Kickstopper

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Kwil:
I don't understand the problem at all.

I mean, worst case scenario is we get an investor who pockets an extra 2 million or whatever that he didn't need. Unless he's Scrooge McDuck and enjoys filling swimming pools with money, what's he going to do with that extra cash? Right.. invest it. Probably in another movie.

The thing of "they might run Kickstarters for things they were going to do anyway.." Uh.. yeah. So what? See above. It's not like anybody is forced to give any money.

Really, the only group this is bad for is the middle-man markets who sell licensed stuff to fandom.. because now fandom will be getting their stuff directly from funding the studio at various tiers. And that's called efficiency folks.

You make some interesting point that are valid but I think you missed the over all point. The idea is that if big companies that don't need the funding are using kickstarter the projects that actually need the money will get over looked which was the whole point to begin with to help people who can't get started without funding get started. I mean sure you could go to those middle men and attempt to get funding but that almost always involves selling your property and loosing all rights to your own creation which is a issue to begin with. So the real problem is that the people who need the funds will get glossed over and ignored while projects that are already fully funded will get extra cash that could be going to much better places.

I'd say that kickstarter users are somewhat aware of the projects they're backing. If the projects become insincere or obvious money grabs then people are generally aware enough to prevent such things from seeing the light of day.

Take a look at the Shaker campaign (formerly Old School RPG) in which someone appeared to be trying to muscle in on the new RPG money. The developing pedigree was solid, they had the support of a lot of people we trust (Notch was in the video) and they would likely have made something great but it ultimately came across as fake and maybe even corporate and it got no support.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lootdrop/an-old-school-rpg-by-brenda-brathwaite-and-tom-hal

Note that in the video they talked about potential mechanics but nothing about the story itselt. They used the words "Old School RPG" 17 times in less than 6 minutes (so many times I had to go back and count) as if that was a real term and their initial image of a wizard fighting a dragon had no apparent connection with the Shaker storyline they brought out later that involved a time traveling cop. Keep in mind that I don't think they were actually a big company trying to sneak in, I just believe their campaign stunk of a money grab attempt and people picked up on that even if it was just a poorly made campaign.

So while I understand the fear that companies will try to get in on this. I think kickstarter backers are more informed and more conscious of their decision making than other communities may be. Also, while $2 mil may be enough to make this kind of film, it isn't enough to make any of the large budget films. So this sort of structure really isn't that appealing to the big boys.

There are volumns to be written on crowdsourcing. Certainly the most interesting form of funding we've seen yet.

Callate:
...But another part of me says, "If Joss Whedon said the whole cast was willing to make another Serenity movie and they just needed to prove that there was interest out there, would I contribute?"

Oh, holy fuck, yes, I would. And if there was a speaking part available for top-tier bidders, I would sell an organ.

We have met the gullible sheeple, and he is us.

Yeah, the idea that you pay $10,000 to get a speaking role rather than get paid for working in a speaking role kinda bothers me. I guess it's not too bad, since it's only one role with one line, but the implications make me more than a little uncomfortable.

And yet, if Madhouse organized a crowdfunding project to finish Satoshi Kon's last film, I would probably jump all over it.

aba1:

You make some interesting point that are valid but I think you missed the over all point. The idea is that if big companies that don't need the funding are using kickstarter the projects that actually need the money will get over looked which was the whole point to begin with to help people who can't get started without funding get started. I mean sure you could go to those middle men and attempt to get funding but that almost always involves selling your property and loosing all rights to your own creation which is a issue to begin with. So the real problem is that the people who need the funds will get glossed over and ignored.

Which is a nonsensical over all point. (And I'm glad that at least Bob didn't try to claim this).

How would Kickstarter possibly lead to indies being more overlooked, than they would be without Kickstarter?

And even assuming that you are only talking about big projects on Kickstarter making the smaller ones more overlooked than they would be in an "ideal" situation, how would that happen?

These 3 million dollars paid for Veronica Mars so far, are coming from the Veronica Mars fandom, not from some sort of "Kickstarter Fandom" that has a limited budget that they are pledging on a number of projects every month. And Planescape Torment is funded by Torment fans, and Godus is funded by Populus fans, and the 3Doodler is funded by Makers, and War for the Overworld is funded by Dungeon Keeper fans, and the Oculus Rift is funded by game developers and VR enthusiasts.

