Vincent Baker posted a pep talk to his G+ feed this morning, and I’ve been thinking about it. I don’t post or comment outside the Gauntlet, so I’ll put my thoughts here. If you want the context for what I’m about to say, go find his post and take a look.
I completely agree with the spirit of what he is saying. You don’t need permission from anyone to create games. It’s a fun activity in and of itself, and the rewards for doing so are significant and intrinsic. I myself don’t make games, but I’m involved in publishing a zine related to games, and I assure you it is a very satisfying activity, despite the fact the zine makes exactly $0 in profit.
But there’s a part of me that thinks you should look a little deeper into the subtext of Vincent’s post, beyond the “feel-good,” +1 bait surface of it.
Because I read it a little differently. I read it as “You don’t have to try.”
And do you know who has a direct interest in making other people think RPG publishing should be treated as a leisure activity, an activity in which you don’t really have to try? The answer: people for whom RPG publishing is already a major source of their income.
I’m not suggesting that was Vincent’s intention in that post. In fact, I don’t believe it was. But I do see these “pep talk” posts a lot, and I always find them amusing, because they usually come from people who, whether they realize it or not, directly benefit from the hobby staying niche and unserious.
I admire execution more than I admire genius. Not everyone gets to be a Lumpley, but with some work, you can be a Magpie. You’re never going to make a mechanically-perfect game, but there are things you can do, things you should do, to give your game the best possible chance of finding an audience, and doing those things doesn’t make your work any less virtuous than that of the gentleman hobbyist who designs games in his leisure time. And I think those things include doing some research to find out if your game has a place in the market, talking to podcasters and bloggers, working to cultivate a fan base, and, yes, commissioning some art and layout.
It’s very much a sentiment of “you don’t need permission to create.” Of course not. But! If your intention is to create for consumption, there are things you should probably do. Obviously I’m couching the hell out of this answer with words like “probably,” and “should” instead of “absolutely” and “must.” But below this point in my post I will not couch my answer any more because I feel strong sentiment in the opinion I’m about to express.
Below is my opinion. No one needs to agree with me.
I do not mean any of those who create for the sake of creating are wrong or should stop doing so.
I am involved in the process of creating a podcast. I am incredibly committed to delivering an end product that listeners want. I create with a consumer in mind because that is the end result I want: consumers to enjoy; listeners to embrace and welcome my show to be a part of their lives. It takes 2 to 3 times as long to edit a podcast as it does to create the original recording. Many podcasts do not bother with editing. I would put these podcasts to shame! I will edit! I will remember my end game! I am committed to giving my listeners something they can expect: a bench mark of excellence. I do not do excellence for excellence sake. I do it for you. And I do not do it for a paycheck. Why can we not expect those who are paid to hold themselves to a similar standard?
It’s very much a sentiment of “you don’t need permission to create.” Of course not. But! If your intention is to create for consumption, there are things you should probably do. Obviously I’m couching the hell out of this answer with words like “probably,” and “should” instead of “absolutely” and “must.” But below this point in my post I will not couch my answer any more because I feel strong sentiment in the opinion I’m about to express.
Below is my opinion. No one needs to agree with me.
I do not mean any of those who create for the sake of creating are wrong or should stop doing so.
I am involved in the process of creating a podcast. I am incredibly committed to delivering an end product that listeners want. I create with a consumer in mind because that is the end result I want: consumers to enjoy; listeners to embrace and welcome my show to be a part of their lives. It takes 2 to 3 times as long to edit a podcast as it does to create the original recording. Many podcasts do not bother with editing. I would put these podcasts to shame! I will edit! I will remember my end game! I am committed to giving my listeners something they can expect: a bench mark of excellence. I do not do excellence for excellence sake. I do it for you. And I do not do it for a paycheck. Why can we not expect those who are paid to hold themselves to a similar standard?
The other thing that tends to come up in this sort of talk is “Don’t let anyone tell you what sort of game you should make”, to which I always think, actually no. Don’t make Fatal. Don’t make Broncosaurus Rex. Those games don’t need to be.
The other thing that tends to come up in this sort of talk is “Don’t let anyone tell you what sort of game you should make”, to which I always think, actually no. Don’t make Fatal. Don’t make Broncosaurus Rex. Those games don’t need to be.
