Sony launches crowdfunding platform

[dazzybee]

Sony continue their utterly disgusting practice of using fans' money to fund smaller games. Do people really not have a problem with this? A multi billion pound organisation crowd funding to develop gsmes from their employees. It's disgraceful.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/1/8874943/sony-crowdfunding-platform-first-flight-launch

[Happenstance]

If people have a problem with it then it wont get funded, simple as that.

[Daft]

Yeah, this is completely the wrong thread. Paging @lostmario @Retro_Link @Ike to move it to its own thread and the right board because it's worth of its own (relevant) discussion.

 

In any case, I don't think it's a bad idea. We wouldn't have the Pebble watch without crowd funding. If this means a bridge between big corporate development and crowd sourcing interest, then I don't really see the problem. It's not like you don't get a product at the end of a Kickstarter; you're basically pre-buying products.

 

Can't really see why anyone would find it disgusting. That's a little melodramatic. And Sony are hardly in great financial shape. I mean, seriously, they need ideas like this.

[Ike]

[split from Playstation 4 thread]

[Sheikah]

Fans' money is used to fund games all the time. You buy games, and the money they make is used to fund the next games they make. That money doesn't just come from nowhere.

 

The only difference is that now you're actually paying for the development of games you're definitely interested in. Not sure how you think it's disgusting in any way - either don't support it or buy on release.

[Nolan]

I see no problem with this. It gets games made that likely wouldn't otherwise, similar to kickstarter itself. I think SquareEnix has a similar program as well.

 

Sure Sony could just fund the games, but this is a way to gauge interest as well. It offsets costs, but its hardly worse than a preorder...or games with annoucement trailers promoting nothing but preorder dlc.

[Cube]

I see no problem with this. It gets games made that likely wouldn't otherwise, similar to kickstarter itself. I think SquareEnix has a similar program as well.

 

Sure Sony could just fund the games, but this is a way to gauge interest as well. It offsets costs, but its hardly worse than a preorder...or games with annoucement trailers promoting nothing but preorder dlc.

 

It's not even related to games. It's for device ideas.

[Ashley]

Don't mind dazzy. He's just got a bee in his bonnet.

[dwarf]

If it leads to quirky games that would have been too risky to develop through normal means, it's a completely sound idea. If they started doing it for games like Uncharted and they requested £60 backings, then maybe I'd suspect foul play. But that isn't what's happening.

 

LOL it isn't' for either, hence tech thread *grabs coat*

Edited July 2, 2015 by dwarf

[dazzybee]

I am genuinely gobsmacked that people are perfectly happy with this. And pebble watch is completely different, and I'm not even going to talk about games being financed by fans anyway... crazy talk!!

 

Fair enough people aren't bothered by it. just surprised. I do wonder if the same people wouldn't be bothered if it wasn't sony though...

 

Would people be happy with Disney crowd funding a feature film, or a ride at Disneyland, or even a short film? It's the wrong use of the concept, and destroys it for the people and products that genuinely need it.

[Sheikah]

To be honest, I think you're gobsmacked by it because you haven't really thought about it. After people have given you valid reasons why this could be a very good thing you seem to have ignored or dismissed every one.

 

The caveats you have listed also don't really make sense. I don't see how large companies using Kickstarter type platforms "ruin it for everyone else" in any way; you can contribute to as many projects you deem worthy, big or small. It's not like a large company Kickstarter project somehow disables other Kickstarter projects by purely existing. I also don't see how it's a "wrong" use of the funding method. It doesn't matter how much money Sony or any other large company have because regardless of their capital, they're not going to want to fund games that make a loss. That seems to be what you're missing - this method makes sense because they can approach potential customers and say "we want to make this game, but it would need to raise at least this much first for us to deem it a viable cash maker". I guess the take home here is that just because a company physically can pay up front doesn't mean that they automatically should; especially not if they have reason to believe the game might not claw in a profit. By having this scheme, companies big or small can make games that they otherwise might have seen as too much of a risk to bother with.

 

And you know what? I'm fine with that, because if I don't want to fund a game then I won't. The great thing is, it's optional.

 

And on a final note, you asking if people would be bothered if if wasn't Sony seemed rather rich. I'll say nothing more other than if this wasn't Sony, I very much doubt you'd be anywhere near as rattled!

Edited July 3, 2015 by Sheikah

[bryanee]

I'm ok with this, especially if its mean you get something you wouldn't usually get. You pay your money and you get the item, I really don't see the problem. Maybe if you gave them money to fund the project and then still had to pay for said item after it release's then yeah they can fuck off.