Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

Recommended Posts

Since apparently there is a misconception here:

exclusive:

-adjective:

-limited to only one person or group of people

--This room is for the exclusive use of guests.

--an exclusive interview

Reference: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/exclusive_1

In this case that group of people were the ones who backed their project through kickstarter.

The point of the kickstarter was to see if people would take a leap of faith w/o knowing anything else about the project or if it would even work. The rewards that were offered were to entice and reward people who had faith in them and their idea. These rewards were the return for taking a big risk on Double Fine and for the new people, that risk isn't there

Now that the game is actually being made that risk is gone and giving away the rewards to random new people who didn't back the project on kickstarter; rewards the kickstarter backers were told would only be exclusive to them decreases the value of those rewards dramatically.

I'm all for working something out with people who had failed payments, but this thread isn't about that. This is about people who didn't back the project at all, and giving those people the same things everyone who did take that risk on Double Fine took when that risk is eliminated.

It cheapens those rewards and makes them no longer exclusive. Which means everyone who contributed to the project (the $15 tier was included in all other tiers) has some of their rewards that they were advertised to receive decrease in value or invalidated all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it, I don't see why not as it's not like they are getting all of the kickstarter rewards of the people who payed more and on time. I would like to see more people playing it anyways so the more supporters, the better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this idea that it hurts the kickstarter model is bogus, for a few reasons:

1) How many of you would have waited before backing, just on the mere possibility that you might be able to pay later to get access? Surely this was always a possibility, so I'm guessing nobody.

2) Even if you were sure pre-orders would happen, how many of you would have waited to pre-order, rather than contribute to that lovely rising kickstarter total and seeing the scope of the project get bigger and bigger as more money went into the project? I'm guessing extremely few. Kickstarter generates excitement, excitement generates backers, pre-orders or not.

3) Even if pre-orders were assured, and even if it wasn't extremely few who waited for pre-order for some reason instead of just backing the project to make it better, and even if this genuinely stood to hurt crowd funding (which I doubt for the above reasons), there's a good chance the phenomena could be self correcting. If a project you wanted to pre-order wasn't doing very well on kickstarter, wouldn't you consider becoming a backer to help it along?

You're ignoring the fact that pre-orders aren't just getting the game in this case. They're bypassing the risk of being part of the kickstarter, and still getting access to the backer forums, which were intended to go to the members of the kickstarter campaign /exclusively/.

It's hurting the kickstarter model because it's offering the same rewards at the low levels without any of the initial risk. Why should late investors get the same setup as early investors? Early investing (like kickstarter projects) are supposed to have incentives to make the investment worth the risk. Exclusivity for something like this is a pretty big incentive to a lot of people. This specific project is a poor example because it was so wildly successful that most of the risk was obliterated very early on in the kickstarter, but it sets a poor precedent for future projects that might just teeter over the edge of being actually funded.

I just want DF to stick to what they said they were going to do.

Also, as an aside, I think you assuming that it was "always a possibility" to pay to get the same special access is /exactly/ what people that are against this are saying should not be the case. I did not once ever think that DF would offer the same rewards outside of kickstarter after the campaign was over just for pre-ordering the game, and I would be willing to bet that a significant percentage of other backers did not think it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since apparently there is a misconception here:

exclusive:

-adjective:

-limited to only one person or group of people

--This room is for the exclusive use of guests.

--an exclusive interview

So what part of that definition means that exclusive can't be 'exclusive to the group of people that have paid $15 for access'? I'm not misconceiving anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since apparently there is a misconception here:

exclusive:

-adjective:

-limited to only one person or group of people

--This room is for the exclusive use of guests.

--an exclusive interview

Reference: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/exclusive_1

Pedantic:

-adjective:

-giving too much attention to formal rules or small details

--They were being unnecessarily pedantic by insisting that Berry himself, and not his wife, should have made the announcement.

Reference: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pedantic?q=pedantic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really appreciate being called pedantic or smug.

Despite the initial wave of support for this idea from DFGreg, I think the burden to prove how this change is acceptable really falls on those people supporting it.

I'm not sure how anyone can claim it wasn't clearly implied by the Kickstarter that entry to the forums, and the other rewards at that level, were available to people donating within that timeframe. Tim later confirmed this in the video. Efforts were made to make it feel as though you "better get in now."

Unless you're trying to make an argument that they never claimed or staged their Kickstarter in that way, which seems like an absurd claim, you're in "this should happen [despite those promises] because x territory."