“I admire execution more than I admire genius.”
Great quote. While its wonderful to be smart, you really only need above average intelligence for most things (makes things easier). Ambition/drive is where ~90% of life gets done. Your RPG idea might be genius, but only if you write it down, only if other people see it, only if its in a state that people can understand, interpret and use.
“I admire execution more than I admire genius.”
Great quote. While its wonderful to be smart, you really only need above average intelligence for most things (makes things easier). Ambition/drive is where ~90% of life gets done. Your RPG idea might be genius, but only if you write it down, only if other people see it, only if its in a state that people can understand, interpret and use.
I admit I don’t hang around much in other RPG spaces. But even with that said, I have to wonder: who are these people who are trying to keep other people out of the hobby, or who are trying to dictate what should or should not be? Where do these conversations take place?
I admit I don’t hang around much in other RPG spaces. But even with that said, I have to wonder: who are these people who are trying to keep other people out of the hobby, or who are trying to dictate what should or should not be? Where do these conversations take place?
Jason Cordova I think we got a hint of it last “flare up”. There are groups of people that feel that RPGs should represent and be represented by a certain set of values and push a certain set of goals. Those that are not aligned with that, should not be published. Other possible groups are people who feel that WotC or any “official” publisher is THE FINAL WORD in whatever respective RPG they like. As if no one else can bring something a “high quality” which is funny because what is being vaulted as high quality is actually a very boring, safe middle.
Jason Cordova I think we got a hint of it last “flare up”. There are groups of people that feel that RPGs should represent and be represented by a certain set of values and push a certain set of goals. Those that are not aligned with that, should not be published. Other possible groups are people who feel that WotC or any “official” publisher is THE FINAL WORD in whatever respective RPG they like. As if no one else can bring something a “high quality” which is funny because what is being vaulted as high quality is actually a very boring, safe middle.
.
.
I didn’t see anything other than inspiration. I love being naïve.
I didn’t see anything other than inspiration. I love being naïve.
parrish warren And like I said in my post, that is what I think, too. I’m not at all suggesting any ill intentions on his part. But I don’t think that makes my observations about the hobby any less valid.
parrish warren And like I said in my post, that is what I think, too. I’m not at all suggesting any ill intentions on his part. But I don’t think that makes my observations about the hobby any less valid.
Jason Cordova I guess your response to “don’t let people tell you what to do”, sounds like…”what to do”. The part that likely is muddled on my part is the gentleman gamer vs. game company. I suppose that if I want five bucks for a PDF it should have some production value. But many of us who have ideas rolling around in our head would be happy to have a five page, meticulously proof read plain text RPG sold for ninety nine cents. Would that dilute the hobby?
Jason Cordova I guess your response to “don’t let people tell you what to do”, sounds like…”what to do”. The part that likely is muddled on my part is the gentleman gamer vs. game company. I suppose that if I want five bucks for a PDF it should have some production value. But many of us who have ideas rolling around in our head would be happy to have a five page, meticulously proof read plain text RPG sold for ninety nine cents. Would that dilute the hobby?
I agree Jason Cordova, I don’t see those supposed conversations that discourage people from designing or calling themselves designers either. I think VB’s post is largely directed at a non-issue. Now, the conversation of finding an audience for your game (or designing for an existing audience) is a great conversation. I see a lot of TBH havks for instance that didn’t need to be made and aren’t getting play. Endless variations of people taking TBH and reengineering back into a TBH/3.x hybrid.
I agree Jason Cordova, I don’t see those supposed conversations that discourage people from designing or calling themselves designers either. I think VB’s post is largely directed at a non-issue. Now, the conversation of finding an audience for your game (or designing for an existing audience) is a great conversation. I see a lot of TBH havks for instance that didn’t need to be made and aren’t getting play. Endless variations of people taking TBH and reengineering back into a TBH/3.x hybrid.
Ray Otus The Black Hack is a good test for this conversation. On the on hand it doesn’t really matter who puts out what hack. If its good, it will find an audience. However, I think the (a) number of hack and (b) as you say their weird propensity to make TBH more complicated points toward a lack of critique in the community.
I think this is true of nerdom as a whole right now. In the rush to be a community defined by a past of shared exclusion (“You’re a nerd!) that is super inclusive, even healthy critique is being viewed a negative (“Hey, what, are you trying to be the ‘cool kid’ now?”)– which is unhealthy. This thwarts better ideas getting the limelight because everything is good because everyone tried.
