DCS F-35A

[npole]

The first level, 75000$ will be reach, if necessary, with your own funding, then all will be charged.

 

It wouldn't be possible, it's against the terms of service I believe... it's a trick that someone have used in the past, but if proven I think they'll be banned (going to read the regulation).

 

The purpose of Kickstarter is define "targets", it's the equivalent of saying: "I need this money, to do this thing"; if you don't reach that target it means that you CAN'T do that thing (and none will be charged); on the other side if you can do it anyway, then that target doesn't exists at all.

 

So i'm giving my money to you, with the assurance that there would be other real pledger for a total of $75k (security financing).

 

Injecting your own money, because you figure that you cannot reach the target, is not exactly "legal" and should be reported to Kickstarter, because it completely defeats the purpose of having a target. If you believe that the target is not realistic, you should adjust it and not "cheating" by inject your money.

 

Kickstarter is for crowdfunding, while KI is acting like they are asking for "donations" (because they said that even without money from the customers, they will complete the project), they are similar but different... and they have mixed (wrongly in my opinion) the two things. To not count the fact that list a target by a feature but then promise that feature even without reaching the target is wrong as well.

 

To resume:

 

- if the target is not reached, and the backer (KI) believes that the current target is not realistic, KI should adjust the pledge and not inject "fake money" into the Kickstarter project.

 

- KI should not promise certain features with certain pledges, if the same features are "targets", because if that target wouldn't be reached they wouldn't be obligated to develop that feature (yes they can eventually, with more time, but here we are talking about "rules" not promises).

Edited July 4, 2013 by npole

[Starkiller]

Kickstarter is for crowdfunding, while KI is acting like they are asking for "donations" (because they said that even without money from the customers, they will complete the project), they are similar but different... and they have mixed (wrongly in my opinion) the two things.

 

They repeatedly said that if they do not reach min goal, they will find the other mean of funding to complete the project, so it is not a donation as you said.

[npole]

They repeatedly said that if they do not reach min goal, they will find the other mean of funding to complete the project, so it is not a donation as you said.

 

But then, they will "loose" all the backers.. that have fund again the project with that such alternate method.

 

If their intention were known from the start, why the hell they opted for KickStarter? Why they didn't go for IndieGoGo in example, that is more suitable for their project: in fact they offer a flexible funding campaign, rather than exact goals (ie: you won't risk that the campaign would be cancelled if you do not reach the target).

[Aginor]

Why should they "loose" ( :D ) all the backers?

 

EDIT: btw, "injecting" the money is "legal" AFAIK, no problem there.

And no, it's not like donations because the backers get something from their money.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Aginor

[sylkhan]

@npole

Thx for the explanation.

It was a misunderstanding on my part because of my @^\`| english :)

Hi to all - just wanted to comment on the budget. We are adding R & D money from my company to make the F-35 goal. The Kickstarter funds get us to where we need to be and also allows me to bring into the project, in the early stages and for flight test, a dedicated group of Simulation Pilots. Great things can be done with enough people working together on a single goal!

Edited July 4, 2013 by sylkhan

[npole]

Why should they "loose" ( :D ) all the backers?

 

Kickstart project fail = you "loose" the bakers. You can eventually asking them to apply somewhere else, but you still "loosing" them for the current project.

 

EDIT: btw, "injecting" the money is "legal" AFAIK, no problem there.

And no, it's not like donations because the backers get something from their money.

 

I don't think so, you have also to pay 5% (plus the transfer fees) on it.. so do it intentionally (instead of adjusting the goals and giving the opportunity to the bakers to evaluate again the proposal) smells so bad.

Who's that stupid to loose (around) 7% of your own money for nothing... if there's nothing to earn? :)

[Aginor]

IIRC it is somewhere near 3%, not 7%.

 

Also I might have misunderstood you: When they inject the money they won't lose anybody, will they?

 

And yeah, Kickstarter has its disadvantages, but overall it is ok, because the most "visible" platform, and people trust it. Doing crowdfunding yourself, without platforms like KS, is a bigger risk.

[MaverickNZ]

@npole

Thx for the explanation.

It was a misunderstanding on part because of my @^\`| english :)

 

sylkhan, what Eagle was meaning here is that it is a combination of KI existing funding, and the goal of $75,000 which would fund the project, not that we would be "topping up" the kickstarter with funding, but I can see how it could be read that way.

 

npole, once a kickstarter campaign has commenced it cannot be changed.

So no, we cannot reduce the target mid campaign, nor extend the dates.

 

As posted previously

 

Perhaps it needs to be clarified as to why we are running this kickstarter campaign to address these misconceptions.

 

It has already been stated that the sim will be made regardless of kickstarter being successful or not, if it isnt, then it just means that alternate funding would have to be found to bridge the gap that this kickstarter is trying to fill, and that may take time - valuable time that could be used to get started developing the sim.