There being both bigger and smaller names hosting projects on the site, doesn't mean that they are taking away space from each other. If anything, it gives them an ad surface, a chance to also get noticed by a visitor who was looking for something else.

It used to be that big companies had to pay to advertise their stuff to fans; now with kickstarter, the fans PAY to do the advertising for the companies!

What a great system.

Jupiter065:
It used to be that big companies had to pay to advertise their stuff to fans; now with kickstarter, the fans PAY to do the advertising for the companies!

What a great system.

Yes, that's also a good point. Imagine all the money that would otherwise be wasted on marketing, that smaller studios can now spend on the product thanks to the viral marketing that a crowdfunding project's news reports give.

Except that small kickstarters don't get media attention. A $2 million dollar advertising budget for a mainstream movie is tiny, but if they get people to pay THEM two million, suddenly every news site is blabbering about Veronica Mars.

People are supposed to advertise their kickstarters, not use their kickstarters as advertising. These big-name producers are turning the system on its head and abusing it.

Fool + Money = So|------------------------|on

Dumb people give money to corporation...news at 11.

The correct response is to never give any of your money to a kickstarter whose ultimate beneficiary is a corporation. And to spread the word if it looks like a kickstarter has a corporation lurking in the shadows but hiding behind the reputation of a popular creator.

Not sure what the point of this article is. Unscrupulous studios will be sneaky and unscrupulous....I'm sure that comes as a shocker to everyone.

Kwil:
I don't understand the problem at all.

I mean, worst case scenario is we get an investor who pockets an extra 2 million or whatever that he didn't need. Unless he's Scrooge McDuck and enjoys filling swimming pools with money, what's he going to do with that extra cash? Right.. invest it. Probably in another movie.

The thing of "they might run Kickstarters for things they were going to do anyway.." Uh.. yeah. So what? See above. It's not like anybody is forced to give any money.

No, no one is being forced, but it does feel like an arbitrary surcharge being put onto fans. Fans are basically being grabbed by the balls because a studio can potentially hold its own programs hostage, saying it'll not produce any more seasons if people don't throw some extra cash their way through crowd funding. The danger is that whilst the studios don't actually need to do this, they will still do it because they can. The concern is about big studios price gouging the public.

aba1:
You make some interesting point that are valid but I think you missed the over all point. The idea is that if big companies that don't need the funding are using kickstarter the projects that actually need the money will get over looked which was the whole point to begin with to help people who can't get started without funding get started. I mean sure you could go to those middle men and attempt to get funding but that almost always involves selling your property and loosing all rights to your own creation which is a issue to begin with. So the real problem is that the people who need the funds will get glossed over and ignored while projects that are already fully funded will get extra cash that could be going to much better places.

So the problem is that something people are more invested in and passionate about will get more funding than something to which they're not?

Still not seeing the problem.

Entitled:

Thunderous Cacophony:

It definitely helps that he isn't in love with Veronica Mars, but that doesn't mean the point isn't valid. I've seen enough Kickstarters to know that perspective goes out the window when it's something you love.

Yes, it means exactly that.

If all these negative portrayals of Kickstarter projects can only be agreed by those who are not the target audience, you fail to portray how the model is actually bad.

Like if you want to argue that all FPS games are bad because they have the same generic atmosphere, while a fan of the genre could enthusiastically describe several art styles and atmospheres inside a genre, your argument fails, your distance from the subject matter doesn't make you more neutral, just more ignorant.

It's the same deal with Kickstarters. If you want to argue that a given Kickstarter is bad because it's not innovative enough, or because it means that the work is "held at ransom", but anyone who actually desires the promised work is enthusisastically claiming that it's interesting enough, and that the franchise getting "held at ransom" is better than it getting buried, then you make any objective point beyond "I don't care about this Kickstarter".

I had a big reply, but it was eaten by the Escapist, so I'll try and remember the cliff notes:

-Bob doesn't have a problem with Veronica Mars, it's fanbase or it's potential as a movie.

-Bob isn't saying "I don't care about this Kickstarter"; he's saying "I am opposed to this kind of Kickstarter.," specifically because of potential abuse later on down the line.

-WB is making at least 15 movies this year; they don't need Kickstarter funds. They are using it to conduct market research while trying to set off their own financial stake in the movie's failure.