Maybe the true tension is this: The argument of gentlemen designers vs.honest critiques of what is truly good/novel and therefore deserves player dollars.
Ray Otus The Black Hack is a good test for this conversation. On the on hand it doesn’t really matter who puts out what hack. If its good, it will find an audience. However, I think the (a) number of hack and (b) as you say their weird propensity to make TBH more complicated points toward a lack of critique in the community.
I think this is true of nerdom as a whole right now. In the rush to be a community defined by a past of shared exclusion (“You’re a nerd!) that is super inclusive, even healthy critique is being viewed a negative (“Hey, what, are you trying to be the ‘cool kid’ now?”)– which is unhealthy. This thwarts better ideas getting the limelight because everything is good because everyone tried.
Maybe the true tension is this: The argument of gentlemen designers vs.honest critiques of what is truly good/novel and therefore deserves player dollars.
To be clear, I’m not telling people what they should or should not do with their game project (nor have I offered up any particularly brilliant marketing insights here). People should put as much or as little effort into personal projects as they wish. But I have observed a lot of people in the indie space hand-wringing over whether they are a “real” game designer, or frustrated because their work isn’t as well-received as that of other people. And it’s almost always the well-received people telling them that everything is going to be ok, and that the hobby is really just a cool, laid-back thing we all do to have fun anyway, so why get worked up about it? And so when those people continue to make games that don’t get any accolades, much less money, they go back to feeling frustrated and insignificant. I’m just not sure how helpful it is, you know? Like, why do you need this ra-ra validation from a respected game designer?
To be clear, I’m not telling people what they should or should not do with their game project (nor have I offered up any particularly brilliant marketing insights here). People should put as much or as little effort into personal projects as they wish. But I have observed a lot of people in the indie space hand-wringing over whether they are a “real” game designer, or frustrated because their work isn’t as well-received as that of other people. And it’s almost always the well-received people telling them that everything is going to be ok, and that the hobby is really just a cool, laid-back thing we all do to have fun anyway, so why get worked up about it? And so when those people continue to make games that don’t get any accolades, much less money, they go back to feeling frustrated and insignificant. I’m just not sure how helpful it is, you know? Like, why do you need this ra-ra validation from a respected game designer?
To me, the best antidote to feeling insecure about your work is to do your work well.
To me, the best antidote to feeling insecure about your work is to do your work well.
And find a community of people (Hello, Gauntlet!) who are interested in the work you are doing, who are interested in being fans, and are not simply trying to sell you their own games.
And find a community of people (Hello, Gauntlet!) who are interested in the work you are doing, who are interested in being fans, and are not simply trying to sell you their own games.
Maybe being are taking that validation as proof their game is valid and “competitive” in the market place despite numbers and money telling them otherwise? It helps keep a dream alive despite all evidence to the contrary. Again, I think it goes back to a lack of thoughtful, honest criticism in the space right now (RPGs and nerdom in general).
If you get cut from your high school football team, it doesn’t help if Payton Manning keeps saying “Oh man, just relax and play your best”. It DOES help, if Payton Manning say “Oh man, its because your football throwing skills are weak versus the rest of the competition”. And its FANTASTIC if Payton Manning says “Here is how to make it competitive or become a wide receiver”. See also Tim Tebow’s Career.
Maybe being are taking that validation as proof their game is valid and “competitive” in the market place despite numbers and money telling them otherwise? It helps keep a dream alive despite all evidence to the contrary. Again, I think it goes back to a lack of thoughtful, honest criticism in the space right now (RPGs and nerdom in general).
If you get cut from your high school football team, it doesn’t help if Payton Manning keeps saying “Oh man, just relax and play your best”. It DOES help, if Payton Manning say “Oh man, its because your football throwing skills are weak versus the rest of the competition”. And its FANTASTIC if Payton Manning says “Here is how to make it competitive or become a wide receiver”. See also Tim Tebow’s Career.
Ohh i understand now Jason. That last post clarifies it for me.
I agree, genius vs execution. Its good to have genius, but genius doesn’t make things happen. Execution is what makes it all happen.
Ohh i understand now Jason. That last post clarifies it for me.
