Adventure Gamers - Forums

My apologies if this has already been posted, but, if it’s allowed, could someone, in this thread, please post the complete text of the two most recent Hero-U Kickstarter updates?

“Even Better the Second Time Around” - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/transolargames/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption/posts/1221995

“Money Matters” - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/transolargames/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption/posts/1223356

Unlike the previous, public Hero-U updates, Corey Cole set these two as “backer only.” I believe it would be useful to have these updates publicly viewable and it would help inform discussion here. Thank you in advance to anyone who can post the text here.

I don’t have a lot of time now, and I’ll post more thoughts later, but I just thought it was unfortunate how Corey Cole keeps pointing to other Kickstarters (SpaceVenture, in particular).

See comments here:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/transolargames/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption/comments

I really wish Corey Cole would stop pointing the finger at other Kickstarters, like SpaceVenture, as he seeks to make excuses for himself. If I were the Two Guys, I wouldn’t appreciate being dragged into this. Cole’s tendency to compare Hero-U to other campaigns reminds me of a child who, when busted for naughty behavior, quickly points at his sister and says, “but, but, but, she’s doing it too! Look at her,” to try to get the attention off himself.

If I were having a discussion with Corey Cole about this, I’d say the following, with respect. “Corey Cole, please take responsibility for your failures and please do not try to excuse yourself by pointing out what you think are others’ mistakes. While it may be true that others are struggling, right now the apparent state of the Hero-U project, in addition to your shameful plan for what looks to many to be a ‘bailout’ Kickstarter, put you in a category all your own. And if you’re curious about what category that is, I’ll give you two words: rock bottom.”

Anyway, as I said, I don’t have a lot of time now, but will post more later about the following:

-Corey Cole deceptively floating the idea (whether jokingly or not) that he could be homeless if the second campaign failed. It’s deceptive because, I believe, he previously admitted that there was no real possibility of him losing his house. It’s also manipulative, since it’s likely that many people will pledge out of sympathy, perhaps thinking they are helping the Coles save their home. See below.

And the Number 1 reason:
We bet the ranch on this Project. (Do you want to be responsible for thousands of homeless flying Aardvarks?)

Source: http://hero-u.com/top-ten-reasons-for-running-another-kickstarter/

- Also, there are important issues to consider about the precedent this kind of “bailout” Kickstarter would set. The more I think about this, the more I feel like this won’t be good for future game crowd-funding. I would not advise sending Corey Cole more money for the second Kickstarter goal, but instead think it would be better for people to demand that Cole live up to his obligations, as described in the first Kickstarter for the same game.

- Finally, in many ways it seems the power of celebrity is of paramount importance, unfortunately, when it comes to which Kickstarter campaigns reach their goals and which don’t. Corey Cole is likely to be given pass after pass because, well, he’s Corey Cole, a name many people have heard of.

At what point do you say, “No more money. Fulfill your original promise to the best of your ability with available money left. End of story”?

What if Cole later decides to have a third Kickstarter? Would we hear the same arguments for why we should support it? “He is Corey Cole, and if he needs more money, then I’ll give it.” Look, people can do what they want with their own money, but when do you say “enough is enough?”

OrionO, if you’re not a backer, then I really don’t understand the vendetta you’ve got going on. Between unbacked smear campaign claiming that “Corey Cole, who has disappointed many by pushing a radical, intolerant feminist political agenda in his public postings about Hero-U” without ever offering proof when me and others called you out on it and your continuous rant on this, it’s starting to be a bit tiresome and repugnant.

If you haven’t backed the project then why do you continue ranting about it? You didn’t spend any money on it so what is it to you? The imagined negative consequence if their second kickstarter is somehow successful?

Giom, I and others care deeply about adventure gaming and are concerned with things that could negatively affect the perceived integrity of the crowd-funding process for such games in the future. I have as much right as you or anyone else to speak about this. Rather than try to go after particular commenters here that you might disagree with, it might be better if you addressed the points.

As for responding to prior posts, I honestly haven’t had a chance to read all the messages in this thread. But I will not get into any sort of political discussion here, out of respect for the moderators and other readers who are more interested in game/Kickstarter discussion.

Private message me if you want more info about anything I’ve mentioned previously. I may take awhile to respond, due to other obligations, but I will send you info in response as soon as I am able.

