Kickstarter game project raises $10k, made using a DIY Platformer tutorial.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/ron-paul-kickstarter.php

by GabeN • 14 years ago

94 69 14 years ago

nullflux• 14 years ago

Have these types of things happened on Kickstarter before (or has anyone attempted to just completely game the system?) What types of recourse do investors have? Any?

andypants3• 14 years ago

They are not investing, they are buying.

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.

Palomides• 14 years ago

it isn't investing /or/ buying; you're literally just giving money

Rinum• 14 years ago

There is a kickstarter for a game (Echos of Eternia) where the creators are making the game using RPG Maker (a free tool anyone can use). They raised over $26k.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1465600975/echoes-of-ete...

Fargren• 14 years ago

A lot of great games have been made on RPG Maker. To The Moon is the most recent example I can think of. You wouldn't say that a program is worth less because it's written in c, a free language anyone can use.

zarify• 14 years ago

Where do you draw the line about where you believe people shouldn't raise funds? Are they allowed to use a toolkit like RPG Maker or GameMaker? Are they allowed to use game engines?

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?

shpoonj• 14 years ago

I don't mind them using RPG Maker... but I don't understand how they have any investors considering how cliche the project sounds and how terrible their presentation skills are. Possibly the worst pitch I've seen.

nknight2• 14 years ago

> a free tool anyone can use

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?

glimcat• 14 years ago

Here's some snake oil for $270,000:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1047510073/remee-the-rem...

Kickstarter isn't particularly thorough about vetting technical projects.

andypants3• 14 years ago

Yeah, kickstarter just says it's up to the backers to do their own research into the project owners.

SatvikBeri2• 14 years ago

There are a lot of lucid dreaming devices, and people report varying degrees of success with them, but I've never heard that any of them are completely worthless. Is there any particular reason why Remee wouldn't work?

samfoo• 14 years ago

There does seem to be some evidence that this isn't just snake oil:

http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/dreaming/Lucidity%20Institut...

I remain skeptical, but it's certainly plausible. More than most ACM flim flam.

smacktoward• 14 years ago

Kickstarter doesn't vet projects at all:

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.

yrral• 14 years ago

Here's one funded almost 2 years ago: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schuyler/lockpicks-by-op...

mattchew• 14 years ago

I've heard of non-delivered projects. So far, I don't know of any big money high profile ones, but I'm sure there will be one sooner or later.

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.

jasonlotito• 14 years ago

> Have these types of things happened on Kickstarter before

What exactly do you mean "these types of things"? People using free tools to create something other people find valuable?

andypants3• 14 years ago

Don't forget, he'll also spend $3000 to produce and send all the t-shirts and posters promised to the backers.

shimsham2• 14 years ago

Has he produced and sent t-shirts before?

ghostfish• 14 years ago

At first I thought that failed Kickstarters were a small minority of projects, but I've come to think that failed projects (or at least greatly delayed) are the norm, rather than the exception. Of 4 projects I've funded 1 was delivered as promised and on time, 1 is currently on pace to be delivered only slightly late (~1 month), one is 5 months late and still being designed, and one is mostly content complete but over a year late for physical delivery. People really, really don't seem to realize what they're getting themselves into with these, and drastically underestimate time to completion.

pablasso2• 14 years ago

That's why it's important to know that you're founding an idea, not buying a pre-release product.

cheebla• 14 years ago

does Kickstarter post stats on these kind of things? Like what percentage of funded projects are delivered?

if not, why not?

angryasian• 14 years ago

probably because its not beneficial for them to publish these stats, but I would love to see these statistics.

taude3• 14 years ago

they have a blog posting where they state something like 40% of all funded projects were delivered in 2011.

twelvechairs• 14 years ago

Pick on it because its a poor game, not because of how it is written. It shouldn't matter to the backers if the guy was learning to program (how many experienced programmers would be happy with $10k-expenses for 2 months work?), or what tools he used to get the job done, as long as it does what it says on the proverbial tin.

dhbanes• 14 years ago

Is it a poor game?

ajross2• 14 years ago

Actually, don't even pick on it because it's a poor game (and granted, it looks like one whopper of a poor game and I'm as shocked as anyone that this got funded). The magic of crowd funding is that decisions as to quality belong to the backers. They felt it was worthwhile, it's their money, so it's none of our business.

