Maybe there should be a Kickstarter for Fortune Summoners 2?

[SilentCaay]

it's distributed patronage

That's just a euphemism for what I said in the other thread. It's a a one-way investment. The consumers risk all and gain nothing except a copy of the game in most cases and the devs risk little to nothing and stand to gain large profits. The return on investment should be greater is all I'm saying. It should be a two-way investment. Once the game is done they're still going to sell it. The people that buy it *after* it's made should be the ones to pay base price to get it. Investors should pay substantially less than the base price to get the game or they should gain substantially more than just the game at the base price. That's a return on investment.

[David J Prokopetz]

That's just a euphemism for what I said in the other thread.

No, it's not. Patronage is a completely different animal from investment. Historically, the arts have operated on a patronage model far more often than they've operated on a consumer model; the manner in which Kickstarter is being used for these projects is merely the most recent incarnation of that.

[SilentCaay]

No, it's not. Patronage is a completely different animal from investment. Historically, the arts have operated on a patronage model far more often than they've operated on a consumer model; the manner in which Kickstarter is being used for these projects is merely the most recent incarnation of that.

Games can be art but Kickstarter, when used by video game devs, isn't patronage of the arts. Video game companies are a business, through and through. They make mucho dinero when they make a hit and not spreading that to the investors that took on the risk in order to help them when they requested it is selfish. Sorry if you disagree but it's too one-sided for me to see it as anything else. Business is business. I don't intent to argue but just make my view clear.

[David J Prokopetz]

Games can be art but Kickstarter, when used by video game devs, isn't patronage of the arts.

The way that Kickstarter is being used to fund these projects agrees very well with how arts patronage has historically been conducted. The strongly prestige-focused reward structures of the most successful projects make this abundantly clear - the only wrinkle is the distributed nature of it. Yes, video game developers are profit-driven enterprises, but do you imagine that artists in other fields aren't actually looking to make money?

Plus, you're so fixated on the notion of receiving a discount on the finished game that you're ignoring other forms of value conveyed by the process. As an obvious example, people who contribute to a Kickstarter get to say that they were there first. This has value; people will compete for it, even when it's utterly meaningless - as the comments section of any popular online publication will readily illustrate - and yes, they'll pay money for it. Indeed, as similar experiments with "pay what you want" pricing models have demonstrated (in the music industry, for example), when given a choice, many people will choose to pay extra for no other reason than the prestige of being able to say that they paid more than they needed to. This looks nothing like what motivates investment, but it looks a whole lot like what motivates patronage.

[LilithTome]

I'm going to have to agree with David on everything he's said here.

[Sabin Stargem]

Here is the thing about kickstarter that makes it an investment for me:  the ability to play new games that I like, to fund niche products that no major corporation would consider.  Sure, it is a risk to my $20, but that is okay - the chance to get make something that "I" want is lure enough.  One of the defining things about Art is the experience that it gives to people, and so I would want to be the patron of arts that I favor.  Good art costs money, be it to develop or for an individual to purchase.  Another thing about a kickstarter is that an successful project sends a message to the industry:  "This game was successful enough to receive this many dollars through donations, and this many people selected to pre-order that game...there is money to be made here!"  That would help us, by having companies try their hand at filling a niche.  This can bring good things to us in the long run.

[LilithTome]

Very true there, as well. I hate to bring up piracy, but especially in a reality where people can grab for free and not pay. It seems especially true what buying is. It's supporting the future of something you love. Certainly that is an investment and not just blowing money for no reason or something like that. And that's especially true with something like Kickstarter, where your money and your say matters.

And in today's gaming industry and status quo, I'd say I have reason to shower money on a future of gaming in my interest. It's not a one way investment, because you're investing in the future of games you love.

In the case of this thread, for instance, I really want more good Doujin games, and see more Doujin games reach approachable distribution in the West. Like a sequel to Fortune Summoners, which after falling in love with its cast of characters, I'm honestly quite dying for. There's no way I don't want another Fortune Summoners and that I'm not willing to make a little bit of monetary sacrifice for it. People spend over $2,000 on super gaming PCs that will worth $500 in a short few years. Just to play some high-tech game at the spur of the moment instead of be patient and do it later. I can't see how investing into a game you want to play for your system is a weaker investment than that.

After all, what's the point of having amazing hardware, if you don't have proportionately amazing software to go with it?

[SilentCaay]

I have no issue with the investment part of it. It's the lack of a return on investment when the risk paid off that's the problem. It's exactly like someone asking you to buy them lottery tickets except they will only give you the cost of the lottery tickets... and they will only give you that much *if* the ticket is a winner. Fail math is fail. Some have to get burned before they learn.