I agree, genius vs execution. Its good to have genius, but genius doesn’t make things happen. Execution is what makes it all happen.
Warren Denning Those are really good points. You will notice I turned-off re-shares of this post, because the fact our hobby only tolerates constant validation means I don’t feel comfortable discussing this outside the confines of our community.
Warren Denning Those are really good points. You will notice I turned-off re-shares of this post, because the fact our hobby only tolerates constant validation means I don’t feel comfortable discussing this outside the confines of our community.
Warren Denning
I live by that moto. It makes me look like a complete *** sometimes (unintentional) but it makes for better constructive criticism.
Warren Denning
I live by that moto. It makes me look like a complete *** sometimes (unintentional) but it makes for better constructive criticism.
You don’t need permission to do anything sure, but if you’re getting into selling your game to others I think you have a responsibility to present the customer with as much value as you’re able. Depending on your means, that’ll vary, as well as the price point for the game. It’s pretty weird that people look at game design as “just the text of the game”, though. Your layout is game design, your art is game design, your formatting and editing and everything to do with the final presentation of said game, is game design. As soon as you’ve made something you’re asking money for you have some responsibilities as a creator. If you’re not doing that then by all means do as you like. It depends what standard you want to set for it, I’d say.
You don’t need permission to do anything sure, but if you’re getting into selling your game to others I think you have a responsibility to present the customer with as much value as you’re able. Depending on your means, that’ll vary, as well as the price point for the game. It’s pretty weird that people look at game design as “just the text of the game”, though. Your layout is game design, your art is game design, your formatting and editing and everything to do with the final presentation of said game, is game design. As soon as you’ve made something you’re asking money for you have some responsibilities as a creator. If you’re not doing that then by all means do as you like. It depends what standard you want to set for it, I’d say.
Ha ha, I needed the ra-ra validation from a game designer to push me over the edge to start making games. I never did concern myself much with the making money aspect of it though, as a gauge of success anyway. I had read enough, while trying to gather all the information to self publish, that it’s not a huge money maker. I determined myself successful when I started seeing my games being pirated. At that point I had made it. Now I just live for seeing things like when Richard Rogers and River Williamson enjoyed 1%er so much.
And I wholeheartedly agree with Jason Cordova on finding a community. Many of the “top” game designers in the indie scene today had The Forge to help get them started.
Ha ha, I needed the ra-ra validation from a game designer to push me over the edge to start making games. I never did concern myself much with the making money aspect of it though, as a gauge of success anyway. I had read enough, while trying to gather all the information to self publish, that it’s not a huge money maker. I determined myself successful when I started seeing my games being pirated. At that point I had made it. Now I just live for seeing things like when Richard Rogers and River Williamson enjoyed 1%er so much.
And I wholeheartedly agree with Jason Cordova on finding a community. Many of the “top” game designers in the indie scene today had The Forge to help get them started.
Jason Cordova Keep the comments closed is also completely smart giving recent blow ups in the community-at-large. Those same blow ups are also what I think holds back true productive criticism.
Jason Cordova Keep the comments closed is also completely smart giving recent blow ups in the community-at-large. Those same blow ups are also what I think holds back true productive criticism.
Fraser Simons I don’t agree that creators are responsible for maximising value. It’s nice if they do, but making stuff for consumption by others is all about equity, i.e. cost to make is at least equal to return. In a lot of cases for indie and community efforts which are free the costs and returns are not monetary. But the logic still works if it’s 100% about money, too. A wise creator may try to maximise perceived value to their customers, but notions of value vary person to person
If anyone has a duty, it’s communities who care about “value” to talk about exactly what they mean by value, to help themselves evaluate. But even then I don’t think anyone is actually responsible beyond the individual consumer. When this type of discussion cycles (in any hobby) I see a lot of focus on the creator, but a lack of logic or empathy for the consumer side who vote with their feet / wallet / bandwidth etc.
Fraser Simons I don’t agree that creators are responsible for maximising value. It’s nice if they do, but making stuff for consumption by others is all about equity, i.e. cost to make is at least equal to return. In a lot of cases for indie and community efforts which are free the costs and returns are not monetary. But the logic still works if it’s 100% about money, too. A wise creator may try to maximise perceived value to their customers, but notions of value vary person to person
If anyone has a duty, it’s communities who care about “value” to talk about exactly what they mean by value, to help themselves evaluate. But even then I don’t think anyone is actually responsible beyond the individual consumer. When this type of discussion cycles (in any hobby) I see a lot of focus on the creator, but a lack of logic or empathy for the consumer side who vote with their feet / wallet / bandwidth etc.