The burden should not be on the people feeling sketchy about this change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're ignoring the fact that pre-orders aren't just getting the game in this case. They're bypassing the risk of being part of the kickstarter, and still getting access to the backer forums, which were intended to go to the members of the kickstarter campaign /exclusively/.

It's hurting the kickstarter model because it's offering the same rewards at the low levels without any of the initial risk. Why should late investors get the same setup as early investors?

I'm afraid your reasoning is very faulty. By this logic, the people who backed early on during the month of backing should get bigger rewards than the people in the end. But that doesn't happen, and nobody says it should, and it would be a very frustrating system if that's how it worked.

Also, it's not an investment and the risk that you're talking about is basically imaginary. I pay a limited amount of money and 'risk' getting a bad game at the end? That's hardly what an investor would call a risk. And people who pre-order right now would be taking almost EXACTLY the same risk, the only difference being that their money isn't going towards the game budget. In fact, this means if anything they're taking MORE of a risk because they are giving an amount of money, and they're not adding to the game budget. When I backed $120, at least I knew that was $120 going towards making the project better, which lowers the risk of my so-called 'investment'.

Also,

I did not once ever think that DF would offer the same rewards outside of kickstarter after the campaign was over just for pre-ordering the game

Why not? I didn't think it would definitely happen, but given a moments thought it seems obvious that it's a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since apparently there is a misconception here:

exclusive:

-adjective:

-limited to only one person or group of people

--This room is for the exclusive use of guests.

--an exclusive interview

Reference: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/exclusive_1

Pedantic:

-adjective:

-giving too much attention to formal rules or small details

--They were being unnecessarily pedantic by insisting that Berry himself, and not his wife, should have made the announcement.

Reference: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pedantic?q=pedantic

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove with that post. The first definition is "limited to only one person or group of people." For our purposes - that "group of people" are/were the kickstarter backers... Redefining the group, doesn't redefine the definition... but it dramatically changes it's context.

Any objective person would conclude that "exclusive" in this case, meant kickstarter backers. If you would have asked Tim a month ago, do you think he would have been quoting from The Cambridge Online Dictionary? No, he would have said "exclusive to kickstarter backers." If they want to change it now, that's their prerogative (I guess) but people would be justified in feeling disenfranchised and misled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dramatically

I think that's where we differ. Dramatically? Come on, let's get some perspective. It makes the thing a bit more inclusive at the lowest entry level of $15, which is cool for people who missed out on the kickstarter and makes no actual, meaningful difference to those who didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not once ever think that DF would offer the same rewards outside of kickstarter after the campaign was over just for pre-ordering the game

Why not? I didn't think it would definitely happen, but given a moments thought it seems obvious that it's a possibility.

I didn't think it would happen because they said it was exclusive to the kickstarter backers. I didn't think they were lying to me. I don't think it's an "obvious" assumption that they would lie. /shrug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dramatically

I think that's where we differ. Dramatically? Come on, let's get some perspective. It makes the thing a bit more inclusive at the lowest entry level of $15, which is cool for people who missed out on the kickstarter and makes no actual, meaningful difference to those who didn't.

You're thinking too much about the exact dollar amount and not enough about the precedent it sets for future changes. $15 means very little to me. Someone saying they will do something one way, then changing it later outside the terms of an agreement.... that bothers me no matter what the financial value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove with that post.

Mostly this: Posting a dictionary definition of a well-known adjective like you assume no one but you "gets it" is hella condescending, and so was my mockery of it.

I get that some of you are upset, but I think it's kind of building mountains out of molehills.

Anyway, it's way too nice outside to be arguing with you folks, so I'm going to go there instead.

Peace.

Edit: I meant the royal "you," not you personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not once ever think that DF would offer the same rewards outside of kickstarter after the campaign was over just for pre-ordering the game

Why not? I didn't think it would definitely happen, but given a moments thought it seems obvious that it's a possibility.

I didn't think it would happen because they said it was exclusive to the kickstarter backers. I didn't think they were lying to me. I don't think it's an "obvious" assumption that they would lie. /shrug

So your problem is that they said it was exclusive to kickstarter backers and now people can pay money now and also get access. And this is what you're upset about? They didn't lie, plans changed, and not even by very much.

