16 février 2016
Pay enough and I’ll listen to you.
Pay enough and I’ll listen to you. It’s something I see blooming in all manners of kickstarter, patreon, tipeee, ulule, … Pay enough and you can suggest ideas. Pay enough and you’ll get to playtest. Pay enough and you’ll get my super-secret email address. Pay enough and you can spellcheck my writings for me… I don’t like it. Looks like a dumb move to me. Because it’ a bad way to manage who you listen to. What happened to the relevance and quality of the conversation? Do those who sell their ears that way still listen to those who don’t pay enough? If not, this is a really dumb way to choose who you listen to. If yes, they are either giving nothing and lying to their patrons or they’re somehow willing to listen to bullshit as long as they’re paid for it. Of course, they can if they want to. But this is completely different than being committed to the quality of one’s work.
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
.
RépondreSupprimerThe only time I've seen something worthwhile on this format was Levy's "here's some related projects I'd like to work on, pay enough and you decide which one's the first".
RépondreSupprimerwhy is it worthwhile ? Why is your opinion better if you have the money to back it up?
RépondreSupprimerIt was used for derivative products. The main product was in CF and one benchmark was "you select the first supplement amongst those proposals". I thought it was a good way to a. ask your audience for direct feedback with b. real, commercial repercussions (which always pleases said audience if it delivers) instead of empty promisses and while C. maintaining creative direction on the products themselves.
RépondreSupprimerDisclaimer : I'm talking shit here. There's nothing down here I've got by experience, it's just, well, my opinion, man. No advice, just a perspective.
RépondreSupprimerFor me, it's not about who's opinion is better. It's about prioritising people who were the first to put on their money. It's not about who to listen to, but who to listen to first.
And in my books, if we're talking about getting a product up and alive? Yeah, those people who cashed out and are eager to pay more, I'm going to listen far more to them than to anybody else.
The product's still young, and they're my first audience. Not only have they bought my stuff, but if they like it, they will advertise the fuck out of it and likely buy more.
So yeah, better my captive audience like and advertise my product than worrying about expanding my audience that early in the sales process.
Well "to" or "first" is not the question. asking for money puts wealth as a criteria for value.
RépondreSupprimerDoes my opinion has more value if I can pay to express it ?
I spend my time to help you with my input. Shouldn't I be the one to be paid?
Some people value participating in projects they trust.
RépondreSupprimerSome of them value it enough to pay for it.
There's a market here and anyone can bank on it.
That doesn't mean you have to love it. That doesn't mean it's fair. That doesn't meant it suits your ethics.
I know which side I'm on, though. Better this way.
Luke Wayland Which kind of value? to whom? Is time the only ressource you're spending? What are your returns on those spending? Does the spending::return ratio seem fair to you?
RépondreSupprimerGrégory Pogorzelski The value that the project leader is waiting asking for input from semi-random people. Well the time I spend on a project that is not mine has no return ratio.
RépondreSupprimerYet again, the original question was more "what could be a good criteria to select people to grant them the right to give you advice/input on your project?"
Ah ok, got it. Well, my answer is still kinda: if your goal is to sell your games, you'd better listen to the people whose opinions will help ship those games. And for several reasons, first backers' opinions will, though seldom because they're "better" or "more correct" than others.
RépondreSupprimer(More often it's because being listened to builds confidence and attachment, and those will promote your games.)
Now it's not the best thing to do always ever, I think, far from it and I'm as wary as anybody here about the whole "customers, tell me what to do" thingee, but sometimes, some people do it well.
RépondreSupprimerSi tu payes assez l'auteur peut même venir salir tes draps et souiller ta femme.
RépondreSupprimerIf I plan on making money from my work, it's probably better to listen to advices from people who proved me they are already eager to buy it, right?
RépondreSupprimerTheir advices may or may not be as sound as anyone else, but whatevern, they bought it once - surely they may do it again, if I take some care of them?
Grégory Pogorzelski an author can always listen to their public or to a specific part of their public anyway.
RépondreSupprimerWhat I resent is “pay $ and you’ll get the product, pay $$ and you’ll get the same product and have your say “ (and sometimes even “pay $$$ and add something you’ll do to the product”, yuck). But “hey, backers/patrons tell me what you think of what I do, and you’re welcome to ask questions” is fine.
Even leaving out the endless question of whether the public really knows and is able explain what it wants, likes and needs, I fear the negative side effects of this approach are worse than the benefits. (Except if the author doesn’t really listen more to those who supposedly bought the right to be heard more or earlier. Which is much too cynical for me.)
Once the author is selling their ears that way, they're committed to listen to bullshit. Having bought the right to talk, they’ll have the incentive to use it even if they have nothing significant to say. And they’ll feel entitled to say whatever they want; even if they know it is probably totally worthless, or disrespectful (if not worse). That, sadly, is how our sad little human minds work.
Now, on the marketing and earnings sides of things, I see the value of this practice. But only on short term. The author will be building less trust with their public.
Once the author is selling their ears that way, they're committed to listen to bullshit.
