Vast majority of the people, slog till the calcium in their bones disappear to learn the craft of software. HN'ers are full of Clojure learning, Python beauty appreciating programmers who would happily burn a summer down practicing exercises in Structure and Interpretation of computer programs. They would never hire anybody who doesn't know how to sort a million integers in a million different ways.
And yet after they learning how to do 22nd century algebra using haskell and learning how to bend the skies with macros some one here comes along reads a tutorial and builds an app to sell for a decent amount. This upsets their whole belief systems and makes their expertise seem irrelevant to winning the game.
This is called 'Holier than thou' attitude.
Anybody who doesn't go through the regime of K&R C -> Algorithm book -> DS Book -> Haskell -> Lisp is considered shit.
He is not supposed to win, succeed or do any thing big with software.
This happens all the time. Anybody who doesn't have a CS degree and can't handle the math/Algo quizzes is not supposed to win ever. And if he does, he is considered undeserving, lucky or just evil.
Anthony Flack, the creator, made a fantastic game. Absolutely brilliant.
I'm not saying you need technical chops to know how to make a game. I'm saying you need to make games to know how to make games! There's not a game developer alive that didn't play around extensively before finishing their first project.
Using a tutorial is a smoking gun that the author has not had this experience. It's literally like someone learning scales on the guitar, trying to write a song.
Except he's taking money on the preorders to that song.
He's not successful because of what he's done, he's successful because of the promises he's made.
If you don't see the problem there, I just don't know what to say.
1) If the guy's following a tutorial, the game will suck. I made games for years before I made one that didn't suck enough that people paid money for it, and even then, it sucked.
It's equivilant to hiring a guy to make a non trivial Rails app, and he goes out and buys a copy of Ruby for Dummies.
2) This is a great indication that Kickstarter game funding is a bubble right now, and there's going to be a crash. All the projects that people are funding take months or years to make, so the funders don't get disappointed right away. But all of the fluff projects being funded right now that won't go anywhere will come back to bite Kickstarter.
Look, if the guy was upfront that he was learning game development, no problem.
But if he can code, it's equivilant to someone following a Fruity Loops tutorial, saying they're going to make you a song. If he's creative and talented, maybe he's got a chance, after a learning curve.
If he can't, it's like someone learning to play chords on a guitar promising the same. No chance.
And users don't open up code bases and do code review before buying something.
Just like how you and I, don't tear down washing machines to just check the wiring inside it.
I recognise the origin of all those sprites.
If it's fraud, then sure: Kickstarter would be on the hook for abetting it. If he promised something he didn't deliver, there's a problem. But this doesn't qualify. It's just a dud project. Projects fail regularly, that's why they can't easily raise money from investors.
I'm not even sure that's the case, is it? They provide a platform, and take a cut, but I'd be a little surprised if that's enough to make them legally liable.
You'd never spend the time drawing the assets and then code up the platformer... first you just grab a bunch of temporary placeholder art, so that you can work on the actual gameplay. This is incredibly common in any project like this.
This particular game might well end up being completely terrible, but the whole post shows a crazy misunderstanding of game development.
Also, the outrage should be directed at Kickstarter and _not_ the person doing the project. Directing the outrage to Kickstarter will encourage them to do better vetting. Directing it to the person doing the project will only make other people question if they should do a project.
if not, why not?
Every person on KickStarter has a chance to vet projects and decide for themselves. Most of these people are not professionals promising a slick top of the line product. They are just people who want to make something. Sometimes its a team of well qualified professionals but a lot of the times it is people who just have the desire to do it. Why are people bashing them? Sure, the guy didn't throw it out there that he was not experienced but most people wouldn't. He will probably deliver what he promised.
In my early days, I did more than a few tutorials to complete clients objectives.I refined it and refined it before they ever saw it.But at the end of the day, I learned it and made it my own. I think tech-savvy people tend to judge here but a lot of these backers have no clue how to even begin thinking about how to make a game. To them, it may not matter.
Besides who knows, I bet the backers are just aching for a Ron Paul platformer and thats all they heard when they watched the video.
I think it's plausable that small projects with shareholders who want a profit may actually be less stable than projects by independent groups who have funding without oversight.
I'm happy to give money to projects I believe in. I spend a lot of money on Kickstarter, and I'm happy to see projects succeed. Yeah, I hope I get a cool wristwatch out of that one project, but mostly it's about living vicerally through the experience of artists and designers and engineers being given the opportunity to really realize their own vision. That's worth a lot to me, and I'm willing to spend money on it, with no guarantee that I'll get mailed a toy at the end.
There is no guarantee that any kickstarter project will ever get finished.
It's up to the backers to decide if they think the project owner is capable of finishing the project.
What exactly do you mean "these types of things"? People using free tools to create something other people find valuable?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1047510073/remee-the-rem...
Kickstarter isn't particularly thorough about vetting technical projects.
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Wh...
They also don't do any checking to validate that the person behind a project is who they claim to be:
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Ho...
Their entire fraud prevention program can be summed up in two words: caveat emptor.
http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/dreaming/Lucidity%20Institut...
I remain skeptical, but it's certainly plausible. More than most ACM flim flam.
Like the other guy said, you're not investing, you're buying. Or maybe donating.
I don't think there's any recourse for a failed project, and I don't think there should be one. If you're thinking about contributing to a Kickstarter project, understand that there are no guarantees and moderate your contribution accordingly.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1465600975/echoes-of-ete...
The point of making successful games isn't about doing everything from scratch, it's about making something that people want to play.
Even with the OP if (perhaps because of head trauma) people feel they want to play the Ron Paul platformer, they should be free to throw money at it. If the project delivers what it promised and it's not actually infringing on others work, then where's the problem?
So, no more gcc, clang, Eclipse, Blender, nasm, or GIMP. Anything built with free tools is not worth supporting. Do you want to let the entire Fortune 500 know they need to close up shop now, or should I?
It's right there on their TOS: they are not responsible for the project, nor to provide ways to keep the project's creators from running away with the backers' money.
This "give money and something MAY happen, eventually" model is going to collapse on itself.
I find this to be way more optimistic and healthy than the traditional investment model, where the VC are pushing you to sell your baby for parts so they can get even richer.
And getting jack shit is the exact opposite of what kickstarter says it does, you could just press the donate button of any harebrained scheme on the internet and get jack shit, you don't need kickstarter for that.
I'm not so sure, crowdfunding is certainly very attractive for people that have a track record of delivering but a consumer base that is to small for traditional publishing/production processes. Think Double Fine [1], Harebrained Schemes [2], Order of the Stick [3]. The people behind these projects have a clear, public track record of delivery and the projects wouldn't have happened without Kickstarter's crowdfunding.
There is, of course, also Kickstarter original/official goal which is funding art, but here the same principles apply. With the exception that maybe art backers are a little more accepting of late/disappointing rewards at the end.
The only real question is, is there a sufficient number of such proven projects to make Kickstarter sustainable? I'm not sure, but given the size of the internet and the available talent I would suspect so?
[1] - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adv...
[2] - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-ret...
[3] - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/599092525/the-order-of-t...
All those cases could have been just as successful in any other platform, or even raising the money by themselves, because they have a huge fan base.
What I'm talking about is the other 99% of projects at kickstarters, the ones that weren't created by star-devs with decades of experience in the industry. Of this 99% the majority is made by anything from people without enough experience to complete idiots who only know how to make a good presentation. These projects will get the money and deliver nothing, the backers wont get their money back, further undermining the crowdfunding model.
Eventually one of the "big ones" will underdeliver too (like diaspora) and after that NOBODY will trust this system.
