[quote=Robin Alexander]
I’m happy to try and aim for the social rewards, and - were I able to play the game - I’d donate in a heartbeat. The prices are great, while the rewards for each donation are very fair/proportionate, but I think the rewards need to be exclusively (or close enough) to the game that’s being kick-started . . . which they are, which I love :)
The thing is that a lot of FL do miss out on exclusives, as they may not be aware of the kick-starter. I’m still a little miffed I can never help others by breeding my own kittens, as I totally missed out on getting a panther, and games need to be relatively self-contained (in the sense that a player should never be locked out of content because they haven’t played another game, or contributed financially to another game whose kickstarter they may not even know exists) . . . this is fairer, as long-term fans of FL aren’t unfairly locked out of content.[/quote]
Here’s the problem I have with this. Kickstarter rewards aren’t supposed to be "fair." They’re supposed to be an incentive to donate money. By stripping them away in the interest of "fairness", all FBG is going to do is lose money on the kickstarter. Why is FBG AND potential donators BOTH losing out on something they want just so someone who joins the game a year later doesn’t have to be disappointed they missed out on a single item (one out of MANY that they are going to be locked out of anyway, due to game mechanics) the preferable option? Since when should "making sure someone doesn’t feel bad a year later" be more important than "making money" as the goal of a kickstarter?
I mean, the whole "fairness" thing could be applied to any of the rewards offered. Suppose I’m someone who really REALLY wants to design a character in Sunless Skies, but I don’t have that kind of money. Is that fair? Should they get rid of that reward if it isn’t? What if I DO have that kind of money but don’t find out about the kickstarter until it’s over? Is that fair? Should the reward be removed because that might happen?
Obviously I don’t want such a thing (I wouldn’t want FBG to be screwed out of money they could have gotten by offering such a reward, or people who can afford the reward to miss out on it, all because I feel bad I can’t also obtain it). If I’m not going to get it either way, what good does taking it away from everyone else do? Same goes for Fallen London-based incentives.
The social participation idea is cute, and it’s nice of FBG to offer something for people who can’t donate to take part in, but having those be the ONLY FL based rewards…it kind of comes across like "not only are we not going to offer incentives for FL players to donate, but we don’t want their money PERIOD. But hey, here’s some busy work for them to do on the side so they don’t feel left out." Also, unlike monetary transactions, which are guaranteed to provide the desired item once completed, you may not even get these rewards if enough other people don’t also participate. And if you do, EVERYONE gets them, regardless of whether they lifted a finger to help or not. And since they’re rewards distributed to every single person, they won’t be nearly as valuable or as unique as something you could "purchase" for yourself by donating actual money to the kickstarter.
I do think that any FL based reward should be "contained," in that, the presence or lack of it won’t affect any other game but your own. A cool item or companion, a self contained bit of story, etc. No one wants to see another player’s progress in a storylet brought to a screeching and irreversible halt because they don’t have an item or quality they could only obtain through a kickstarter event five years ago. That truly would be unfair. But I’m guessing that would be easy to avoid.
It’s certainly possible I speak only for myself here. But it’s also possible I speak for many others, including people who don’t read/post here…all of whom wish to make a mutually beneficial transaction with FBG. I only ask that the people behind the kickstarter consider the idea.