Anyway, the right thing would, of course, be for Cory Cole to have to live up to his original obligations and to be denied the undeserved and bad precedent-setting bailout. But, unfortunately, this second Kickstarter bailout will probably reach its goal. Celebrity is a powerful and valuable asset, after all, and it can probably make up for apparent gross incompetence, broken promises and a cringe-worthy work in progress. Sadly, in life what’s “right” or what “should be” doesn’t always come to be. Still, it is right and important for people in the community to speak out against what Cole is doing and to speak out loudly. And let’s not feel peer pressured into giving money to a game project that we know is of poor quality.

OrionO, I would love to respond to address your points and if you look at my comment history, you will notice that I do not, as a habit, go after commenters. I’m going to make two posts. In the first one, I will try to reply to the previous post and explain why your rants rub me the wrong way. I’ve tried to explain that objectively and I apologize to any of the mods here if it’s too blunt but I need to express this.

The second post will be about what I really think about the whole Cole situation and about why I don’t think this second kickstarter will affect perceptions of crowd funding negatively.

Rather than try to go after particular commenters here that you might disagree with, it might be better if you addressed the points.

The problem is that you do not really make points. Your whole schtick is baseless character assassination of the Coles. You repeatedly pull quotes out of context and twist them to further your agenda. Just as an example, you mention this:

We bet the ranch on this Project. (Do you want to be responsible for thousands of homeless flying Aardvarks?)

which, by the context, is obviously meant tongue in cheek. You then use that quote to say that the Coles are in your words deceptive:

Corey Cole deceptively floating the idea (whether jokingly or not) that he could be homeless

It doesn’t matter that you mention that it might be jokingly because you just mention it in passing without considering the fact that if it is jokingly then it’s obviously not deceptive.

There are numerous examples of you twisting words and using ad hominem. Your discourse is too full of demagogy to have real points that I can refute.

Ok, with the above said, let me try to defend my position. You say that this could negatively affect the perceived integrity of the crowd funding process for such games in the future. I disagree with you for a couple of reasons:

1. Currently with Hero U, there are three possibilities:
  - The second kickstarter fails, in this case, they will have less money to finish development and will probably release a game that isn’t as good as it could be
  - The second kickstarter is successful and they are able to release a game that they’re happy with and that backers are happy with.
  - The second kickstarter is successful but the game they release is not very good and backers are disappointed (I’m listing this to be exhaustive but I don’t believe this is likely to be the case but then while I don’t think that the Coles are good project manager and leader, I believe that they’re good designers and so the game should make backers happy at least on this point)

Now which of this possibilities is worth for backers and for the perception of crowd funding of adventure games? I think that the first possibility is by far the worst and that’s what I want to avoid.

2. Regardless, funding on kickstarter has already changed. The game was funded in 2012. Back then, games were funded on an idea and a name only. Pinkerton road, Double Fine Adventure, Spaceventure and yes Hero-U were all funded in this way. People were excited about seeing their idols back in the game and were ready to spend money on kickstarters based on a name and the rough sketch of an idea only.

This, of course, lead to problems. The sierra game designer celebrities were first and foremost game designers, they were not project managers, they had worked in a company that already had an infrastructure in place to ease the software development process by the use of SCI or AGI (and numerous other tools).

So, of course, some of those project stumbled, hit roadblocks. Software development is hard even for experienced project managers (I should know, I ran a software development consultancy). The writing was on the wall, it was expected that some projects would have issues and that some would completely fail.

People reacted to that and the perceived failures of the flagship Broken Age (which ended up being a great game by the way, despite the delays… ) and slowly kickstarter projects evolved so that nowadays only projects with a prototype and extensive preplanning at least get funded.

The crowdfunding landscape has already changed and it’s not the success or failure of Hero U that is going to affect the perception of crowdfunding.

That said in passing, if you want to go into actions that affect the perceived integrity of the crowd funding process, then I suggest you direct your ire to bundles. I think they’ve done more to hurt the future chances of people kickstarting a game than anything else. People who back games like Tesla Effect for $25 are going to be pissed when they find out that it’s available in a bundle for $1, 3 months after release. It might be a good deal for the company but it undermines future kickstarters by effectively telling their fans that they should never preorder their product if they don’t want to pay a lot more. It means that only the strongest fans are likely to back in the future which in the end hurts everyone, I believe. But that’s a rant for another day that’s only loosely connected to the topic at hand

As to your attacks against the integrity and transparency of the Coles, this second kickstarter doesn’t come as a surprise at all. They mentioned the possibility back in 2013, they’ve been very forthcoming about their financial difficulties and while their communication as not always been the best, they haven’t hidden the issue and buried their head in the sand.

