Publishers abusing Kickstarter?

[Hyro-Sama]

Kickstarter, the popular "crowdfunding" website which has seen many games and projects funded that traditional investment might not manage, may grind to a screeching halt after this little bit of controversy. Feargus Urquhart, the CEO at Obsidian Entertainment, made a comment on Obsidian's Kickstarter page stating that major video game publishers have attempted to abuse Kickstarter. See the sources for more info but a brief summary is that, according to Obsidian, certain big publishers have tried to get funding using developers themselves as a front and then attempting to do business as usual.

NeoGaf
Destructoid
Obsidian's Kickstarter page

 

[Yatashi Strife]

Dang that's messed up

 

[chartube12]

never mind.

 

[FAST6191]

In theory I am not adverse to members of the public providing seed (or more than seed) money for anything really, however this does seem to be pushing the limits of good taste.

I have other misgivings about the kickstarter model (although it is a fairly nice workaround for angel investment limitations/laws) but that is a discussion for a different day. What I am curious about now though is if this will blow up or just blow over, I am leaning towards the latter but I have terrible history when it comes to guessing these sorts of things.

 

[chartube12]

Kickstarter was created so the little guy could design and market something w/o having to sell their soul to the giants.

 

[FAST6191]

That may be so chartube12 but it seems to have found an entirely acceptable alternative use so why limit it?

 

[Gahars]

Guys, it's supposed to be Kickstarter, not Kick-The-Dog-starter! Come on!

I'm not really surprised that, after some of the wild successes on the service, people are trying to exploit it. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do besides be vigilant as a community; support the projects that deserve it, and point out the cheaters where we can.

 

[Jamstruth]

That may be so chartube12 but it seems to have found an entirely acceptable alternative use so why limit it?

Edit: Original post removed and rewritten because I came up with a better way to make the point

Publishers don't need a Kickstarter. Their entire purpose is to fund and distribute games in return for the property rights and a large percentage of the profit. They paid for the game to be made. This is shitty but makes sense.
If you add in a Kickstarter then the publisher is getting the game made for free, distribution done for free, and a percentage of the profit. Basically the Publisher has gotten free money. There's no risk taken.

Kickstarter in terms of video games is an ALTERNATIVE to Publishers. Its another way of getting the investors. Accepting one of these offers from a publisher makes NO SENSE.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

So wait... this was designed to help the little guy get the game out with out the restrictions and rules and help of the big guy, and in the end, it's the big guy exploiting and ruining it?

 

[Clarky]

So publishers finding more ways to shit on there customers, why doesn't that surprise me.

 

[BORTZ]

I'm really not surprised, honestly.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

I wonder which game publisher it was. It would certainly be a huge blow to their PR if they were ever exposed.

 

[Yatashi Strife]

I wonder which game publisher it was. It would certainly be a huge blow to their PR if they were ever exposed.

IT WAS CAPCOM! trololol

 

[FAST6191]

That may be so chartube12 but it seems to have found an entirely acceptable alternative use so why limit it?

Edit: Original post removed and rewritten because I came up with a better way to make the point

Publishers don't need a Kickstarter. Their entire purpose is to fund and distribute games in return for the property rights and a large percentage of the profit. They paid for the game to be made. This is shitty but makes sense.
If you add in a Kickstarter then the publisher is getting the game made for free, distribution done for free, and a percentage of the profit. Basically the Publisher has gotten free money. There's no risk taken.

Kickstarter in terms of video games is an ALTERNATIVE to Publishers. Its another way of getting the investors. Accepting one of these offers from a publisher makes NO SENSE.

I had read chartube12's post as so the "typical" garage housed company could hope to get off the ground and it was then something of an indictment on the model of otherwise big developers using the same system.
I agree the on a business front it makes very little sense unless the publisher brings something else to the table (a license, some software, some music, a name....- although it often seems like it publishers are more than just slightly retooled venture capitalists) but ignoring that is it truly that wrong?
Going further and twisting definitions a bit is IOS not a publisher ("You get 70% of sales revenue"), Steam? (supposed to be similar values to IOS although hard info is lacking/it is more game by game), XBLA, GOG, PSN..... most of those facilitate access to devices and abstract payment methods much of which is what a publisher does.

Spinning it again (although perhaps more suited to the list of potential perks)
"Kickstart me to the tune of £50K"
Early build is here:
The £50k should be enough to bring it to market but if not [big publisher] have said they will step in for a cut- they are a safety net/insurance policy.

