Should Benefactors get an equal amount of digital rewards as founders?

EDIT: Please ignore the poll. I realize it does not represent the thread itself, however, I cannot change it now.

Let me start by saying that I am biased since I am a Benefactor myself.

I noticed after looking at Koldar's pledge reward spreadsheet that Founders got considerably more rewards than Benefactors. I understand of course that the physical rewards may be limited in stock, however I can't understand why the digital rewards are not the same for both types of backers.

I am aware that Founders on Kickstarter took a "leap of faith" when they made a pledge, however the same can be argued for a Benefactor that made his pledge in July or August. We are still paying for a promise, over 1 year before the game is to be released.

By no means do I believe that Benefactors should get more rewards than Founders but I do believe that we should get the same digital rewards. Here is why:

1. Benefactors pay more for the same tier (Founder lord - $1500 Benefactor lord = $1600)
2. According to the website, Benefactors pledged on average ~$251 while founders pledged on average ~$86
3. Benefactors represent only 15% of the total number of backers, however we raised over 1/3 of the total pledged amount (again from the front page of the SOTA website)
4. Better Benefactor rewards = more pledges = a better game for both Founders and Benefactors

Founders will still get more physical items, cheaper pledge tiers and a Founder title, so they will always have a special place in the history of SOTA.

Therefore, it is a bit hard to understand why a Benefactor that pledged $800 can't choose his last name at the same time as a Founder that pledged $50...

However, I do believe that Benefactors get a very nice set of rewards and I really hope my pledge helps make SOTA a better game. That is really the ultimate goal, not the rewards.

I would love to know how you guys feel about this, especially if you are a Founder, so we can get opinions from both sides.

 

No.

For whatever reasons, Benefactors did not contribute during the Kickstarter which is specifically what changed the IDEA of a game into a game being made. For that financial leap of faith when it was still only an idea, Founders deserve additional, NON-gameplay-breaking rewards.

ETA - GRRRRR... I answered your thread title question, NOT your poll question which is a very different thing.

 

Some will probably say that without the founders the benefactors would have nothing to pledge to. Without the founders there would be no SoTA. As for me personally, I never really understood why things changed between tiers just because someone backed at a different date. But that is just me, saying this as a Founder. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

Not the same. Benefactors pledging in July or August had the expectation that a game would be made whether they pledged or not since there had already been a successful Kickstarter. Founder's had no certainty.

 

There is quite a number of physical rewards that Founders receive however that I do agree Benefactors should not expect to receive since they probably are limited in number. I still believe that the digital rewards could be equal though...

EDIT: And I apologize for the misleading poll...

But your post brought me a new question. What happens if a Kickstarter project fails to raise it's goal? Is the pledge still valid or is it refunded?

 

Let's say that the devs promised free puppies for everyone who pledged before a certain date along with the game itself and said "Only you, special ones, will get these free puppies. Everyone else can play the game, but the puppies are yours alone." Let's call these early pledgers "Founders."

Let's say after that date passes, people who sign up are now known by a different label, let's call them "Benefactors." Let's say that at some point after that original date passed, the devs say "You know what, never mind, free puppies for everyone!"

Would YOU be upset if you were a Founder? Regardless of anything else (cheaper/more expensive prices, other benefits), wouldn't that make you grumpy? Yes it would. I don't think you need a poll for that. I'm sorry that you didn't hear about this game early enough to be a Founder, I truly am.

Full disclosure: I'm a Founder.

 

Well, I do not wish to diminish the founders at all. They took the initial risk. I wish I had known about it before it closed. I had gone to the Kickstart page with all hopes of pledging there and read through all the tiers and rewards. I wanted to pledge Night. However It was closed so I then went to this site, and pledged Night here. It was a bit more but It is what I had wanted. I did not realize that the rewards were less for the pledge on this site compared to that sight. I realize this is my error and I hold no one to blame but myself for not reading the rewards on this site. I did feel a little let down, but Its nothing That bothers me that much. Having said that I voted yes because of my particular situation.

 

No, founders get the extra stuff because they pledged when they did. Its a reward for those that jumped in early before even knowing whether the game would be made or not.

The higher price does not get you more. The higher price is a result of pledging later. Those pledging earlier got a better price as a perk.

The founder rewards are due to pledging when they did. I don't think thats something that should be changed now.

 

I suppose the extra physical rewards alone are not enough "puppies"?

 

I have stated this before, I wish I would have known about this game when the kick starter began...And I continually hear too bad so sad...But I would have taken the risk myself along with my friends and family I have recruited because all of us believe strongly in RG...I actually wouldn't have considered it a risk...and still have no fears of this game being the best game ever made.