-Most fandoms don't deserve to see their franchise buried. However, having fans pre-pay for a franchise to continue in the grasp of a big corporation seems extremely unwise; you're essentially telling the corporation that they can squeeze you for funds in return for promises that it will continue, rather than paying for what's already been produced (and as he pointed out on the last page, it's very hard to tell when a movie studio is taking more money than they need, especially when they have enough to make it entirely on their own).

-Essentially, it's the pre-order problem: The system was designed so that things which require funding get funded to completion, but is now being used by entities which have funding but want to reduce the chances that they will suffer financial loss in the deal (but still reap all potential success) before they produce a product.

-The distance here is important; Bob doesn't have an emotional horse in this race, so he can see it from a purely business angle and it's potential implications in consumer-corporation relations. People who are emotionally involved in any particular Kickstarter care more about seeing that product than those implications.

I can preface my post with the same two points that Bob did, I haven't watched Veronica Mars, doesn't particularly care either way, and I haven't directly benefited from a Kickstarter project, but I have backed a few. However, I disagree, and have a different view of Kickstarter.

Personally, I think saying "Kickstarter was supposed to be indie" while condemning big projects is kind of elitist. It's like accusing Kickstarter of "selling out". Pretty soon we'll have Kickstarter hipsters who claimed to like it "before it was cool". It reminds me a little of when Humble Bundle did the THQ bundle and people complained because it wasn't indie enough. It was still a great deal that people benefited from, it just didn't hold up to somebody's ideal of what it was "supposed to be".

To me, Kickstarter is democracy, and you vote with your wallet. If enough people want something to happen, they can make it happen and everybody involved wins, those who aren't won't be affected either way so who cares. To me, what Kickstarter is supposed to be is a business. They're supposed to make money. Funded projects of all shapes and sizes help them do that.

At the end of the day, it's up to you whether or not you back something, and whether or not you pay for something twice. I generally back media at a level that gets me a copy, so if the project gets funded, it essentially ends up as a pre-order. How far the slippery slope goes depends on consumers. If big companies try to hold us for ransom, we simply won't back and it's then up to them whether they want to produce it anyway or move on to something else, maybe even something new. I think company goodwill is huge for this type of thing. I can't imagine people would back an EA project, but if they do, it won't be me so why should I care?

Overall I think Kickstarter does more good than harm. I really don't think it's going to end up being some kind of media gatekeeper. I also don't think big companies will end up flooding the Kickstarter market taking things away from the smaller ones. Maybe I'm naive, but I think if the pitch and the product is good enough and resonates with enough people then the size of the name behind it shouldn't make a difference.

Jupiter065:
Except that small kickstarters don't get media attention. A $2 million dollar advertising budget for a mainstream movie is tiny, but if they get people to pay THEM two million, suddenly every news site is blabbering about Veronica Mars.

People are supposed to advertise their kickstarters, not use their kickstarters as advertising. These big-name producers are turning the system on its head and abusing it.

I said small studios, not small Kickstarters.

Small Kickstarters are being done by uneployed programmers from their mother's basement.

Big Kickstarters tend to be made by small studios, as seen with Double Fine Adventure, Wasteland 2, Dreamfall Chapters, Shadowrun Online, Godus, Planetary Annihilation, Star Citizen, etc.

Veronica Mars is the first big movie Kickstarter, and the first one held by a big corporation.

maninahat:
No, no one is being forced, but it does feel like an arbitrary surcharge being put onto fans. Fans are basically being grabbed by the balls because a studio can potentially hold its own programs hostage, saying it'll not produce any more seasons if people don't throw some extra cash their way through crowd funding. The danger is that whilst the studios don't actually need to do this, they will still do it because they can. The concern is about big studios price gouging the public.

It's not price gouging if you have a choice not to pay. It's called charging appropriately for the service. Utility companies can price gouge. Legislated insurance companies can price gouge. You can almost, almost make an argument that cellular providers might be able to price gouge these days. But entertainment mediums? They can't. They simply can't. Because at the end of the day, you don't NEED that entertainment, and if you think you do, then you're the one with the problem, not them.

If they charge too much for the entertainment, people won't pay, and what will the company do then? Either they'll go ahead anyway -- which will blow the scheme out of the water, or they'll be forced not to produce it.. which means they'll have to come up with something else on short notice.

If a fan is willing to pay the extra to get a show on the air, it's not price gouging, it's pricing at what the market will bear.