Look, I GUESS I can understand someone saying if they knew that the forums would be opened up later to pre-orders, they might have waited, but you have to acknowledge that plans can change, and that change can be for good reason. The original plan was made when they had no IDEA how big this thing was going to blow up. To now step in and say, 'no, you have to stick to what you said at first exactly to the letter because otherwise I feel cheated' seems not only rather petty, but also impractical.

After all, so far plans have changed almost ENTIRELY in our favour. When I first backed $100 I was getting a poster and my name in the credits, above the lower rewards. That was it. Since then, not only has the game got much bigger, so have all the rewards. Now, they're asking for this one, little, slight tweak to the plan that doesn't benefit us (or hurt us), specifically, and suddenly you're calling them out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since apparently there is a misconception here:

exclusive:

-adjective:

-limited to only one person or group of people

--This room is for the exclusive use of guests.

--an exclusive interview

Reference: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/exclusive_1

In this case that group of people were the ones who backed their project through kickstarter.

The point of the kickstarter was to see if people would take a leap of faith w/o knowing anything else about the project or if it would even work. The rewards that were offered were to entice and reward people who had faith in them and their idea. These rewards were the return for taking a big risk on Double Fine and for the new people, that risk isn't there

Now that the game is actually being made that risk is gone and giving away the rewards to random new people who didn't back the project on kickstarter; rewards the kickstarter backers were told would only be exclusive to them decreases the value of those rewards dramatically.

I'm all for working something out with people who had failed payments, but this thread isn't about that. This is about people who didn't back the project at all, and giving those people the same things everyone who did take that risk on Double Fine took when that risk is eliminated.

It cheapens those rewards and makes them no longer exclusive. Which means everyone who contributed to the project (the $15 tier was included in all other tiers) has some of their rewards that they were advertised to receive decrease in value or invalidated all together.

Again, with reference to my previous reply, why do you think the 'risk' no longer there? They still haven't made the game, and everyone who backed the game after the first week or so were doing so in the full knowledge that there would be a lot more budget than originally asked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dramatically

I think that's where we differ. Dramatically? Come on, let's get some perspective. It makes the thing a bit more inclusive at the lowest entry level of $15, which is cool for people who missed out on the kickstarter and makes no actual, meaningful difference to those who didn't.

I think when the game-changing largest-Kickstarter-project-ever waffles on implied exclusives, it is a headline story that will be picked up by gaming sites. I think a "second chance to join the DF Kickstarter" would be a big news story, and I think it's one that sends a weird mixed message to people. Dramatic!

Dramatic to people who really wanted to get in on it but couldn't/missed it before, sure. But to us, it should be a non-story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your problem is that they said it was exclusive to kickstarter backers and now people can pay money now and also get access. And this is what you're upset about? They didn't lie, plans changed, and not even by very much.

Look, I GUESS I can understand someone saying if they knew that the forums would be opened up later to pre-orders, they might have waited, but you have to acknowledge that plans can change, and that change can be for good reason. The original plan was made when they had no IDEA how big this thing was going to blow up. To now step in and say, 'no, you have to stick to what you said at first exactly to the letter because otherwise I feel cheated' seems not only rather petty, but also impractical.

After all, so far plans have changed almost ENTIRELY in our favour. When I first backed $100 I was getting a poster and my name in the credits, above the lower rewards. That was it. Since then, not only has the game got much bigger, so have all the rewards. Now, they're asking for this one, little, slight tweak to the plan that doesn't benefit us (or hurt us), specifically, and suddenly you're calling them out?

Hey, it's cool that you are in favor of it. I am not. I think Sokar's solution of simply saying "hey, sorry, you missed the deadline" is perfectly reasonable, and keeps the plan and the kickstarter model in check. I don't think it hurts the game at all for them to do this, but it hurts trust in the kickstarter model. There are many other projects on kickstarter that have been funded by a larger /percentage/ than this one. What usually happens (similar to this project) is that additional awards are added while the campaign is still going. I haven't seen any of those start offering kickstarter bonuses to after-the-fact backers. Maybe they have, and this whole thing is just a sham. Once again, /shrug. Either way, we'll still be getting a (hopefully) fun game out of the deal. I'm not throwing my hands up saying that they're full of shit and they're going to go throw the money into a giant golden volcano, I'm saying that the thing they are changing is against the point of doing this through kickstarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one, it was supposed to be condescending, someone changing the meaning of the word exclusive, a word everyone knows the meaning of, is nothing more than an insult.