 

By having the community fund a portion of the development (in conjunction with existing funding), it puts more control in the hands of the development team and the community to create the sim that they want - a high quality, authentic as possible simulation of the F-35.

It also helps us to build a fantastic community of pilots who are as excited about this project as we are - who are willing to support us in the most expressive way possible - by putting their money where their mouths are. It is a great community like that which helps to create the highest quality product possible and a strong, supportive community can transform a good game, into a legendary game that lasts for decades. We have a long road ahead to make not just the A model, but the B and C model beyond that, and hopefully content for a long time to come.

 

As we have seen many times over in video game publishing, when you get traditional publishers involved it becomes less what the developers want, and more what the publisher thinks will sell the most copies, and if its not ready by the release date? well, how many games do we see released that are either "half baked" or buggy. And thats something that nobody wants.

 

Thats why we have had the likes of Ace Combat, Hawx, and that other Janes "advanced" strike fighters recently, instead of more high quality air combat simulators like the other DCS modules - because they sell more copies and make the publisher more money, and that's not what we are about.

 

So kickstarter is not "easy money" in fact, its really hard money - much harder then getting someone to just invest in the product, but in the end it could provide a better quality simulation - which to us is worth it. Because we aren't talking about a mod here, we are talking about an experienced development team, who are dedicated to creating a serious and detailed simulation at the level of the DCS titles that have gone before it.

 

I hope this has provided some food for thought and made the intentions behind this approach clearer.

[Starkiller]

But then, they will "loose" all the backers.. that have fund again the project with that such alternate method.

 

If their intention were known from the start, why the hell they opted for KickStarter? Why they didn't go for IndieGoGo in example, that is more suitable for their project: in fact they offer a flexible funding campaign, rather than exact goals (ie: you won't risk that the campaign would be cancelled if you do not reach the target).

Let hear KI about that.

[Starkiller]

Kickstart project fail = you "loose" the bakers. You can eventually asking them to apply somewhere else, but you still "loosing" them for the current project.

 

 

 

I don't think so, you have also to pay 5% (plus the transfer fees) on it.. so do it intentionally (instead of adjusting the goals and giving the opportunity to the bakers to evaluate again the proposal) smells so bad.

Who's that stupid to loose (around) 7% of your own money for nothing... if there's nothing to earn? :)

 

I confused. At first you said it is illegal, then doable but bad and stupid.

[npole]

IIRC it is somewhere near 3%, not 7%.

 

It's 5% to KS only + another certain percentage for each pledge (depending of the payment method), 2% is even optimistic, and for country where applicable (not in US then) there's even the VAT. So it's around 7-8% for the USA, and more for the Europe.

 

Also I might have misunderstood you: When they inject the money they won't lose anybody, will they?

 

If they cheat they won't lose the bakers, unless someone reports you and KS decides that it is not "legal". But the question is: why you want to inject your own money and pay fees on it, when you have a "legal" way to do so (reducing the goal)?

 

And yeah, Kickstarter has its disadvantages, but overall it is ok, because the most "visible" platform, and people trust it. Doing crowdfunding yourself, without platforms like KS, is a bigger risk.

 

What "risk"? Apparently KI said that the project will be completed no matter what? They have opted for KS for a matter of visibility I believe, but they have used it in the wrong way IMO.

[leafer]

I'm no spelling gestapo but here you go. :)

[npole]

I confused. At first you said it is illegal, then doable but bad and stupid.

 

I said that the only reason of doing so (unless you're "stupid") would be to undercover something else.. hence the "illegality".

 

Legit: you find the goal too high for your expectations, you'll reduce it, and the bakers will evaluate the new situation, deciding to stay or bail out (EDIT: according to Maverick message, they cannot change the goal; but the means won't change: you can issue a new campaign with a revised total and the pledgers can evaluate the new budget and deciding);

 

Not Legit: you find the goal too high, but you like to have those money raised so far keeping it quite > let's inject money with dummy/nominee accounts (in example by using a $3000 pledges), users won't smell anything bad, they believes that more ppl are pledging, while in fact none is pledging, it's you "faking" the total, and none will leave the ship.

Edited July 4, 2013 by npole

[npole]

npole, once a kickstarter campaign has commenced it cannot be changed.

So no, we cannot reduce the target mid campaign, nor extend the dates.

 

As posted previously

 

If you cannot change it, you may eventually issue a new campaign with a revised total (unless there's limitation to do this...).

[jctrnacty]

Something I don't understand:

 

For high price pledgers, F-35A and F-35B or/and C will be available.

BUT the goal to reach is $75K.