Ralph Lovegrove I disagree as I see a lot of creators transferring costs to their customers and especially Kickstarter backers. You’re literally asking people to make your dreams come true but decide not to do your due diligence in making a project as good as it can be. Now the community is like OH well, shipping costs are crazy but that’s how it is. OH well there’s 5 pieces of art that are photo manipulated on an 80,000$ project. OH well they did the layout themselves and they went with PoD instead of supplying a better product and tripling their margins.
All because they either don’t want to deal with aspects of the project to make it the best product, which is in their best interest and the customers. In some circumstances when they are transparent it doesn’t make sense to do some things, or they are unable. But when they are and they don’t, which I would say is the norm, you’re educating the community on what to expect as this is the only avenue of getting the game. And I think, disrespecting them and not being a very ethical creator.
Obviously if it’s a free game I don’t think you have these same responsibilities at all! I just take issue with it based on the price they’ve set and avenue of which they’re producing the final product. I do think you owe them the best product possible and the transparency to tell them otherwise because you’re asking them for money. Especially on Kickstarter where they’re trusting you to tell them what this product is and what the perceived value is.
The consumers get educated by the information they’re getting on these crowdfunding sites. But a lot of times the creators can do a better job and don’t because this norm is already established. I agree that consumers can get more educated, but when creators keep doing this over and over, eventually customers just accept it and it’s normalized I think. I don’t see that changing unless the creators become more ethical and realize these responsibilities.
Ralph Lovegrove I disagree as I see a lot of creators transferring costs to their customers and especially Kickstarter backers. You’re literally asking people to make your dreams come true but decide not to do your due diligence in making a project as good as it can be. Now the community is like OH well, shipping costs are crazy but that’s how it is. OH well there’s 5 pieces of art that are photo manipulated on an 80,000$ project. OH well they did the layout themselves and they went with PoD instead of supplying a better product and tripling their margins.
All because they either don’t want to deal with aspects of the project to make it the best product, which is in their best interest and the customers. In some circumstances when they are transparent it doesn’t make sense to do some things, or they are unable. But when they are and they don’t, which I would say is the norm, you’re educating the community on what to expect as this is the only avenue of getting the game. And I think, disrespecting them and not being a very ethical creator.
Obviously if it’s a free game I don’t think you have these same responsibilities at all! I just take issue with it based on the price they’ve set and avenue of which they’re producing the final product. I do think you owe them the best product possible and the transparency to tell them otherwise because you’re asking them for money. Especially on Kickstarter where they’re trusting you to tell them what this product is and what the perceived value is.
The consumers get educated by the information they’re getting on these crowdfunding sites. But a lot of times the creators can do a better job and don’t because this norm is already established. I agree that consumers can get more educated, but when creators keep doing this over and over, eventually customers just accept it and it’s normalized I think. I don’t see that changing unless the creators become more ethical and realize these responsibilities.
Fraser Simons I see what you’re getting at… but I still feel it’s the customer who needs to decide whether what’s on offer is worth their money. And backing any KS should be done with view that you may not see the product or it may not actually be worth what you paid.
What you’re describing, where the creators only put in the minimum of effort to fulfil their contract to the customer, is capitalism. I would expect nothing more and nothing less. Of course they may choose to put more effort in, but that’s because there’s a benefit to them — building their brand and growing their customer base for example.
But let’s say creators are motivated to add value. What value should they add? I’m sure many people think the Feng Shui 2 KS was great VFM, but I think the digital product is unusable because it’s full colour, too large for a tablet, and no printer friendly version (and if I hadn’t received other benefits from the KS I would not think I’d gotten my moeny’s worth). So what should Atlas do? I’d like them to make a printer friendly PDF, or a digest format, or even better epub. But if the majority would like a bonus full colour adventure, which part of their customer base should they listen to?
