I really doubt anyone is going to get anything, because the game isn't close to its goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Printable View
I really doubt anyone is going to get anything, because the game isn't close to its goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Cancellation of the KS with a reboot will guarantee anyone who still wishes to back can. Can you say the same of the people who would wish NOT to back after this development? One is sure-fire. The other is not. "I gave 'em 4 days and an e-mail, the fuck you want from me!?"
Dude, this logic. If continuing the course is the only potential way to fuck up, then why continue?Quote:
I honestly don't see why you'd think otherwise, especially as it's obvious this thing isn't going to happen. If the campaign had met initial expectations, taking in not only the base campaign but the second half of the prologue, then I might concede part of your point, but the thing that exists now isn't taking any money from anyone. At all. It's not happening, period. If all of a sudden a bunch of people see the campaign, think "Ooh, it's all stretch goals now! I need to get in on this action!" then maybe it will succeed, but I kind of doubt it.
At this point Comcept should kill the campaign, but only because it's obvious it will end in failure. There's no particular obligation to do so, though, seeing as they won't be getting money from any of the backers.
"It's all good, it ain't gonna happen anyways" is fine if you're some dude prognosticating on the internet, but the people running the shots ought be a little less laissez-faire about things.
Sure, but you're making two separate arguments here. First you're saying that Comcept have a responsibility to the backers to try again seeing as the funding model has so radically changed, and you're also saying they should cancel because letting the clock run out is a waste of everyone's time. The problem is that only the second one works. If the campaign completed and Comcept got their $800k, backers would still get the game they were promised with more than enough advance notice that the money they pledged was going to be for a different purpose. I just don't get how you see four days, an e-mail, and a full post on the campaign page as inadequate warning.
No, that's not what I'm saying. They have a responsibility to make sure people who backed for reason A still want to back for reason B when the base goal changes. Trying again isn't necessary to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
It is not for Comcept to make the assumption that people who backed for the base goal are interested in giving the same amount, or any amount, for new base goals that don't even exist yet. It's up to each individual to make that judgement of value to them.Quote:
If the campaign completed and Comcept got their $800k, backers would still get the game they were promised with more than enough advance notice that the money they pledged was going to be for a different purpose. I just don't get how you see four days, an e-mail, and a full post on the campaign page as inadequate warning.
I don't disagree with that at all. I'm just saying that the four days, e-mail, and update post are up to the job of alerting the backers.
Okay, fair enough. Certainly, backing means you'd best be paying attention in the first place. I just feel like a drastic change to the base goal and purpose of a kickstarter should necessitate a voiding of it. Kickstarter itself may not agree!
I hope everyone at Comcept gets ebola and stubs their toes. In that order.
Video game outrage!
I meant more hypothetically. They put out a rather awful playable prototype a few days ago, and I think that hurt them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Everything they've done has hurt them. They're the angsty teenager of kickstarters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
They lost money today.