ghyt wrote:from the FAQ under "why PC?"
"some people think that PC is an outdated platform..."

lolwat

who even thinks that? That's completely ridiculous! I have a seriously hard time believing anyone can think that...

Probably the same AAA companies who think, in their infinite wisdom , that nobody wants to use a mouse + keyboard, or who think that always-online DRM is a good idea even for SP games.

As for Mr. Garriott's venture; what has his personal wealth to do with anything? If he has the vision and determination to produce a game that people will enjoy, then why shouldn't he? Should personal wealth exclude people from using their creativity? KS is not just a way of raising funds for a company to make a game, but of getting publicity and an initial core of players. It's a sensible way to go that can guarantee independence from the infinitely wise AAA types mentioned above. If he succeeds, we players are better served than if he doesn't.

I'm thinking of plonking down some cash on this one I'm liking that Garriot is modelling this campaign on his good friend Chris Roberts and SC brilliant communication and total transparency in fact almost to honest at times as like SC they seem to be making the game up as they go along,which is great of course it can lead to confusion but that is the crux of Kickstarter it's pretty much a gamble and the gamble is well worth it is we have new PC golden age and not have DRM forced down our throats and developers can actually develop their own IP's with their player base.

If there's one thing I could change, I'd make platforms like steam and kickstarter non profit. Where they get the smallest % just to have wages and to fund the service itself.
I think this would allow more money to end up with the actual creators of the game. Now new kickstarter projects need to "overshoot" what they need to pay different fees and taxes. Five percent of 2.000.000$ is a lot of money that could feed a lot of people.

But all of those fees go into the cost of making or producing whatever they're raising money for. For me, it is ostensibly a non-profit. Except in the case of that Death Star guy. If he reached his goal, he'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

Matthew Cason wrote:But all of those fees go into the cost of making or producing whatever they're raising money for. For me, it is ostensibly a non-profit. Except in the case of that Death Star guy. If he reached his goal, he'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

I meant the kickstarter-like websites (which are for-profits) and amazon/paypal. If the parties in between the people and the creators would be non-profits, then there would be more left for the creators to work with.

Who would fund those non-profit organisations?

Gazz wrote:Who would fund those non-profit organisations?

As I said in a previous post... They would fund themselves by asking for the lowest % possible (or perhaps even a fixed amount per project). This money would be actually used to provide services and value, not to appease shareholders.