Kwil:

aba1:
You make some interesting point that are valid but I think you missed the over all point. The idea is that if big companies that don't need the funding are using kickstarter the projects that actually need the money will get over looked which was the whole point to begin with to help people who can't get started without funding get started. I mean sure you could go to those middle men and attempt to get funding but that almost always involves selling your property and loosing all rights to your own creation which is a issue to begin with. So the real problem is that the people who need the funds will get glossed over and ignored while projects that are already fully funded will get extra cash that could be going to much better places.

So the problem is that something people are more invested in and passionate about will get more funding than something to which they're not?

Still not seeing the problem.

The problem is branding people will always side with what they know over what they might like best. Things that need funding because they have never had the opportunity to gain fans won't get the chance. It is about giving products at least a fighting chance a chance to prove their worth before dismissing them outright. People go to kickstarter because they wouldn't be given the time of day in the regular market because they haven't been established. It is the whole issue with the job market people want products or workers with experience and won't hire or buy without experience but if everyone works this way how can a person or product new to the field ever get a chance.

Kwil:

aba1:
You make some interesting point that are valid but I think you missed the over all point. The idea is that if big companies that don't need the funding are using kickstarter the projects that actually need the money will get over looked which was the whole point to begin with to help people who can't get started without funding get started. I mean sure you could go to those middle men and attempt to get funding but that almost always involves selling your property and loosing all rights to your own creation which is a issue to begin with. So the real problem is that the people who need the funds will get glossed over and ignored while projects that are already fully funded will get extra cash that could be going to much better places.

So the problem is that something people are more invested in and passionate about will get more funding than something to which they're not?

Still not seeing the problem.

I can understand that it's taste kinda bitter that something that's, let's be honest, not that innovative and something that might result in something that's not that special has it's funding of 2 million dollars reached in 11 hours, especially when it could have been made without crowdfunding. While something innovative and truly special that's really in need for money like for example Tailly struggles to get even half of 50,000 dollars.

aba1:

Kwil:

aba1:
You make some interesting point that are valid but I think you missed the over all point. The idea is that if big companies that don't need the funding are using kickstarter the projects that actually need the money will get over looked which was the whole point to begin with to help people who can't get started without funding get started. I mean sure you could go to those middle men and attempt to get funding but that almost always involves selling your property and loosing all rights to your own creation which is a issue to begin with. So the real problem is that the people who need the funds will get glossed over and ignored while projects that are already fully funded will get extra cash that could be going to much better places.

So the problem is that something people are more invested in and passionate about will get more funding than something to which they're not?

Still not seeing the problem.

The problem is branding people will always side with what they know over what they might like best. Things that need funding because they have never had the opportunity to gain fans won't get the chance. It is about giving products at least a fighting chance a chance to prove their worth before dismissing them outright. People go to kickstarter because they wouldn't be given the time of day in the regular market because they haven't been established. It is the whole issue with the job market people want products or workers with experience and won't hire or buy without experience but if everyone works this way how can a person or product new to the field ever get a chance.

Okay, so your argument is that people who don't want to take a risk with their money won't if there's something less risky available.

1. Still fail to see the problem.

2. Might I humbly suggest that could be shortened to simply "People who don't want to take a risk with their money wont." The presence or non-presence of a blockbuster is not going to make any significant difference. It's not like people are lining up to Kickstarter and going, "Damn.. I really want to give this $40 to a movie.. now who should I give it to?"

ElektroNeko:
I can understand that it's taste kinda bitter that something that's, let's be honest, not that innovative and something that might result in something that's not that special has it's funding of 2 million dollars reached in 11 hours, especially when it could have been made without crowdfunding. While something innovative and truly special that's really in need for money like for example Tailly struggles to get even half of 50,000 dollars.

LOL.. what I love about your post is that I can't tell if you're serious or taking the piss. You've managed to outline beautifully the problem with the idea that money going to one project is taken from another. "IF only the people who funded Veronica Mars had seen Tailly first.. they would have jumped on board that instead!"

" It's a way to give small operations or people with financially risky ideas a way to raise money that was otherwise only available through oversight or subservient "partnership" with a major corporate backer"

This sums up the reason why kickstarter has worked, and this new process will likely be the first nail in the coffin. Just another exploit by corporations to take even more money with less risk.

Stevepinto3:
Man everyone talking about backing a Firefly kickstater is EXACTLY the kind of thing Bob was talking about here. Firefly (last I checked) is still owned by Fox, a company that is not exactly short on cash. They could easily put the show back on the air with money out of their own pockets, so why would you give them money to do something they can already afford to do?