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.

starwed2• 14 years ago

>If it's fraud, then sure: Kickstarter would be on the hook for abetting it.

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.

lonnyk2• 14 years ago

I really feel this is getting blown out of proportion. The game wasn't even built yet and all of the assumptions the article makes are based on what they found in open directories on the server.

eps• 14 years ago

It might actually be worth blowing this out of proportion to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. I don't really want to support "I am going to paint second Mona Lisa" and end up supporting guy's quest for learning how to squeeze paint from a tube. This is not only misleading, but also damages KicStarter's reputation in general.

lonnyk2• 14 years ago

I think the outrage should come after people actually see the finished product and _not_ just from some random files that someone pulled off a public server. The project isn't even fully funded.

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.

pablasso2• 14 years ago

I'd be interesting if you could actually invest in Kickstarter projects and not just give away money.

jes51992• 14 years ago

I thought so, at first, but I don't believe that anymore.

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.

JVIDEL3• 14 years ago

Don't know about this project, but the problem with kickstarter is that once you back a project is no longer your money, and there's nothing you can do about it.

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.

jes51992• 14 years ago

I actually think that this is Kickstarter's saving grace: if I give money to somebody, I know it's a gamble. I'm not a venture capitalist looking for a guaranteed return, I'm not going to pressure anyone to have a "exit strategy", and I'm not a shopper who can demand my money back. I'm taking a risk with a small, disposable amount my money - usually less than the cost of going out to dinner at a nice restaurant, and I get to help give someone the gift of working on a project they believe in, that I think the world would be better off having. And sometimes - usually, even! - they give me a gift in return.

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.

JVIDEL3• 14 years ago

Since when is getting what you were promised the same than a VC ROI model? VCs expect as much as possible, they want to hit jackpot. I give $100 for a watch so I expect said watch, not a Rolex!

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.

shimsham2• 14 years ago

Does this sound like groupon for the funded-but-sometimes-a-bit-crazy-yet-awesome-business? if I were in risk assessment I'd assess the risks before gambling.

merijnv• 14 years ago

> This "give money and something MAY happen, eventually" model is going to collapse on itself.

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...

JVIDEL3• 14 years ago

Naming the best possible cases is not a good defense, I could cite how much money bankers made with CDOs and yet that didn't stop the economy from collapsing.

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.

jimgardener• 14 years ago

http://nibruki.com/games/rp2012/core/screens/TitleScreen.js now is forbidden!

eykanal• 14 years ago

What is the point of this article? The guy said he'd make a video game, and people pledged money. He's pretty upfront about what he's making on the Kickstarter page. The article author is upset because the fellow is using a tutorial? Who the hell cares? So long as the supporters get their "sidescrolling platformer action/adventure game, reminiscent of console classics like Super Mario Brothers and Sonic the Hedgehog", like he promised them, what's it your business anyway? They paid for a game, and he's developing a game. What's the problem?

reitzensteinm5• 14 years ago

Two reasons:

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.

kamaal4• 14 years ago

People who need to decide whether something is good or bad are his users.

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.

kamaal4• 14 years ago

I think the problem is something like this.

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.

reitzensteinm5• 14 years ago

I was tasked with porting Platypus to the Mac, which was probably the most nightmarish code base I've ever seen. The entire code base consisted of hundreds of arrays, and three or four, twenty thousand line long functions. But the game was brilliant.

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.

89a• 14 years ago

All the stolen artwork perhaps?

I recognise the origin of all those sprites.

starwed2• 14 years ago

Does this author not understand how prototyping games works?

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.

djt• 14 years ago

Considering what it costs to produce a new title, is it any surprise?

deniszgonjanin• 14 years ago

Fake it 'til you make it, kid

anthemcg• 14 years ago

This is the second article I have seen in similar form criticizing a funded project for being simple/theoretically easy to make or relying on prefab tech.

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.

Kickstarter game project raises $10k, made using a DIY Platformer tutorial.

Related Stories