So its not hypocritical because when you contradicted yourself we weren't supposed to be believe you?GameHED wrote:Uhh no.BOOMY wrote:Because you told us to dummy. Can you remember what you posted for longer than a week, a day, an hour? You said this:It's not hypocritical because I don't want to invest in them. Just buy them when they are out.
But you guys do.Work out wtf your point is before you speak again.Don't be a pussy and take a risk once in a while
The point is you don't have to take my advice. Think for yourself. Nobody will twist your arm and force you into not supporting.
If you are not into that type of game for instance, why would you care if the project reaches its goal? If I say go jump off the cliff, you are not going to do it are you? So why would you care if a kickstarter project isn't funded unless you yourself actually see some worth out of it? You are full of shit. You want to fund it because you see value in the game being made. Don't blame me lol
Sooooo dumb. The reason I don't back everything is because I have different priorities. (got other projects to back which I can't tell you of otherwise you will get pissed that I back them if they turn out to be shit games and then blame me for them being shit for giving them money before waiting for Candy Arse to give unbiased reviews of before buying the game. The unbiased stamp means its worth pirating and removing the DRM)
You guys have a special trap for everything you say. But thankfully nobody takes the bait because they know not to trust you.
If you want to understand my logic you must understand that I come from the old school of thinking: you make the product. If the thing is good quality to buy then I reward it by buying it. If it's shit: I EB rent the thing to find out the truth (there are some shit games that I might like if they do something groundbreaking or interesting) and decide later if I want to own it forever.
Sometime a game is shit, but its cheap, so you play it because it might interest you for whatever reason. But the point is you make calculated risks: you let the poorer quality makers of games work harder to force them to perform better by not instantly trusting them(ie by being soft on them and handing out money without worrying they'll relax to much), and you go easy on the makers of games that have already proven themselves.
I tend to take a conservative approach to things by only buying the game when I know it doesn't suck. (which means if I know a game will reach its goal I will support it by buying rather than investing )
But others are more liberal. Who am I to tell them NOT to back something risky?
That's why I am ok with other people throwing away money because they may not care about it sucking by giving excessive funding due to being more trustworthy. If they want their name in the credits or the artbook or whatever perks (early access) then let them have it. But everyone is DIFFERENT. Some people like me want to keep the money in my hands until AFTER the thing is done, not before because it gives them an incentive not to rush shit.
You know why Totalbiscuit discourages people from preordering? Because it tells the developers you will still give the company money regardless of if the thing is finished or polished properly. Always give money AFTER they have done it. That way you can feel safe.
There is no advantage of automatic trust. It only should apply to good developers who already have a reputation. Common sense man. The industry has loads of shovelware. That's because more and more people are buying garbage and are ok with it. By withholding money it can force the bad developers to disappear and good ones to rise to the top so it is a healthy thing to do.
No one does a better job of owning gameHED better than himself, usual conclusion to a gamehed discussion.