 

On the kickstarter site, there are those sentences:

 

REACH GOALS

Again, all of us here at Kinney Interactive thank you for your support, and it’s important that you know that all of the funds will go towards the development and integration of F-35A Lightning II, (and reward fulfillment). Possible additions, based on Reach Goals, are listed below. Please note these goals will extend the schedule but will not change the initial delivery of the F-35A.

 

$75,000 – F-35A

F-35A Lightning II includes Campaigns, Training & Instant Action Missions

 

$105,000 – Interactive Ground Crew

F-35A + Ground Crew includes interactive Crew Chief for launch and recovery activities. We will also work to integrate the ability of the pilot to do a "Walk Around" prior to flights.

 

QUOTE]

 

That, I must agree 75 K is too much for too little, now bash me.

[Dudikoff]

That, I must agree 75 K is too much for too little, now bash me.

 

I'd say the opposite - it's much too little for the amount of work required for the seemingly ever expanding list of features (hence my doubts about this project among other things).

Edited July 4, 2013 by Dudikoff

[PUSHWAGNER]

It's 5% to KS only + another certain percentage for each pledge (depending of the payment method), 2% is even optimistic, and for country where applicable (not in US then) there's even the VAT. So it's around 7-8% for the USA, and more for the Europe.

Yeah, it's 5% to have the CC payments processed by amazon, then 5% by KS. And let's not forget about the physical rewards promised, in these low numbers it's going to cost more to print the manuals and boxes than the increase in reward tier nets in money.

 

Edit: and as mentioned earlier; this is not a fair implementation of the stretch goals. You just cannot have people pledge extra money for stretch goals that may, or may not, be realized in a realistic time frame.

Edited July 4, 2013 by PUSHWAGNER

[tintifaxl]

Add +1 to the to be printed manuals.

[TZeer]

Why do you even care npole?

 

You are not going to back it, and you are clearly not interested in this module. So why do you even post in this thread? Except making a lot of noise and being a "troll".

 

End result will be the same, the F-35 will come to DCS. Question is, how fast. If they succeed with the Kickstarter, I guess it will come sooner then later.

 

Be happy that there are people out there who are interested in spending the time and money to do something like this.

 

Take a chillpill, relax, lean back and enjoy whatever module you like flying.

[Aginor]

I'd say the opposite - it's much too little for the amount of work required for the seemingly ever expanding list of features.

 

I agree. Those who think $75000 is a lot of money don't know much about software development costs. especially if you calculate your risk into it. I still wonder how Beczl does the Mig-21 with that small amount of money he got for it until now. I guess he also does it for the fun of it and doesn't calculate every hour of engineering into it.

 

 

As for the Kickstarter stuff, especially @npole

The KI guys are doing something here that I personally think is great: They do the things a lot of other KS project starters do as well, they "cheat" as you put it, BUT they tell us. They work more transparent. That's a good thing.

 

And the other thing is: When you do a KS project you first do the math. It is highly likely that the "lost" percents of the money (for KS itself and stuff) are already thought of. So you just make the goal a bit bigger to have a bit of a buffer. A company does that every time they have a new project.

[npole]

Why do you even care npole?

 

I care about the future of DCS.

 

End result will be the same, the F-35 will come to DCS.

 

Yes, one day we will have the F-35 and many other aircrafts (I hope) added to DCS World.

 

Take a chillpill, relax, lean back and enjoy whatever module you like flying.

 

More relaxed than this... i will fall asleep! ;)

[Para_Bellum]

I think many people post here so that the devs (and other potential devs) understand why this kickstarter project will fail: it's not because there isn't a demand for highly-detailed DCS aircraft or that flightsim fans in general are reluctant to actually finance a project via Kickstarter but rather that the F-35 is an aircraft that few flightsim fans outside the US are really interested in.

[PUSHWAGNER]

Critical 'investors' drive businesses to be more open about their goals and (financial) performance, and I would argue more liable to succeed in obtaining goals that are mutually beneficial

[Vivoune]

[...] the F-35 is an aircraft that few flightsim fans outside the US are really interested in.

 

Be that as it may (being myself one of those people), give that project a chance and maybe stop calling it a failure, there's 9 days left out of 15 and even if it's not looking too good a fair amount of KS projects made the most pessimist predictions lie.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Vivoune

[leafer]

I think many people post here so that the devs (and other potential devs) understand why this kickstarter project will fail: it's not because there isn't a demand for highly-detailed DCS aircraft or that flightsim fans in general are reluctant to actually finance a project via Kickstarter but rather that the F-35 is an aircraft that few flightsim fans outside the US are really interested in.

 

There you go. I'd imagine he would have gotten throng of backers, me included, if he started out with something people can believe in, say, F4 Phantom or even an A6 Intruder. Release a couple of quality DCS modules then the people here will buy anything.

 

But but but..hopefully this module will give DCS the jump start that it seems to badly need, so I wish it much success.