Because Fox won't do it. They've never shown any inclination to put the show back on the air, much like the CW had zero interest in any projects relating to "Veronica Mars". Hence the Kickstarter campaign cutting them out of the process.

The only real "problem" here, is having producers (that are supposed to earn money in return for the risk they take), earn money with a reduced (or even no) risk. Basically, it's like the fans produce the film, and then someone else comes raking in the money, if there is any profit (and if there isn't, it's not a big deal, since they didn't spend anything).

Of course, it's a system which is easy to exploit, but that's true for the crowdfunding system in general, big companies or not.

All of this could easily be avoided if people simply paid attention to what they do with their money, but since that's not going to happen anytime soon, we'll see more of this, because it will probably work, as long as they pick projects with a big enough fanbase.

Kwil:

ElektroNeko:
I can understand that it's taste kinda bitter that something that's, let's be honest, not that innovative and something that might result in something that's not that special has it's funding of 2 million dollars reached in 11 hours, especially when it could have been made without crowdfunding. While something innovative and truly special that's really in need for money like for example Tailly struggles to get even half of 50,000 dollars.

LOL.. what I love about your post is that I can't tell if you're serious or taking the piss. You've managed to outline beautifully the problem with the idea that money going to one project is taken from another. "IF only the people who funded Veronica Mars had seen Tailly first.. they would have jumped on board that instead!"

Then I phased it perfectly ;P

Thunderous Cacophony:

I had a big reply, but it was eaten by the Escapist, so I'll try and remember the cliff notes:

-Bob doesn't have a problem with Veronica Mars, it's fanbase or it's potential as a movie.

-Bob isn't saying "I don't care about this Kickstarter"; he's saying "I am opposed to this kind of Kickstarter.," specifically because of potential abuse later on down the line.

Whether it originates from hatred or apathy, the contrast between Bob and a fan has the same result.

If you only are only concerned about the cons of a system as long as you personally lack the pros, then you didn't say anything universally meaningful.

When there are so many problems with an offering that even the fans are finding it unacceptable, that's when you are having a problem, when the possible pros are outweighted by the cons.

Thunderous Cacophony:

-WB is making at least 15 movies this year; they don't need Kickstarter funds. They are using it to conduct market research while trying to set off their own financial stake in the movie's failure.

Thank God, at least they won't go bankrupt mid-production like some 5 digit indie Kickstarters.

Thunderous Cacophony:

-Essentially, it's the pre-order problem: The system was designed so that things which require funding get funded to completion, but is now being used by entities which have funding but want to reduce the chances that they will suffer financial loss in the deal (but still reap all potential success) before they produce a product.

Pre-orders are problematic when they don't offer any benefits. I would dislike a pre-order model that exists solely for the sake of having to pay earlier. I wouldn't even call that "squeezing the fans" anyways, if fans can still just pay a reasonable price anyways.

But in a crowdfunding model, that is the worst case scenario: Warner planning to make Veronica Mars anyways, and fans being forced to preorder instead of buying properly.

And if that occasionally happening is the price for some other projects getting funded against the odds, I think that's worth it.

(Not to mention the piracy problem. If piracy can't be combatted, I would rather have a pre-order system and then less justification for stopping externalities, than always online DRM and Big Brother watching my cloud data.)

Thunderous Cacophony:

-The distance here is important; Bob doesn't have an emotional horse in this race, so he can see it from a purely business angle and it's potential implications in consumer-corporation relations. People who are emotionally involved in any particular Kickstarter care more about seeing that product than those implications.

Movies, just like games, are emotional products. The emotional response that you get from them is what you pay for.

Just like you couldn't "neutrally" tell how much a game that you don't care about is worth, because what sets your demand is exactly the emotional connection.

Seeing the product that you desire, is the purpose of a transaction. If a transaction's implications are acceptable as long as you really want the product then the transaction is acceptable for you.

Kickstarter is indeed a way to let people who value something more pay more for it. Guess what? If they have the money to spare and they are willing to spare it that is the end of the story. As long as the project actually gets done that is it. Bob is over thinking this.

Kwil:

aba1:

Kwil:

So the problem is that something people are more invested in and passionate about will get more funding than something to which they're not?

Still not seeing the problem.

