering throwing the kickstarter backers under the bus… " statement. That perspective is outright dismissive of, and arguably insulting to, Double Fine's good will towards us. You'd do well, meisjoe, to stop thinking of DF as a faceless corporation and think of this more as a shared endeavor among human beings. Maybe then you would see the sense in a compromise which would benefit the project. A benefit to the project is a benefit to all of us. It was a team effort getting this project off the ground. It would be nice if we could think like a team as it progresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick reminder, meisjoe already unsubscribed from this thread. His rhetoric was a bit over the top in some places, sure, but it seemed like once he got it out of his system, he felt more at peace, as you'll see from his last posts in the thread! Be ye not vexed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think this discussion has gone beyond productive -- Greg said they were thinking about their options, acknowledged our debate.

I thought we all agreed that this is essentially a "change of plans" regarding the statements made on and during the Double Fine Kickstarter?

I'm not sure how any debate can proceed when it's basically "We don't want them to change their plans" vs "It's okay for them to change their plans for x,y and z reasons."

There's pretty good and valid reasons on both sides - why mess with a model/irritate-some-backers that just raised you $3.3m vs. why not allow more people in for the fun and money?

Well isn't this the nature of disagreement? If you really thought my reasons were valid, you wouldn't disagree with me. I think the the debate is legitimate, as in, I can see how two sane people could disagree on this. I don't think people on the other side of the issue are MAD or STUPID, but I definitely don't think the opposing view is valid. That's why I keep disagreeing with it!

As far as I'm concerned, legitimate debate is always productive because even if you can't change someone's mind, you can always try to understand their position better. Like when I was harsh on that guy one page ago. He wasn't stupid, but he was making a POINT that I thought was stupid. By calling him out on it, not only did he end up making a better, more debatable point, but I actually understood a lot better what he was getting at. More understanding = less shouting = good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favor of opening all for new people ... If DF also agrees my Kickstarter pledge can be moved in category if I ask so (apart from those that imply physical goods).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit to being in the don't leave the contributions open camp but I do want to try to be reasonable.

What about something to the effect of a closed period of time with no more contributions (ideally I'd say 6 months but at least 3) then pre-orders can be open for the game with some bonuses, but not all of the Kickstarter ones.

In the meantime they could post a website and/or send out emails to the effect of 'Thank you for your interest. We are preparing pre-orders at a future date. Please sign up to be notified' etc.

I think to have a cooling off period doesn't negate the deadline like just going straight into contributions. Pre-orders would also allow people to support the game at some point and not feel like they completely missed out, but because they will be pre-orders and not Kickstarter/alpha funding there's not the need to justify what's being done with the money etc.

Keeping at least some of the Kickstarter exclusives should keep people happy and I'd also say the mimimum to pre-order could be raised, at least to $20, so that the $15 Kickstarter people can still feel like they got a deal or got something in return for their early support.

There's got to be some kind of middle ground here with they can keep the integrity of the Kickstarter campaign entact and yet still let people who missed it get in some time before the game publishes. It's not like pre-orders are unheard of anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vote could settle that.

We made many votes already. Unfortunately - obviously - you can't really settle it this way.

Yeah, the votes have come out heavily in favour of pre-orders, but even if only 1% of backers were against pre-orders, that's still 800 angry backers.

After consideration I must say that pre-orders are something DF always has the right to do. It's usual when it comes to games and technically the game was never exklusive (otherwise it wouldn't be possible to sell it at all). In this case... even if 1% is against it, that can't be an issue in this case. The only issue are the rewards and here it seems we have difficulties to agree and here IMO it's a problem if a few hundred people are pissed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, my understanding is that this subject is solely forums vs no forums, beta vs no beta. It'd be VERY silly to not want Double Fine to sell their game at all, be it before or after release, especially if we want to see them make an adventure game ever again. I don't think it's necessary for DF to raise the price, either, if they don't want to. It's not our right to decide how DF does business outside of this Kickstarter (and I would argue 'at all', but then we start going around in circles again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya, my understanding is that this subject is solely forums vs no forums, beta vs no beta. It'd be VERY silly to not want Double Fine to sell their game at all, be it before or after release, especially if we want to see them make an adventure game ever again.

That's an opinion. Another is that to offer pre-orders so far in advance that a game is still in concept stage is not commonly done outside of alpha funding. It would basically be pre-alpha funding and really could be seen an an extension of the Kickstarter.

Obviously, everyone wants them to sell them game when it's done and probably to even offer a pre-order a bit before that. The issue for me is that if you don't have a clear cut break between the end of the Kickstarter and the beginning of pre-ordering then it just all becomes one extended Kickstarter and it defeats the purpose of having a fund drive with a set deadline.

I don't think it's necessary for DF to raise the price, either, if they don't want to.

They don't have to do anything they don't want to. I think that goes without saying.

It's my opinion that at the lowest tier of a Kickstarter pledge the main benefit should be at least a small discount over what the release price of the game will be because they are helping to fund the game, are willing to wait a long time until they get it and there is some degree of risk involved (ie no ironclad guarantee of a finished product). This is how alpha funding usually works. Get in early and get it cheaper, get in later and pay a little more but you've got a guaranteed finished product that you can use now or soon.

It's not our right to decide how DF does business outside of this Kickstarter (and I would argue 'at all', but then we start going around in circles again).

I don't think we have the right to demand things but we're basically all investors and I do think we at least have a right to voice opinions, thoughts, concerns etc even over things like pricing and when and how to start pre-orders etc.