RépondreSupprimerI wouldn't confuse what's said and what's done. There are plenty of ways to ask your audience for information and act upon those information just enough so your audience is glad, all the while keeping total creative control upon your product.
It's a tight rope to walk by and if you fall short, people noticing may paint you the biggest hypocrite there is but chances of backfire are far lower than you'd imagine.
And yeah, you're spot on: it's short term, and the satisfaction vs. backfire chances are at their lowest when your product's already established and your base audience large and solid. At early stages, being that hypocrite is radioactive: can produce a huge boost, but more likely to blow up in your face and give your product rad damage.
That.
RépondreSupprimerYeah, I have mixed feelings about that.
RépondreSupprimerBecause the real problem here is: the indie games' market, specifically indie TRPGs, is kind of a niche market, right? How do you use crowdfunding (and here we are even more specifically speaking of patronage) to support your work? So that you could pay your bills, right?
I'd love to say: ok guys, here's the minimum price, and then pay what you want to support my work. But most of the people won't pay more if they don't receive something in exchange I think. Which is not exactly the idea of a patronage but hey patronage is still something relatively new and so we need to figure out how to make it work and still offer fair rewards.
But I really enjoy the fact that "customers" become more like playtesters/critics and give you feedbacks. The relationship between the author and the audience is changing. And, even if there can be sometimes drawbacks, it's IMO, a good thing.
Of course, building the author-public relationship is good. But you don't have to sell it. That can do no good to the relationship.
RépondreSupprimerIf you are selling your time, don’t sell what you should give to your work and your audience anyway, sell what is extra, and sell it at the right price. “For $$, I will write an article on the subject of your choice. I will make a podcast. I will propose solutions for your problem. I will write a game, setting, module tailored to your tastes, to your group. I will draw the subject of your choice. I will tell you how I’d hack my game to customize it to your needs.” These are close to the object of my rant, but non-toxic. (Or so I believe.)
And they are certainly other things to offer. Thanks. Hidden references. Autographs and dedications. Symbolic gifts (postcards, bookmarks, pens, …) or practical gifts showing support (at the worst, see entreprise gift stores).
There is an assumption that game Kickstarters sell/make games. This is wrong.
RépondreSupprimerGame Kickstarters sell the dream of gaming.
Granting access to an exclusive development forum, showing previews, letting customers fraternize with the developers and getting their portrait into the game, these are all in order to sell the dream of gaming.
Adding extra content, adventures, custom dice, GM screens, decks of cards and maps. They are also vehicles for selling the dream of gaming. No matter that they will offer no or little extra enjoyment of the final game, they make the anticipation and dream of future gaming all the sweeter. A fat box of stuff is not the game, it is the promise or dream of of gaming.
From that perspective it is a brilliant move to offer the above. And people want to buy the dream, otherwise Kickstarting stuff wouldn't be such as successful model.
Making a "better" game is not the focus of Kickstarters.
I am not sure wheteher I could disagree more, Wilhelm Person .
RépondreSupprimerI don't back often, but when I do, I don't buy any dream. I do two thi bngs with my money.
1. I give money to someone who did a cool job
2. I buy some actual product, not a dream; I don't buy token, cards, fancy stuff, I buy a dead tree book full of game promises. Not dreams, actual promises.
Pierre M It's quite clear though that there ARE actual people represented by the perspective of Wilhelm Person
RépondreSupprimerReally successful KS are successful because of this population. Look at the success of the French D&D5 crowdfunding: would you spend 100+€ for a collector book? Would you buy special useless dice? No, sure. And me neither. But we wouldn't make this CF successful.
But it's hard to make a crowdfunding okay for both populations. Therefore my mixed feelings about all this.
Wilhelm Person Kickstarters can be selling the dream of gaming or trying to bring a game to completion and to perfection. The equilibrium between the two depends on how much the project owner wants/needs to make bucks and to make a great game. And it isn't a fixed sum game, so great project owner can do both at the same times quite effectively. I like when you can get the whole game for a few bucks and those who like it can buy the dream for buckets of bucks. As long as the dream isn't a lie, and as long as it doesn't hinder the game. Most of the examples you give aren't what I am ranting about.
RépondreSupprimerTiburce Guyard You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend.
RépondreSupprimerThose who buy books (and shiny treasures, and whatever), and those who buy games. You buy games, and so do I. I don't collect treasures, and I just meant some people on KS weren't there to buy dreams.
Pierre M I'm okay with that if I have the loaded gun and you, you dig ;)
RépondreSupprimerI guess it would trigger an Act under fire... quite literally...
RépondreSupprimerNaaah, that's Tiburce going aggro on you, but you can interfere if you want. Whadyado ?
RépondreSupprimerWhen you use some AW moves on an internet conversation Roll + Weird
RépondreSupprimerOn a 10+, you totally derail it, and none is the wiser.
On a 7-9, choose between
You fail to derail it
Someone realized you are probably a stupid troll.
On a 6-, both.
RépondreSupprimer