I’ve said in a few places that (a) people will charge what the market will bear and (b) in RPGs we consumers actually have some power to set our own price. But there’s something about hobbyist communities that makes people afraid to talk about money and value because it’s a relationship rather than contract based economy, based on trust that you will provide me with something of value and I will only say nice things about you and your product. And that works and it can be self-policing, but when it breaks down you’re in this awkward position of having to break a social taboo by criticising a product, which becomes criticising the creator, which causes community rifts etc.
Fraser Simons I see what you’re getting at… but I still feel it’s the customer who needs to decide whether what’s on offer is worth their money. And backing any KS should be done with view that you may not see the product or it may not actually be worth what you paid.
What you’re describing, where the creators only put in the minimum of effort to fulfil their contract to the customer, is capitalism. I would expect nothing more and nothing less. Of course they may choose to put more effort in, but that’s because there’s a benefit to them — building their brand and growing their customer base for example.
But let’s say creators are motivated to add value. What value should they add? I’m sure many people think the Feng Shui 2 KS was great VFM, but I think the digital product is unusable because it’s full colour, too large for a tablet, and no printer friendly version (and if I hadn’t received other benefits from the KS I would not think I’d gotten my moeny’s worth). So what should Atlas do? I’d like them to make a printer friendly PDF, or a digest format, or even better epub. But if the majority would like a bonus full colour adventure, which part of their customer base should they listen to?
I’ve said in a few places that (a) people will charge what the market will bear and (b) in RPGs we consumers actually have some power to set our own price. But there’s something about hobbyist communities that makes people afraid to talk about money and value because it’s a relationship rather than contract based economy, based on trust that you will provide me with something of value and I will only say nice things about you and your product. And that works and it can be self-policing, but when it breaks down you’re in this awkward position of having to break a social taboo by criticising a product, which becomes criticising the creator, which causes community rifts etc.
I’d like to say a little in defence of throwaway games, though. I enjoy and appreciate seeing games as thought-experiments, or jokes, or “what if you did a game where X?”
Of course, that is different from “not trying”, and relates to the “signalling” conversation that is also going about now — if you want value for money* to be a thing your game is about and you make that known, you probably ought to produce accordingly.
*Whatever that means. I recently worked on some very trad fat-splatbook titles and a recurring theme in feedback from the target audience is on quantity (“oh I wish it had 10 more pages”) and I just look at what they’re asking for — endless prose org charts, what colour some army unit’s kneepads are, or further variations on an NPC stat block, and I think “how is this actually useful at the table?” But anyway.
I’d like to say a little in defence of throwaway games, though. I enjoy and appreciate seeing games as thought-experiments, or jokes, or “what if you did a game where X?”
Of course, that is different from “not trying”, and relates to the “signalling” conversation that is also going about now — if you want value for money* to be a thing your game is about and you make that known, you probably ought to produce accordingly.
*Whatever that means. I recently worked on some very trad fat-splatbook titles and a recurring theme in feedback from the target audience is on quantity (“oh I wish it had 10 more pages”) and I just look at what they’re asking for — endless prose org charts, what colour some army unit’s kneepads are, or further variations on an NPC stat block, and I think “how is this actually useful at the table?” But anyway.
Ralph Lovegrove Definetly, in fact when I do say I think shipping is too much so I won’t back it, people do say something like that to me. Aren’t you worried how you’ll be perceived if you say that since it’s against the creator!? No, it’s only my perception of value and I’m in a different situation having an exchange rate and being international. Whether people think that is worthwhile or not is up to them but I don’t feel like I should hold back my views. I’ve an open mind and can concede points and find merits in others, so I don’t mind expressing mine.
I think that Kickstarter is pretty unique because customers are mostly deciding if they like you, the creator based on the information you’re given and then blame the platform if it fails, which hurts everyone who uses it. So I feel like depending on what platform you’re using to submit your product to, you’ve more obligations than others. I take your points but I still feel that creators should have ethics, especially when crowdfunding. And other creators need to hold people accountable and speak their views in order to do so when they don’t.
It’s all well and good placing all of the onus on the customer but I feel like it’s dangerous to do that as you’re enabling bad behaviour in the community, reinforcing what no curation on KS is contributing too, and contributing to the normalization of inferior products in a community you may care about if you are a creator.
