[soneca]

I supported Double Fine Adventure on Kickstarter and lot of the last points of the OP refer to how Tim Schafer is managing it.

But, in this case, if Ron Gilbert is making a proof of concept with this post, a MVP to check if Monkey Island 3a can be crowdfunded - or even if it is just a critique of Double Fine Adventure campaign, I am on Tim Schafer's side here.

Crowdfunding is not about "give me the money and trust me". The crowd is not a substitute for publisher's money or even a maecenas. He wants to win the lotto and create a game, not receive the support of the crowd (and all that come from it).

I love the documentary updates, the forums, to understand what happens behind the scenes. This is not about keeping the hype up, this is about sharing the world of creating games with the people that supported it.

[cdmoyer]

> "give me the money and trust me"

That's basically the inverse of my attitude when I back a kickstarter. I generally support what they're doing, believe that they are going to try and make the thing they said, and then just trust that they'll eventually deliver something.

[mtrimpe]

I didn't read that much of a value judgement into it. It seems more like he's just managing expectations by explaining that he wouldn't do it that way.

[soneca]

I tried to read it again, but I see a lot of value judgement into it. One possibility is that it maybe not a judgement of how Tim is managing it, but a critique to the Kickstarter model as a whole. Either way, I don't agree with him.

If a Monkey Island is going to be created in this manner I wouldn´t support it as a crowdfunding project. But I would certainly buy the game after it is released! And pay good cash too!

I don't think Ron is doing something bad by stating those things, I just think he doesn't get crowdfunding the same way I do.

[richardkmichael]

I'm on the other side. He created the first two, which I grew up with and loved, and he didn't ask me about those at all. So I'm willing to trust him.

For me, crowdfunding is more about ensuring the actual creators receive my money and avoiding the "publisher", than it's about being able to contribute to creative process.

I backed Wasteland 2 and haven't said a single word to the developers. I've looked at the preview art and video, but I wouldn't mind very much if they hadn't release those things and just showed up with a game.

However, if they did that, and the game fell flat, I might not back another. I assume most Kickstarting companies realize the preview/updates are not "owed" to backers, but are in fact an opportunity to preview (e.g. test) with a highly engaged and invested audience, thus mitigating the risk of failure of their final product.

[freyr]

> Crowdfunding is not about "give me the money and trust me"

You speak on behalf of the crowd? The entire crowd? If Ron Gilbert's (hypothetical) proposal is unattractive to people, they won't support it.

[nsxwolf]

I don't get involved with the games I fund. I love that other people do; I think that's a really neat thing that's become possible. But it's just not my thing, personally. I'm happy to wait and see what they come up with.

I'm fine with funding projects with either philosophy. If it comes down to just "give me the funds or the game can't get made", and I want to play that game, then I'm happy being a substitute for the publisher's money. (I had to look up maecenas, and I still don't get it)

[soneca]

Sorry, I think it as a more common word in portuguese than in english (maybe I mistranslated it too).

Maecenas would be someone that gives money to an artist be able to produce its art. Long time ago, before artists could access market to finance themselves, great artists (e.g. Renaissance artists) often needed a Maecenas to pay the bills while they were creating their masterpieces. No financial interests, arts for art sake (sure, other reasons like vanity, social influence, power demonstration and etc were involved too).

Not sure this was an accurate explanation, but I tried.

[agosnell]

That sounds like what would normally be called a patron in English. See definition 4 here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patron#English

But I think patron may have connotations of influence over the artist. (I could be wrong on that.)

[soneca]

#4 is quite similar of what I have in mind. But no connotations of influence in theory - in practice, I imagine that was hard to have zero influence on the supported artist.

[mromanuk]

I disagree with the first part. The crowd should support the artist vision and give him total freedom. If is not a substitute for having a publisher, what's the point?

I agree with your conclusion and I don't think it is necessarily the opposite, you can have artist freedom and access to the backstage.

[criley]

I disagree. I love that model of crowdfunding and I think he hit the nail on the head: the stretch goals, crowd feedback, demos, etc are a hallmark of a blockbuster Kickstarter.

But, as he admitted, he's not interested in breaking records. He's interested in making his game the way he wants.

That's totally legit and I totally support someone making that claim.

It's up to each and everyone of us to assess that claim and decide if we trust him in that endeavour.

I strongly resist the idea that Kickstarted games MUST follow one model or they are wrong or bad. Not every creative mind works well with the chaos and bile that spews from the crowd.