The problem is branding people will always side with what they know over what they might like best. Things that need funding because they have never had the opportunity to gain fans won't get the chance. It is about giving products at least a fighting chance a chance to prove their worth before dismissing them outright. People go to kickstarter because they wouldn't be given the time of day in the regular market because they haven't been established. It is the whole issue with the job market people want products or workers with experience and won't hire or buy without experience but if everyone works this way how can a person or product new to the field ever get a chance.

Okay, so your argument is that people who don't want to take a risk with their money won't if there's something less risky available.

1. Still fail to see the problem.

2. Might I humbly suggest that could be shortened to simply "People who don't want to take a risk with their money wont." The presence or non-presence of a blockbuster is not going to make any significant difference. It's not like people are lining up to Kickstarter and going, "Damn.. I really want to give this $40 to a movie.. now who should I give it to?"

What if you don't have the money to take the risk? I guess you could get a lone from the bank then what if the project takes you years and then by the time your done all them money you make on the project goes to the bank to pay debts and leaves you bankrupt and living on the streets? I guess you feel industry should only be available to the rich?

Not everyone is rich not everyone can afford to risk their entire lives on something.

aba1:

The problem is branding people will always side with what they know over what they might like best. Things that need funding because they have never had the opportunity to gain fans won't get the chance. It is about giving products at least a fighting chance a chance to prove their worth before dismissing them outright. People go to kickstarter because they wouldn't be given the time of day in the regular market because they haven't been established. It is the whole issue with the job market people want products or workers with experience and won't hire or buy without experience but if everyone works this way how can a person or product new to the field ever get a chance.

This has been a "problem" with art pretty much since the ancient Romans decided to buy greek style sculptures and mosaics instead of trying out something risky and new.

Yeah, human beings always had a sense of tradition and following the leader, and liking what they know .

And the worst thing that you are saying about crowdfunding, is that it didn't change this either.

At least, Kicstarter is still more innovative than the mainstream market that is obsessing over IPs and sequel titles, while in Kickstarter's case the familiarity often means nothing more than the presence of an artist, guaranteeing his style, or promsing to follow a genre, or making a "spiritual successor" to a cassic. That also leaves plenty of room for reasonably slow innovation.

God help us all if EA figures this out. They'll want money up front, at time of purchase, and afterwards as microtransactions.

WE ARE DOOMED!!!!

Ickabod:
God help us all if EA figures this out. They'll want money up front, at time of purchase, and afterwards as microtransactions.

WE ARE DOOMED!!!!

And what revered classics would EA Kickstart? Populus? Ultima? Wing Commander?

All of these are already Kickstarted, more original than EA could ever make them as they are led by their original creators.

Kickstarter's whole history is a story of EA's long and repeated failure to notice or appreciate their own intellectual property.

aba1:

Kwil:

aba1:

The problem is branding people will always side with what they know over what they might like best. Things that need funding because they have never had the opportunity to gain fans won't get the chance. It is about giving products at least a fighting chance a chance to prove their worth before dismissing them outright. People go to kickstarter because they wouldn't be given the time of day in the regular market because they haven't been established. It is the whole issue with the job market people want products or workers with experience and won't hire or buy without experience but if everyone works this way how can a person or product new to the field ever get a chance.

Okay, so your argument is that people who don't want to take a risk with their money won't if there's something less risky available.

1. Still fail to see the problem.

2. Might I humbly suggest that could be shortened to simply "People who don't want to take a risk with their money wont." The presence or non-presence of a blockbuster is not going to make any significant difference. It's not like people are lining up to Kickstarter and going, "Damn.. I really want to give this $40 to a movie.. now who should I give it to?"

What if you don't have the money to take the risk? I guess you could get a lone from the bank then what if the project takes you years and then by the time your done all them money you make on the project goes to the bank to pay debts and leaves you bankrupt and living on the streets? I guess you feel industry should only be available to the rich?

Not everyone is rich not everyone can afford to risk their entire lives on something.

And this has precisely ZERO to do with Kickstarter, with people funding projects through Kickstarter, or even with big studios using Kickstarter. If you don't have money to take a risk, you can use Kickstarter. People who want to fund you will, people who don't.. won't.. and there's nothing wrong with that.

Kwil:

maninahat:
No, no one is being forced, but it does feel like an arbitrary surcharge being put onto fans. Fans are basically being grabbed by the balls because a studio can potentially hold its own programs hostage, saying it'll not produce any more seasons if people don't throw some extra cash their way through crowd funding. The danger is that whilst the studios don't actually need to do this, they will still do it because they can. The concern is about big studios price gouging the public.