That being said...I do feel that founders look down on benefactors based on the things that get said...I don't really know why there has to be any entitlement felt since we are all in this together. Maybe I will get flamed I don't care...I am just as valuable to the success of this game as anyone...

I am not asking for more handouts, but am asking to be treated as an equal. Maybe asking too much?

 

wow, you should really restart this poll, since the question in the Thread Title is completely different... Seems really misleading to me, since in most two answer forum polls, the poll question is usually the question of the thread title...

 

I think they should get close to the same stuff except there are some things like personally signed copies of the game etc. that should be for kickstarters only. The people that pledged early do deserver to have special perks because it was implied that we would get them. It would be ashame that others who pledge at the last second before launch gets all the same stuff as an early backer.

Also there are some digital in game features that the kickstarter backers should receive for being part of the group that pledged to meet the kickstarter goals. Remember there are items like the Darkstarr items that you had to pledge before a certain date to get them. So yes the founders should have a few extra perks, but if you pledge at the knight level as a benefactor don't grip because you do get lots of stuff.

Although if they choose to give the same stuff to benefactors as they do kickstarter backers I won't complain because we will all get what we paid for. Why complain about something somebody else bought?

 

I'd rather see the opposite. Continue with things like people who pledged at x level on or before Christmas get "Hoe of prosperity" or whatever the next cool thing is.

If you keep rewarding people for getting in early, people will get in sooner. What they're doing now is encouraging people to sit where they are until the last second as well as making people feel cheated for pledging early by having discounts.

 

Seems like the "leap of faith" argument is very important, but I just read on Kickstarter that if a project fails to meet it's target, the money is returned to the pledgers. So the "leap of faith" is somewhat limited by the fact that you know that if the target is not met you get your money back.

Benefactors are taking the same chances, pledging on a game that is still a long way from release date.

 

I realize that now. Sorry. I can't seem to find a way to edit the poll.

 

To further expand on my first post. I have never understood the need to drastically change tier rewards for any KS project once it finished. I could see not offering a few things that can easily identify someone that took a leap of faith in backing a project and someone that backed at a later date. I mean in the sense of nearly cutting the rewards in half for a late backer, but charging more. Some 'digital' goods are in place to readily identify someone that backed during the campaign and someone that backed later. Some are digital goods that could be kept on an existing tier without raising a complaint from me because it is a digital good. If that makes sense.

Now, physical tiers might be a different subject, but I can't say I feel too differently about that subject. Except in the case of things like really limited items that they will never want to go over the amount listed. Or things they have on hand in a limited quantity. If they can't change that number then it shouldn't be offered past the number they specified.

Then it comes down to the special date cutoff rewards. Those matter. Those dates listed are as good as set in stone for me. If you back at a later date then unfortunately, as nasty as this may sound, it is just too bad.

Hopefully this didn't come off as me rambling. It was just my thoughts on having seen the difference between different tiers offered both during and after campaigns for multiple KS projects I backed.

 

Not only are the poll choices reversed from what people are going to intuitively assume its badly worded in that it asks if you're going to be "upset". I think the real question you're wanting to ask is, "Should benefactors get the same rewards as Founders?". Then its pretty simple. Its not about whether someone is upset or not, its simply a question of whether or not it should be the way you're suggesting.

EDIT: I can't vote either way in this poll No, I'm not going to be upset, but also No, I don't think the rewards should be changed now.

 

Stupid poll, I answered No because I thought it was going to be the same as the title

As for the question no you shouldn't. One of the rewards and the reason for pledging which seems to have been forgotten was that the items were supposed to be limited and able to be sold. A lot of people (not me) pledged higher than what they were going to play so they could sell that pledge latter because that's what RG encouraged. If you give that to everyone now you have destroyed there investment and that is unacceptable.

It would also be breach of contract if they gave the same rewards because kickstarter rewards are a legally binding contract and one of the rewards was that they would be "exclusive founder only"

 

That's always the risk of hopping on board with something early. The rewards were listed with the intent to get their Kickstarter goals met, and that's what the Founders were paying for. Benefactors still have until Oct '14 to continue pledging towards better rewards, which a normal purchaser of SotA will not have available once the game is released.

Limited time offers are hardly unusual for marketing.

 

The Founders should keep that in mind; any further pledges by Benefactors are going to not only increase the likelihood of future game releases, and also towards additional features and goals for SotA's release. Not everyone is blessed in the current economy with vast disposable income, so the surge of donations marks how much support and excitement that this game represents BEFORE it has even been released. Consider how many more people and support the developers will be able to achieve going forward.