The further one and getting back to my original point though- much like some view kickstarter as an alternative to some more traditional capital raising might there be a similar model to arise from this? In some ways I would argue this is what tax funded television has been doing for years.

A final spin- Capcom (or if you prefer a smaller company like Nude Maker) says forget bringing this outside Japan? Self published stuff has been done many times but others have published said self published works outside of a given region. Had Nintendo decided Operation Rainfall had a point and said "kickstart the thing then".

You did not draw a line in the sand which is good but blurring can be done.

 

[pyromaniac123]

So when someone makes a donation, that donation is held in a bank account somewhere accumalating interest until the goal/deadline is reached?

 

[FAST6191]

I believe they also take a cut of the total raised but I would be surprised if they do not leverage the money held in escrow to earn some interest (maybe even dabble in a bit of micro forex and use existing capital to pay out the people thus meaning kind of have more money to lock up). That it is really common business model (payment after 90 days and all that does rather tend to allow interest to accrue) and although these deal directly in financing there have even been cases of companies that actually make things making a good chunk of their profit (and even a minor majority of it) from such dealings.

 

[Clarky]

So when someone makes a donation, that donation is held in a bank account somewhere accumalating interest until the goal/deadline is reached?

As far as I ever gathered when you make a pledge, unless the goal is met, you don't have to pay.

 

[Jamstruth]

I had read chartube12's post as so the "typical" garage housed company could hope to get off the ground and it was then something of an indictment on the model of otherwise big developers using the same system.
I agree the on a business front it makes very little sense unless the publisher brings something else to the table (a license, some software, some music, a name....- although it often seems like it publishers are more than just slightly retooled venture capitalists) but ignoring that is it truly that wrong?
Going further and twisting definitions a bit is IOS not a publisher ("You get 70% of sales revenue"), Steam? (supposed to be similar values to IOS although hard info is lacking/it is more game by game), XBLA, GOG, PSN..... most of those facilitate access to devices and abstract payment methods much of which is what a publisher does.

Spinning it again (although perhaps more suited to the list of potential perks)
"Kickstart me to the tune of £50K"
Early build is here:
The £50k should be enough to bring it to market but if not [big publisher] have said they will step in for a cut- they are a safety net/insurance policy.

The further one and getting back to my original point though- much like some view kickstarter as an alternative to some more traditional capital raising might there be a similar model to arise from this? In some ways I would argue this is what tax funded television has been doing for years

A final spin- Capcom (or if you prefer a smaller company like Nude Maker) says forget bringing this outside Japan? Self published stuff has been done many times but others have published said self published works outside of a given region. Had Nintendo decided Operation Rainfall had a point and said "kickstart the thing then".

You did not draw a line in the sand which is good but blurring can be done.

In the scenario described it is wrong. The public is deceived into helping what they believe to be an independent development company with an interesting game they need funded when there is for some reason a Publisher in the background going "THIS IS GREAT! FREE MONEY!". Seriously there is no reason for anybody to take these offers.

App Stores are not publishers... not exactly... You pay them money for one rather than the other way around. You keep all your IP. They have not paid for the development of the game, nor are they producing it in physical form, marketing it (well...not exactly) etc. They're just a place you go to to sell your game. Its like burning a bunch of DVDs and taking them down to a gamestore.

The 2nd scenario is not what was described as happening. It would make sense if they offered something like this though and used Kickstarters as a way to grade interest in IP and step in on interesting ones offering a deal if the Kickstarter was not met. I have nothing against that. The Dev wouldn't even have to mention this. obviously the best option for them is to get the Kickstarter but if they absolutely want to produce the game and the Kickstarter fails they would go for such an option.

The final scenario is just a question of gauging interest. I suppose its a decent idea. Its basically saying "If we get this many pre-orders we'll localise the game". If the Kickstarter meets its target then Ninty have a whole load of pre-sales to go on, if not then everybody gets their money back no harm done. I suppose the problem with that is that Publishers are not Retailers. There's things in organising a pre-order drive like this that they just can't handle (taxes, consumer shipping etc.)

 

[Bladexdsl]

Everyone abuses Kickstarter, nearly the whole site is scams. For instance plantable money.......... yes it's actually on there!

 

[Janthran]

I don't get it.