Amplitude (Harmonix) PS3/PS4 - KS (Funded, final day)

hawk2025 said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because you're investing a lot of time, money and resources into something that you will never get the full financial benefit from, since you don't actually own it.

Let's say this comes out and is a big hit. Just as an example, Sony starts selling t-shirts and other merch.

With Sony owning the IP, they're going to demand a cut of that, even though the newfound success of the IP is entirely related to the efforts of Harmonix. Now, Harmonix would likely get a cut of that stuff, but not 100%.

There's also the issue which is directly affecting this campaign, that they can never make a PC, iPad, Kindle Fire, etc. version of it without the IP reverting to them.

To me, I think that's where the real money would be in this, if they could've gotten the IP back. That's the only reason way this made sense to me: short term risk for long term gain.

Obviously this is all speculative based on how little we know. They could have all kinds of complicated recoup stuff in there that does make it make more sense.
 
Ravidrath said:
Because you're investing a lot of time, money and resources into something that you will never get the full financial benefit from, since you don't actually own it.

Let's say this comes out and is a big hit. Just as an example, Sony starts selling t-shirts and other merch.

With Sony owning the IP, they're going to demand a cut of that, even though the newfound success of the IP is entirely related to the efforts of Harmonix. Now, Harmonix would likely get a cut of that stuff, but not 100%.

There's also the issue which is directly affecting this campaign, that they can never make a PC, iPad, Kindle Fire, etc. version of it without the IP reverting to them.

To me, I think that's where the real money would be in this, if they could've gotten the IP back. That's the only reason way this made sense to me: short term risk for long term gain.

Obviously this is all speculative based on how little we know. They could have all kinds of complicated recoup stuff in there that does make it make more sense.
Click to expand...


That's the case for basically most people's jobs, though, and many many Kickstarter-style campaigns. People throughout the ages have financed business deals and products for which they will not own the property of completely.

People kickstart to bring concerts to their town, to put out a vinyl edition of a record from their favorite band, to make a few prints from an artist. Without owning the IP involved.

The issue is that you are under the impression that Harmonix is doing this strictly because of money; But with their weight and pedigree, there's no reason to go back to a failed IP. They are doing it because they really want to.
 
Ravidrath said:
At this point, I don't think it really makes business sense to crowdfund for an IP you don't own.

Basically, if your company has the reputation and ability to crowdfund anything, it should be something that you actually own.

I say this as someone who did it for my own game. But that's also why I think this way now.
Click to expand...
If you want to maximize the situation sure. But this is a passion project. I think any passion project that can't be funded any other way (realistically) makes sense. Also we're talking about a studio with a number of other projects. This is a side thing they really want to do but only makes sense to do if they can mitigate the opportunity cost and financial risk with extra funding.
 
Ravidrath said:
Because you're investing a lot of time, money and resources into something that you will never get the full financial benefit from, since you don't actually own it.
Click to expand...

This is a risk for a lot of new IP ideas from developers, and it's why some developers may choose to bring a game to Microsoft instead of Sony (like Insomniac with Sunset Overdrive) because MS has been willing to let developers retain IP rights. That way, if it's a huge success, the developer can prosper from that IP with future material.

But with this IP, it's already a known entity. It's had two games that have not done well. Harmonix knows that, while it may be more successful than in the PS2 days, it's not going to be anything that explodes like Guitar Hero. Their aim is not really to make a huge profit on this project. It's to make a game that is near and dear to their hearts that they're passionate about - and they want to do it in a way that is not completely financially irresponsible, which is why they've turned to Kickstarter to both make sure some interest is there and offset at least some of their risk.
 
Flipping the logic on its head:


Why should anyone contribute to a Kickstarter if we don't get to keep a tiny portion of the IP, then?
 
hawk2025 said:
Flipping the logic on its head:


Why should anyone contribute to a Kickstarter if we don't get to keep a tiny portion of the IP, then?
Click to expand...

That is a legitimate question many people have, and thus is explicitly addressed in Kickstarter's terms.

I think there probably are people that don't contribute for this reason. Certainly the Oculus Rift thing left people feeling sour about that, too.


I'd actually be really interested to see a crowdfunding thing that is actually an investment vehicle, because right now VC stuff is all locked away from the public.
 
Ravidrath said:
That is a legitimate question many people have, and thus is explicitly addressed in Kickstarter's terms.

I think there probably are people that don't contribute for this reason. Certainly the Oculus Rift thing left people feeling sour about that, too.


I'd actually be really interested to see a crowdfunding thing that is actually an investment vehicle, because right now VC stuff is all locked away from the public.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say it's locked away from the public; it's a matter or bargaining power and having the funds to absorb the risk. There's nothing particularly complicated about drawing up a simple VC contract if you have the means to do so.

When a dev kickstarts a project, he has the bargaining power by asking for money from dozens of thousands of people. The marginal contribution of each is tiny, so he/she keeps the intellectual property.

When a dev gets funded by a single or a reduced number of sources, the matter is more complicated: Do they have an outside option? What are the deals being offered? Can the makers of Call of Duty and Ratchet & Clank shop around their idea and leverage a better contract?

My point was actually kind of simple: The same market forces that make you think that it's not a good deal for a dev to sign a contract where he doesn't keep the IP (a result of a dev having less bargaining power than the person financing it) is the one that justifies customers kickstarting a project despite not keeping a share of the profits: We want to see it made, and you get the money despite not needing to sweeten the pot by giving us equity.


And there's absolutely nothing wrong in any of this.
 
I'm legit surprised it's gotten to $590k, after it was almost stalling in the first couple of days and to be honest wrote it off since then.
 
This KS will be tugging on my heart strings all 18 days it seems.

Day 1: Look at it go! It can make it!

Day 5: It's died off completely. My dream is dead :(

Day 16: Holy shit, it's almost at 600K! It might actually make it!!
 
So at $592.5k, this kickstarter needs to average $67k a day for the next 65 hours [$2.8k an hour]

It's done $153k today

I feel optimistic on this now
 


K2LS5CJ.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PS3 emulation hit a major milestone a few days ago
2
65
169
Danny22 replied
Endless Legend II announced (Amplitude Studios / Sega)
7
574
P:axMagellanic replied
Revisting Final Fantasy as an RPG Newb
22
129
Moochi replied
  • Poll
Final Fantasy XVI
LTTP  2 3 4
154
3K
paolo11 replied
Helldivers 2 dev says next game will not be funded by PlayStation
2 3
101
3K
Jesb replied
Top Bottom