Posted June 29, 2014
I'm inclined to agree with Amok on that point, I think: crowdfunding is a donation system, not a pre-order system, even when the games are provided as rewards for donations.
I think that if I were to back a project by taking a twenty dollar tier that gained me the game, and the game were later sold for five dollars at launch, I would be unlikely to be upset: I gave away that twenty dollars, and getting the game in return was a bonus, or extra incentive to pick the higher tier over a lower one.
As I said, crowdfunding is similar to patronage, and currently perhaps the closest widespread model to it.
To actually implement patronage, I might imagine a game studio asking people to donate a certain amount (not much--let's say a few dollars each, although I don't know how viable that is) each month. In return, they're given access to a "backer" forum by which they can communicate with the developers, early access to new games, and all released games for no further cost. The produced games would presumably still be sold to non-patrons. Other rewards might be offered as well, especially if there are crowdfunding-style tiers of patronage.
(These rewards are provided with some current crowdfunding campaigns; the main difference is that in the case of patronage this access wouldn't be restricted to a single project, but to all projects as long as the patron continues to provide income.)
(I'm tempted to attempt to do the maths on the viability of patronage, but I don't know what a reasonable monthly income is in America, and we've tended to use American Dollars in this thread--at the least I doubt that a computation in South African Rands would likely be terribly useful to many in this thread besides myself.)
Pinkerton Road tried something similar--albeit not quite the same--I believe; I don't know how well it's working for them, offhand, although I think that their intended waves new funding pushes ("seasons") have faltered a little due to being tied to game releases, the schedules of which slipped.
I think that if I were to back a project by taking a twenty dollar tier that gained me the game, and the game were later sold for five dollars at launch, I would be unlikely to be upset: I gave away that twenty dollars, and getting the game in return was a bonus, or extra incentive to pick the higher tier over a lower one.
As I said, crowdfunding is similar to patronage, and currently perhaps the closest widespread model to it.
To actually implement patronage, I might imagine a game studio asking people to donate a certain amount (not much--let's say a few dollars each, although I don't know how viable that is) each month. In return, they're given access to a "backer" forum by which they can communicate with the developers, early access to new games, and all released games for no further cost. The produced games would presumably still be sold to non-patrons. Other rewards might be offered as well, especially if there are crowdfunding-style tiers of patronage.
(These rewards are provided with some current crowdfunding campaigns; the main difference is that in the case of patronage this access wouldn't be restricted to a single project, but to all projects as long as the patron continues to provide income.)
(I'm tempted to attempt to do the maths on the viability of patronage, but I don't know what a reasonable monthly income is in America, and we've tended to use American Dollars in this thread--at the least I doubt that a computation in South African Rands would likely be terribly useful to many in this thread besides myself.)
Pinkerton Road tried something similar--albeit not quite the same--I believe; I don't know how well it's working for them, offhand, although I think that their intended waves new funding pushes ("seasons") have faltered a little due to being tied to game releases, the schedules of which slipped.