An this is not about 'plans changing' this is about going back on what was promised backers. This is the top of a very slippery slope that gets followed by:

Well they're backers now, why shouldn't they be able to:

Get a the poster that was advertised as only available via kickstarter.

Get the same BluRay copy as kickstarter backers.

Get the same boxed copy of the game as kickstarter backers.

Get a Backer T-shirt.

Get the hardcover book.

If exclusive doesn't mean exclusive then all of these are possible and the value of those goods as a limited quantity is either diminished or erased.

And yes, the forums, beta testing and the video series are goods too. Which until now had a very high value due to the limited availability. Once anyone can pay $15 for them at any time their value goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd charge 20$ for this special "second chance" thing. It wouldn't be such a big deal for those who didn't get on the boat at first, and the people payed who backed the project during the Kickstarter funding would have benefited from some kind of low price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your problem is that they said it was exclusive to kickstarter backers and now people can pay money now and also get access. And this is what you're upset about? They didn't lie, plans changed, and not even by very much.

Look, I GUESS I can understand someone saying if they knew that the forums would be opened up later to pre-orders, they might have waited, but you have to acknowledge that plans can change, and that change can be for good reason. The original plan was made when they had no IDEA how big this thing was going to blow up. To now step in and say, 'no, you have to stick to what you said at first exactly to the letter because otherwise I feel cheated' seems not only rather petty, but also impractical.

After all, so far plans have changed almost ENTIRELY in our favour. When I first backed $100 I was getting a poster and my name in the credits, above the lower rewards. That was it. Since then, not only has the game got much bigger, so have all the rewards. Now, they're asking for this one, little, slight tweak to the plan that doesn't benefit us (or hurt us), specifically, and suddenly you're calling them out?

Hey, it's cool that you are in favor of it. I am not. I think Sokar's solution of simply saying "hey, sorry, you missed the deadline" is perfectly reasonable, and keeps the plan and the kickstarter model in check. I don't think it hurts the game at all for them to do this, but it hurts trust in the kickstarter model. There are many other projects on kickstarter that have been funded by a larger /percentage/ than this one. What usually happens (similar to this project) is that additional awards are added while the campaign is still going. I haven't seen any of those start offering kickstarter bonuses to after-the-fact backers. Maybe they have, and this whole thing is just a sham. Once again, /shrug. Either way, we'll still be getting a (hopefully) fun game out of the deal. I'm not throwing my hands up saying that they're full of shit and they're going to go throw the money into a giant golden volcano, I'm saying that the thing they are changing is against the point of doing this through kickstarter.

I guess I just don't see why it's a big deal whether the plans change before or after the fact or not. Basically this has happened:

Who wants ice cream? Quick, get ice cream while stocks last! Oh my gosh, so many people want ice cream we're going to give you even more awesome ice cream! And if you pay some more, now we're going to give you cool ice cream accessories, and you'll get all sorts of cool stuff! Wow, still more people? Excellent. Now we can give you a choice of five flavours, and if you pay more we'll give you a puppy and chocolate sprinkles! Well, that's it, time's up. Hey, there are still people who want ice cream! You wouldn't mind if we just gave them the basic, entry level ice cream without the puppies and the sprinkles and the accessories and the cool stuff, right, for the same price that we offered you? It's just that we didn't realise that so many people would want ice cream, and this seems like it'd be a good thing for us. And we did offer you all that extra stuff...

That doesn't seem to be doing anyone any harm, and it doesn't seem to me to be dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kickstarter was a way to get cheap preorders on the game anyway.

No, you can't allow people to give you money because I need to feel entitled.

Seriously.

Anyway, it'd be pretty cool if we could all see how much money is going into paypal too, so we can add to the kickstarter+premium backer money.

Who knows, maybe you'll get like 4 million or more during the development.

Wouldn't that be great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kickstarter was a way to get cheap preorders on the game anyway.

No, you can't allow people to give you money because I need to feel entitled.

Seriously.

Anyway, it'd be pretty cool if we could all see how much money is going into paypal too, so we can add to the kickstarter+premium backer money.

Who knows, maybe you'll get like 4 million or more during the development.

Wouldn't that be great?

I don't know why you can't have an argument without belittling other people... Calling other backers who disagree with you "petty" and "entitled" is unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dramatically

I think that's where we differ. Dramatically? Come on, let's get some perspective. It makes the thing a bit more inclusive at the lowest entry level of $15, which is cool for people who missed out on the kickstarter and makes no actual, meaningful difference to those who didn't.