This is also like a feeling more than data for me, it may be inferior because it’s altruistic where as data in market places may be more placed in higher regard, but it doesn’t change that for me, this is right thing to do, clearly, so should be done. I don’t think you’re wrong or your data, I just expect more from creators. Bad actors or not.
Ralph Lovegrove Definetly, in fact when I do say I think shipping is too much so I won’t back it, people do say something like that to me. Aren’t you worried how you’ll be perceived if you say that since it’s against the creator!? No, it’s only my perception of value and I’m in a different situation having an exchange rate and being international. Whether people think that is worthwhile or not is up to them but I don’t feel like I should hold back my views. I’ve an open mind and can concede points and find merits in others, so I don’t mind expressing mine.
I think that Kickstarter is pretty unique because customers are mostly deciding if they like you, the creator based on the information you’re given and then blame the platform if it fails, which hurts everyone who uses it. So I feel like depending on what platform you’re using to submit your product to, you’ve more obligations than others. I take your points but I still feel that creators should have ethics, especially when crowdfunding. And other creators need to hold people accountable and speak their views in order to do so when they don’t.
It’s all well and good placing all of the onus on the customer but I feel like it’s dangerous to do that as you’re enabling bad behaviour in the community, reinforcing what no curation on KS is contributing too, and contributing to the normalization of inferior products in a community you may care about if you are a creator.
This is also like a feeling more than data for me, it may be inferior because it’s altruistic where as data in market places may be more placed in higher regard, but it doesn’t change that for me, this is right thing to do, clearly, so should be done. I don’t think you’re wrong or your data, I just expect more from creators. Bad actors or not.
Fraser Simons the onus is totally on the consumer to articulate what they want from the exchange of cash for goods and services. Not being clear about what you expect actually creates gaps which can be exploited by the (hypothetical, unscrupulous) creator. And from the other side the creator is responsible for representing their product. The thing that “enables bad behaviour” is lack of clarity.
The lack of curation on KS is systemic. KS doesn’t want failures widely known. We — individuals or communities — have three ways of exerting pressure
1. Pressure KS to be more open or change whatever policy is defective (e.g. take complaints more seriously)
2. Name and shame naughty creators
3. Vote with our wallet.
This is in order of decreasing complexity and organisation, so the bottom one, setting our price, is the one we have individual control over.
And if we have expectations on the creator to deliver on time or a better product then maybe we should stop making excuses for creators and instead call them out, no? Plenty of times I’ve seen people excuse tardiness by saying “one year late isn’t really late for KS”. Stop that. It doesn’t matter if you met them at a convention and they’re really nice in person, or that they have a lot of followers as an indie luminary.
Fraser Simons the onus is totally on the consumer to articulate what they want from the exchange of cash for goods and services. Not being clear about what you expect actually creates gaps which can be exploited by the (hypothetical, unscrupulous) creator. And from the other side the creator is responsible for representing their product. The thing that “enables bad behaviour” is lack of clarity.
The lack of curation on KS is systemic. KS doesn’t want failures widely known. We — individuals or communities — have three ways of exerting pressure
1. Pressure KS to be more open or change whatever policy is defective (e.g. take complaints more seriously)
2. Name and shame naughty creators
3. Vote with our wallet.
This is in order of decreasing complexity and organisation, so the bottom one, setting our price, is the one we have individual control over.
And if we have expectations on the creator to deliver on time or a better product then maybe we should stop making excuses for creators and instead call them out, no? Plenty of times I’ve seen people excuse tardiness by saying “one year late isn’t really late for KS”. Stop that. It doesn’t matter if you met them at a convention and they’re really nice in person, or that they have a lot of followers as an indie luminary.
Ralph Lovegrove I agree with all those points, I think my primary point was the holding other creators to a better standard, if it’s possible for them to do so. I also don’t like the misconception of which aspects of the final product are game design or not. I’ve been reiterating creators holding others to a better standard is all.
Ralph Lovegrove I agree with all those points, I think my primary point was the holding other creators to a better standard, if it’s possible for them to do so. I also don’t like the misconception of which aspects of the final product are game design or not. I’ve been reiterating creators holding others to a better standard is all.
So long as creators uphold transparency, consumers can properly hold those creators to a standard the consumers desire.
The key is transparency by the creators.
So long as creators uphold transparency, consumers can properly hold those creators to a standard the consumers desire.
The key is transparency by the creators.