Clearly they are under no obligation to follow anyone's particular desires and even if they wanted to they couldn't please everyone. I have a problem though when someone is stating that I as a contributor have no business expressing my thoughts or concerns or that they are "silly". No, they're not. They're just different than yours.

Anyway, I really, really don't want to get sucked into this whole debate again. I thought I was trying to offer some reasonable compromises but apparently there really isn't any. Like someone else said, it's like arguing politics or religion, people have such strong attachments on either side that it just doesn't get anywhere.

I feel like this issue has created a rift in this community with some hard feelings and that's a real shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to imply that you, or anyone else, shouldn't give their thoughts. That's all I'm doing, after all! Sorry if my 'silly' comment came off a bit strong. I was only suggesting that it would be silly (and I probably should have said "it seems silly to me", you are right that it is an opinion) to want Double Fine not to sell the game -at all-, and the insinuation there is my feeling that it doesn't make a scrap of difference to any of us if someone else buys the game before or after release. The only thing I can see having any effect on us whatsoever is if something about our Kickstarter rewards changes, which is what I perceive to be the crux of the debate in this thread.

Fair enough that you feel that a discount should be the reward for a pledge, but the rewards which were being offered were clearly presented to backers, and a discount was not specified.

I see your point about offering pre-orders so early, though I can't see any harm because a consumer who thinks the risk is too great now can simply wait. There is no pressure on anyone to pre-order. I don't personally feel that pre-orders invalidate the end of the backing period - To my mind the entire function of the deadline is to establish whether or not the project goes ahead at all, and to determine it's budget. Once that has occurred, the Kickstarter has served it's purpose. Any transactions happening after that are completely separate, and it's up to consumers to decide if they want to participate in them.

Again, I don't mean to sound like I'm shutting anyone down, I'm just sharing my thoughts on thoughts on thoughts on thoughts... I have it in me to be a compulsive debater, which is why I've posted so much. Feel free to ignore me. I mean no hostility :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quote myself from a few pages ago: "For me the implications of DFA go deeper than for example W2. The situation for Adventures worldwide is much more difficult than the situation of for example turnbased RPG’s. These days it’s a small genre, for a (compared to other genre’s) small group of people. If we communicate to others: okay, now we have something AWESOME going on, but we don’t share it with you… I don’t really like the sound of it and I don’t thinks really helping. On the other hand if we open up while this project still has enough media attention, then this could show: hey, we have something going on and EVERYONE can be part of it because it’s a genre for everyone!!"

So pre-orders are alright (maybe DF would find something to make the orders interesting...) but IMO from a larger prospective involving other people who want to, who are interested in this genre, would be the more important thing to do. Besides, it's not like the forum is bursting. There'd be plenty room for more :)

But I know that a lot people will probably not share my point of view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I quote myself from a few pages ago: "For me the implications of DFA go deeper than for example W2. The situation for Adventures worldwide is much more difficult than the situation of for example turnbased RPG’s. These days it’s a small genre, for a (compared to other genre’s) small group of people. If we communicate to others: okay, now we have something AWESOME going on, but we don’t share it with you… I don’t really like the sound of it and I don’t thinks really helping. On the other hand if we open up while this project still has enough media attention, then this could show: hey, we have something going on and EVERYONE can be part of it because it’s a genre for everyone!!"

So pre-orders are alright (maybe DF would find something to make the orders interesting...) but IMO from a larger prospective involving other people who want to, who are interested in this genre, would be the more important thing to do. Besides, it's not like the forum is bursting. There'd be plenty room for more :)

But I know that a lot people will probably not share my point of view

Mikej, agree with you 100%!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmm, I don't feel 100% comfortable with this.

People who didn't back this project won't miss out on this game, they can buy it once it is made. Why do you need extra funding to help the project? did you not raise enough over the original funding goal? is there another stretch goal of added content if you get enough preorders? I guess I just want to understand the need for this extra backing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for supporting this project further and allowing other people in, I just want to know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many good reasons have been raised during this beast of a thread. One is that some people were unable to back due to payment methods. They want to be a part of the project but did not have a way to do so. There are also people who found out about this late. A pre-order providing the $15 backer rewards gives them a way in. I can't see any benefit to anyone in turning people away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many good reasons have been raised during this beast of a thread. One is that some people were unable to back due to payment methods. They want to be a part of the project but did not have a way to do so. There are also people who found out about this late. A pre-order providing the $15 backer rewards gives them a way in. I can't see any benefit to anyone in turning people away.

Yes it is a beast of a thread.

Thanks for the reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but after reading 3 pages worth and then seeing it had 22 pages i'm afraid I don't have the time to check. However I feel I should add my voice to the discussion.

So in principle I don't mind the idea, the more the merrier etc. However I do have a real problem in how this might affect future kickstarter and other crowd-sourcing projects, especially those that demand that the total goal in order to be successful. The issue being that if people start to think they don't need to pledge because they can simply do a pre-order pledge later then this may hurt other kickstarter projects. Certainly it may put less emphasis on making an early pledge and thus people become complacent and not pledge, and then the project fails to reach its goal!

I feel very strongly about this as it would seem to me that DF could be hampering kickstarter and other crowd-sourcing projects, when if it wasn't for kickstarter we wouldn't even be here!

My solution is that the $15 tier should be offered but at a higher price say $25. That way people who couldn't make up there minds can still get in on the action, but at a small penalty over those who initially backed the project, thus encouraging future backers to pledge and not wait for pre-order pledges. It is a shame for those who were unable to use kickstarter, but they are still getting a great deal.

Its not that I feel we need to have a closed system now kickstarter is over or that these late comers need to be 'punished', just I don't want to see a system introduces which could damage/hamper future kickstarter/crowd-sourcing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...