Least you say that I’m a fanboy drinking the koolaid, I do believe that they’ve made mistakes:
- As per the fashion of the time, when they did their kickstarter, they were ill prepared.
- They relied too much on outdated asumptions and knowldege when it came to technical choices leading them to waste money and time on things that didn’t work out.
- They asked for an amount that was too low (400k) when they knew that they needed the double to do the game with the developer they selected (their reasoning was that if they asked for 800k there was a much higher risk that the project wouldn’t be funded which while true means that they took a large amount of risk)
- While they’ve signaled that they were running into issues early on, their communication hasn’t always been the best (the first private update from this month that you mention is an example of that).
- Based on the financial they mention, they’ve made small mistakes in managing the money leading them to paying a bit more tax than needed.

But, all in all, they’ve persevered, they’ve shown grit and they took a mortgage on their house to finish the game. As things go, they are probably not going to make a profit on this game and stand to lose money, having to repay the mortgage on their own.

In the same situation, other projects on kickstarter folded and just stopped or dissapeared but not the Coles. They’ve been transparent about the issues from early on in the game, they took the measures necessary to go on and they published a complete breakdown of their financials in a backer update. This for me is what’s important and I believe in supporting and helping people who take responsibility for their action, which is what they did in my opinion.

Yeah theyv absolutely been transparent. Theyv also just been horribly wrong about everything. Makes me wonder “whats changed now? what guarantees this time they’ll be right? Is a year+ going to go by before they then say, alright lets just get a publisher.” When maybe the reality is they should be getting a publisher right now. Instead theyr worried about publisher backlash and think a 2nd kickstarter is what the fans prefer. Sounds like wrong again to me.

I don’t think there would be any publisher that would offer additional funds for this game, that is the reality of Hero-U I fear.

Giom, thank you for your well thought-out and prepared post. But for me, what is ultimately hard to accept, is the launch of a 2nd kickstarter to complete the game they promised in the first.

First of all, please correct me if this statement is not correct. I should mention I’m not a backer so I’m not privy to some insider info that may be relevant.

If the Coles launch a 2nd kickstarter to improve on an already available game (eg adding more features, a remaster or visual upgrade) than that’s an acceptable approach (maybe not for all, but in my book yes).

But that’s not it as I understand it. What resonates for me is that without the 2nd kickstarter they won’t be able to get something release worthy out. Period. There won’t be a game that can actually be played to completion. In my opinion you cannot start a kickstarter to complete something you promised in the first.

Basically that a violation of the terms and conditions of Kickstarter and a broken promise to your existing backers. That’s also why I don’t think this 2nd kickstarter will work….you need trust to succesfully launch a kickstarter and imho you can’t do that from the fundation of a broken promise.

From a pragmatic point of view you are totally right of course….better a game than no game….so if people are willing and kind enough to support again, it’s better for this particular project.
But that’s essentially asking for charity rather than a serious funding request and that’s not what Kickstarter was build for.

subbi - 11 May 2015 08:00 AM

In my opinion you cannot start a kickstarter to complete something you promised in the first.

Basically that a violation of the terms and conditions of Kickstarter and a broken promise to your existing backers. That’s also why I don’t think this 2nd kickstarter will work….you need trust to succesfully launch a kickstarter and imho you can’t do that from the fundation of a broken promise.

How is it a violation of the terms of Kickstarter? As long as the original campaign didn’t specify that the end product would be exclusive to the backers, they’re not breaking any promises.

Saying “we can’t finish the game without additional funding” is an admission of failure, but if they get that funding and finish the game they will have fulfilled the original campaign promise. It’s only if they don’t end up finishing the game that it will be a broken promise.

Of course, every potential backer should consider their track record in evaluating whether they have faith in the Coles’ ability to finish the game (or finish it to a satisfactory standard). And people who have already backed should look at the rewards to see if they’re offering anything beyond what they’ve already been promised. If they’re just doing it because they feel pressured to increase their investment in order to get anything back at all, that may be throwing good money after bad.