[Naryoril]

I have no issue with the investment part of it. It's the lack of a return on investment when the risk paid off that's the problem. It's exactly like someone asking you to buy them lottery tickets except they will only give you the cost of the lottery tickets... and they will only give you that much *if* the ticket is a winner. Fail math is fail. Some have to get burned before they learn.

the return of investment is that you get to play a game you wouldn't be able to play otherwise. what's your return of investment on a beer? or by going on a concert? or a sports match? people often buy tickets for a hockey match long in advance, because 2 good teams are up against each other. but this match could be horribly boring and not worth the money. where's the return of investment on that? people are not always driven by pure greed/rationale, it often is a matter of the heart.

i have to agree with Sabin, he pretty much wrote down what i think as well.

[SilentCaay]

the return of investment is that you get to play a game you wouldn't be able to play otherwise. what's your return of investment on a beer? or by going on a concert? or a sports match?

Those examples are all purchases, not investments.

[Balto]

I can understand both points of view here but IIRC a kickstarter only works when e mentioned goal is reached therefore no money is lost from the investor if the goal is not reached. On the other hand if the goal is reached, one would want to see the fruits of what they invested. as said above this is just a recap of what is all said.

The return of your investmen needs not be the game itself, I think David said it well that its more for the prestige of saying you have invested in it. Now a lot o kickstarter promise something on the 5£/$/€ investment. If that's only a copy of the artwork put into the game i don't see a reason for people to complain, if people want to have the game with minimal investment from their part then the company translating the game would have to live off those few that wanted to give more to the investment. I would invest 15$/€ to receive the game when its finished as i feel that amount is worth it to receive the game(this does depend on what kind of game)

In short
I'd pledge 15$/€ for FS II
I'd pledge 30-35$/€ for Tales of (insert whatever)

If CF were to do a kickstarter to say "Guys we want to localise this game but due to our latest game being a bomb we are short on funds, we have the contract made up but just need the funds to get all licences in order" I'd pledge a lot just because i feel CF is a worthy cause, plus Spacedrake is just that awesome

[SilentCaay]

I can understand both points of view here but IIRC a kickstarter only works when e mentioned goal is reached therefore no money is lost from the investor if the goal is not reached. On the other hand if the goal is reached, one would want to see the fruits of what they invested. as said above this is just a recap of what is all said.

It's true that no money changes hands until the goal is met but the goal, as far as Kickstarter is concerned, is only the raising of funds, not the completion of the project. As soon as the deadline hits money changes hands as long as the target amount has been met. There is no guarantee that the project will be finished and there is no refund if that happens to be the case. I'm not even saying to be wary because the project isn't trustworthy, the simple fact is that the dev cycle for a game can be upwards of a few years and even if the project is trustworthy, there's no saying what can happen in the span of a few years that could cause development to get shut down. Games get canned all the time you just don't hear about the majority of them because most devs don't even talk about them until it's likely they'll see the light of day.

[Shadrach]

I have no issue with the investment part of it. It's the lack of a return on investment when the risk paid off that's the problem. It's exactly like someone asking you to buy them lottery tickets except they will only give you the cost of the lottery tickets... and they will only give you that much *if* the ticket is a winner. Fail math is fail. Some have to get burned before they learn.

Except it's nothing like that. Purchasing a lottery ticket in the hope of getting back exactly what you paid for it isn't the same as a paying out a sum in order to help fund, and ultimately receive, a video game. The monetary value of the game and the financial investment might be the same, but they're still two different things.

More to the point, a game doesn't exactly have a fixed value. Those who contribute to, say, the Wasteland 2 kickstarter, might ultimately profit - who's to say that the game is going to retail at the $15 that its contributors have pledged?

 

the return of investment is that you get to play a game you wouldn't be able to play otherwise. what's your return of investment on a beer? or by going on a concert? or a sports match?

Those examples are all purchases, not investments.

Consider it a purchase then.

[SilentCaay]

Consider it a purchase then.

Unpossible. I cannot lie to myself.

[Shadrach]

Unpossible. I cannot lie to myself.

Well, alright then. But can we at least agree that investing in entertainment for consumption isn't the same as investing in stocks; that the guiding motivation is different, and that the reward is different?

On topic - Fortune Summoners 2 would be amazing. CF should totally persuade Mel to give up his desk job and start work on it. Employ bullying tactics if you have to. The end justifies the means.