It's not price gouging if you have a choice not to pay. It's called charging appropriately for the service. Utility companies can price gouge. Legislated insurance companies can price gouge. You can almost, almost make an argument that cellular providers might be able to price gouge these days. But entertainment mediums? They can't. They simply can't. Because at the end of the day, you don't NEED that entertainment, and if you think you do, then you're the one with the problem, not them.

If they charge too much for the entertainment, people won't pay, and what will the company do then? Either they'll go ahead anyway -- which will blow the scheme out of the water, or they'll be forced not to produce it.. which means they'll have to come up with something else on short notice.

If a fan is willing to pay the extra to get a show on the air, it's not price gouging, it's pricing at what the market will bear.

Okay, yes, you're correct. It is a luxury that costs as much as the public is willing to pay, rather than a vital service being withheld. I don't think that makes it any less of a devious and contrived practise. Part of the problem is that there will always be a sufficient number of suckers die hard fans who'll pay through the nose - okay great, now that sets a new standard in which I have to play along and pay if I want the show I would normally have been getting before. I suppose I should blame complacent consumers as much as the businesses who exploit them. Perhaps some regulation is in order, on the part of Kickstarter.

Oh Bob, haven't you read any Pratchett?

Sam Vimes - "But here's some advice, boy. Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions."

I guess it all comes down to freedom to choose. In fairness, a lot of kick starters have some really worthwhile bonuses for support. For games, it tends to include a copy of that finished game. Not really a way to do that for TV shows or movies, unless they people are willing to wait a really long time for DVD's and Season Box Sets.

mdqp:
The only real "problem" here, is having producers (that are supposed to earn money in return for the risk they take), earn money with a reduced (or even no) risk.

Making money without risks? I wish I would have "problems" like that.

#1. Producers are supposed to "earn money in return for the risk they take", by investing in something that might be unpopular and make losses.

#2. Kickstarter allows producers to collect revenues in advance, thus making sure that the work won't make losses.

And that's a problem because, see #1, producers are SUPPOSED TO risk making losses, and I don't want to live on this planet any more if producers aren't even making losses. Seriously, fuck profitable studios.

maninahat:

Okay, yes, you're correct. It is a luxury that costs as much as the public is willing to pay, rather than a vital service being withheld. I don't think that makes it any less of a devious and contrived practise.

Yes, it does. Witholding the only access to a vital service, is more devious and contrived than offering certain entertainment products through an alternative business model that you don't like, along with the old one.

maninahat:

Part of the problem is that there will always be a sufficient number of suckers die hard fans who'll pay through the nose - okay great, now that sets a new standard in which I have to play along and pay if I want the show I would normally have been getting before.

You were always expected to pay for the movies and games that you wanted.

Here, I assume your problem is that you are expected to pay earlier than usual, and even that is not true, there is enough option to buy these when they are done. Or to pirate them. Or to watch other shows that are made through your preferred funding methods.

maninahat:

if I want the show I would normally have been getting before.

And the ones that you wouldn't have. Such as Veronica Mars, a movie that's plan has been dragged on for several YEARS before Kickstarter came up, with no other way of getting it funded.

I'd happily pay to fund another Dredd if I could get a bluray once it's released

Entitled:
Making money without risks? I wish I would have "problems" like that.

#1. Producers are supposed to "earn money in return for the risk they take", by investing in something that might be unpopular and make losses.

#2. Kickstarter allows producers to collect revenues in advance, thus making sure that the work won't make losses.

And that's a problem because, see #1, producers are SUPPOSED TO risk making losses, and I don't want to live on this planet any more if producers aren't even making losses. Seriously, fuck profitable studios.

My point was, that someone else is taking the risk, so that someone else should profit from this (the one doing the funding).

There is a good reason in this specific case for paying the producer (I believe they hold the rights to Veronica Mars), but as a general rule, if they give less to the projects than before, why should they earn as much as before?

Captcha: She sells seashells... Yes indeed.

I suppose you'd also have to ask yourself whether or not you'd want to see something you really wanted but was deemed "financially unsustainable" languish in the vault for 10 or 20 or forever amount of years, as the old system pretty much delegated it to. Granted, perhaps they are ransoming these series for money, but can you really make the distinction between that and knowing they would let a property die alone in the basement? It'd be up to you to trade the viability of something you know you would want for a unproven project, rather than leave that decision of the corporation.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here