I would also point out that this is by no means the first Kickstarter project that had to run a second campaign in order to raise additional funds to finish the project.

after a brisk nap - 11 May 2015 08:18 AM

I would also point out that this is by no means the first Kickstarter project that had to run a second campaign in order to raise additional funds to finish the project.

Well, the contrary is exactly my understanding of the situation. And that would be a violation of the kickstarter terms and conditions. But if I’m wrong then a “mea Culpa” is in order

I don’t think they have to worry about breaching any terms. Kickstarter have a history of not caring. You have to create an extreme controverse for them to act, and even then they hold out as longs as they can.

subbi - 11 May 2015 08:53 AM

after a brisk nap - 11 May 2015 08:18 AM

I would also point out that this is by no means the first Kickstarter project that had to run a second campaign in order to raise additional funds to finish the project.

Well, the contrary is exactly my understanding of the situation. And that would be a violation of the kickstarter terms and conditions. But if I’m wrong then a “mea Culpa” is in order

Take this campaign, for example. They’re spinning it positively (“the project grew to become something so much cooler than we originally had in mind”), but the fact is that they ran out of the original funds and went back to Kickstarter to get more, for the same project.

Personally I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, if the creators have a reasonable, good-faith belief that with the extra money they’ll be able to fulfill all the pledges to all the backers of both campaigns.

I think the main dichotomy between people who are bothered or not by the kickstarter is what we originally think kickstarter is about. Are we pre-ordering a product or are we backing a new project that like any new project has a chance of failure?

For me, when I pledge for a project, I do not see it as pre-order but as an investment in a project for which I expect the teams best effort.

Projects fails, shit happens, history is littered with games that were cancelled by publishers, studios that ran out of money, games that were unplayable due to severe bugs on release and so on… It’s not because we bypass publishers and go through Kickstarter that we’re miraculously going to get 100% success rate on game development. So, when I pledge money for a project on Kickstarter, I know that there’s a probability that it will fail, I understand that it’s not a sure thing and my reward for pledging on kickstarter is to know that I used my money for the advancement of a genre or of art that I like to see more of.

This is what I understand when Kickstarter themselves say that Kickstarter is not a store: https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store

It’s also why in the terms and conditions, if you read beyond

the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward

they actually explain that what’s actually required is a good faith attempt. The company must make every reasonable effort The devil is in the details but they say that:

If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:

- they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
- they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
- they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
- they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
- they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.

As much as the Coles project management can be criticized, they actually did those things. Backers who cared to follow the project were aware that money was tight and that a second kickstarter or some publishers would be needed as far back as 2013, they’ve published a financial breakdown explaining where the money went and how the money will be used (it’s a private update, I believe it should be made public instead but I’m not going to go against them and link to the text).

There’s no real other way for them to raise money, I don’t believe that any publisher would take the risk to fund them (it’s a very niche genre, it would be a hard sale regardless of the competence of the Coles).

I’m a pragmatic at heart and I prefer a game than no game, I prefer something that is nice and complete rather than nothing, so of course I prefer the kickstarter to be a success. It’s also not the first project nor the last project with a campaign to get additional funds because of roadblocks, bad estimates, errors in project management or what have you.

I actually don’t think that the latest update with the financial informations should be kept private. Having their financials for everyone to see would probably be better PR I think. But, it’s not for me to do decide so I’m not going to share the content.

I dont think kickstarter specifically rules the concept out, nor do they encourage it or suggest it as an option. IMO it goes against the “spirit” of crowdfunding. (how many kickstarters can you do for one project? i guess until one of them fails to fund? If this one fails, do they launch another one for 50k? Because it certainly doesnt matter whether they get the amount they “need” when theyr stuck with one kickstarter already.. they just need more.)
Really ideally a 2nd kickstarter should be a modular component added onto the original kickstarter page. They open it back up for funding with specific parameters. And that way a lot of confusion is avoided on what it means to have 2 kickstarters for the same project.. and then they would just get whatever is raised for the extra funding… and only 1 extra fund period per project? .....i dunno…...
I think I almost like this idea… They could call it a “super stretch goal”. Each project has one stretch-goal-card they can pull long after the original funding to deal with unforeseen factors.