I think when the game-changing largest-Kickstarter-project-ever waffles on implied exclusives, it is a headline story that will be picked up by gaming sites. I think a "second chance to join the DF Kickstarter" would be a big news story, and I think it's one that sends a weird mixed message to people. Dramatic!

Dramatic to people who really wanted to get in on it but couldn't/missed it before, sure. But to us, it should be a non-story.

I for one have seen dozens of posts on various forums to the effect of "They're a big game studio, why do they need our money" and "I don't feel right about giving for something that doesn't exist yet" and "I don't trust the Kickstarter thing." I feel like this makes the case for all those people's hesitations and doubts about the model -- and I don't like that.

And these are the types of people that would never give to KS or DF anyway (and still bitch about it), so it doesn't matter what kind of message this sends or how it supposedly devalues the KS model. Hell, they probably don't give to charity either! ;-)

The KS had a finite time limit put on it, by the T&C's of KS. DF didn't impose this limit, but they played to it's strengths sure enough. Some people that really wanted to show support missed out for *whatever* reason. Being given the opportunity to get in on some of the excitement of the project at a level that offers no tangible exclusivity in the same way a limited edition signed poster, or T-Shirt gives you, can't really be doing more harm than good surely? In no way does it affect our current access to the private forum, the documentary or the final game, so to me it's a non issue. We aren't talking about millions of people here, probably a few 1000 (at best I would think), so maybe another 1%. And knowing that the extra money is probably not going towards the game itself still gives the original KS backers that warm fuzzy feeling that *they* were the ones that made this happen, not the late comers to the party! ;-)

On a serious note, for the people that don't like this, what do you see as the alternative? DF don't allow it at all, or perhaps raise it to $20 and/or not offer Beta access (as forum and documentary access are linked currently)? Is there a compromise or is this open and shut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mh, throwing words around in the sense of 'this would hurt the spirit of kickstarter' seems to me to be a bit too assuming. In my eyes the 'spirit' of kickstarter is to democratize funding for projects, to assist creatives getting the word to the people to get their projects funded and to offer the people the opportunity to help projects they think are great and want to see happen get off the ground.

That's what we did, we achieved, and that is only us, the backers. We made it possible that there even is something to preorder.

I feel good about that. I don't need anything else to feel special. The cool stuff I get in the end, and the early excess, are a plus, and were an incentive to go higher and higher up the tiers. I did not buy anything, I supported Double Fine because I (think Tim Schafer is a goat) adore the games Tim Schafer and others made so far, because of the way Double Fine threats the medium of games, etc. - because I wanted to see this thing happen, and see it from start to finish.

And preorders are in this 'spirit', for me at least. They help Double Fine, help the game, so yeah, I'm all for it. Additionally, people who preorder now, mh, they seem to be not much different from us, they buy before there is anything to show. And the people who preorder a month before shipping - I don't think they get much exclusivity, even with forum- and documentary-access, they missed the whole show and just see some stuff 30 days earlier.

Then there might be enough people who just couldn't get their hands on a credit card, or were short on money. It seems kind of harsh to exclude them, and who is to judge why a person didn't back in the first place.

Okay, this might not be the most coherent post, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh! With this kind of annoying bickering going on who cares if it all stays private or exclusive! Let's just kiss and makeup and trust Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a Grumpy attitude But, But, that means we're no longer specials as backers, I'm totally against that!

nah! Just kidding, go for it, I've a friend that wanted to participate as backer but he couldn't at the moment, now he can have a new opportunity.

Keep up with your great job. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For one, it was supposed to be condescending, someone changing the meaning of the word exclusive, a word everyone knows the meaning of, is nothing more than an insult.

An this is not about 'plans changing' this is about going back on what was promised backers. This is the top of a very slippery slope that gets followed by:

Well they're backers now, why shouldn't they be able to:

Get a the poster that was advertised as only available via kickstarter.

Get the same BluRay copy as kickstarter backers.

Get the same boxed copy of the game as kickstarter backers.

Get a Backer T-shirt.

Get the hardcover book.

If exclusive doesn't mean exclusive then all of these are possible and the value of those goods as a limited quantity is either diminished or erased.

And yes, the forums, beta testing and the video series are goods too. Which until now had a very high value due to the limited availability. Once anyone can pay $15 for them at any time their value goes away.

P.S. Slippery slope arguments stink. Here, have a fun pill, and a sled.

Smiles

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...