I think mods need to start banning or warning people who are commenting continuously without reading the OP. You can't have a discussion when people are constantly derailing the thread because they have refused to read the OP
| Tamron said: *snip* |
Fucking bravo.
Azzanation said:
You dont understand, this is obviously a tactic to see if it works, it can implement into gaming not far from now. This could possibly be the way games could be made soon, where big companies dont have to spend a dime anymore for our entertainment. |
Hmm. I don't think that they will implement something like that with games. Sony is also a tech company that makes all sorts of things. That's where they're having issues with losing money and trying to find a good product. This allows them to sort out public interest on risky products with less risk.
Many people are jumping to conclusions that this will play out in the worst possible way for consumers when there's nothing to support that line of thought with how sony runs itself as a company.
Sony mainly misreads people's interest in a product and how much they're willing to pay for it.
| onionberry said:
Moderated for this post, and others - Miguel_Zorro & Tachikoma |
Late to the party. Damn that escalated quickly!
This is one of those subjects that can be seen good or bad and you can easily bend it to what you want to be. For example Sony fans will see good in it while all others will see bad in it. I can also bet now that a lot of the people for or against it would think opposite if their "rival" company did it.
Sony fans, what would you think if MS did it? MS/Ninty fans, what would you think if your company did it?
My stance is somewhere in the middle. It's great that you can help unique/risky products see the light of day and also great that you can be the first to get your hands on these products before anybody else at a reasonable price. But I just hope that is stays on risky projects and not for stuff for things like "the next iPhone". This could be the start of an advanced preorder system rather than funding unique projects.
This subject will be split down the middle but just respect each others reasons and debate your reasons not like children. That way you can get to see both sides and get clearer picture for yourself.
Remember every subject you'll ever come across isn't black or white, they're all gray. We need opinions from the white and black sides to get to the gray truth.
| Tamron said: I'm genuinely upset at the lack of vision from some people here. First and foremost, everyone talking about games needs to shut up and actually read the article Now with that out of the way let me share a little background, I make hardware for a living. I design it from concept to retail, either my own designs from scratch or someone elses ive been paid to make. In this industry R&D only goes so far, the real hurdle is not the product, its the clueless section head, CEO or assessor who makes the final call on if a product is going to see more, or ANY development funding and even then there is no garuntee that the company will sign off on the product unless theres a clear path from production to sales. Let me give you an example here. A company makes some third party lightning cables for iPhone, adds in a cool little feature of weather protection when not in use. So many times I have seen amazing products get butchered into mediocre products because retailers wont take a risk on an unproven idea unless the manufacturing company is willing to give an assurance (a guranteed return on their investment even if the product does not sell), unless the manufacturing company is absolutely certain they generally shy away from doing this. This isnt even limited to just tiny companies either, it goes all the way up the chain and unless you have a strong enough brand that has a degree of assurance that a product will sell regardless (eg, Apple) it never plays out smoothly. Then theres employees of a company that will come up with a great idea, and R&D staff will think, hey that is pretty awesome, so they put together a presentation on the idea and present it to the head honchos, 80% of the time the head honchos, who are generally clueless businessmen, will turn it down unless its tried and tested. As such, companies over the years come up with hundreds, even thousands of awesome product ideas which either never make it further than the initial presentation or get as far as an early prototype then get ditched, in favor of tried and tested retail performers. This leads to a market flooded with clones, copies and unoriginality. Crowdsourcing product concepts TAKES AWAY MUCH OF THE POWER FOR THE COMPANY TO SAY NO, if a crowdsourced project does extremely well, the CEOs and clueless suits have little reason to turn it down, and we end up with more innovative and unique products. At the same time, because the product is being crowdsourced, development can be steered by the contributors, features that people actually want end up high on priority lists and we don't end up with pointless crap like the Aibo or Rolly. Frankly, I think the industry NEEDS crowdsourcing in its development sector, regardless of how small or how large the company attached to it is, I hope MORE companies take this route and take away the descision making from the head honchos and businessmen and puts it squarly in the hands of the people who ultimately are the ones that will be buying the resulting products. It isnt an exact science of course, and over time a few lemons are going to reach market on the backs of crowdfunding, but at the very least those lemons will have had a chance, along with potential gems, rather than dissapearing into obscurity like thousands upon thousands of product designs which end users would have bent over backwards to own, usually do. So take that into consideration before jumping on the "ew large companies dont need crowdsourcing money" bandwagon, because doing that ensures that companies continue to push out products that never quite hit the mark and always leave you thinking "its nice but i wish it had x feature or x design, or z color option". Understand this simple fact, crowdsourcing product development puts YOU in control of the products YOU want to buy. |
In an ideal world, crowdsourcing could be a great fix. But now you are putting this system in the hands of the same inept, profit-seeking businessman that would turn away innovation for the sake of profits, who will no doubt twist the system into something unrecognisable and inevitably bad for the consumer.
Tachikoma said:
Fucking bravo.
|
pffft, you have to say that :P
Tachikoma said:
Fucking bravo.
|
+1
He said what I tried to point out but in a much more eloquent manner. xD
Tachikoma said:
Fucking bravo.
|
Agreed! Well written piece Tamron.
Tachikoma said:
Fucking bravo.
|
+ 1 Milion agree with tamron, period
| Tamron said: -snip- |
Damn, great post. I'm going to have to tag this for every time this topic is inevitably brought up over the next few months :p
There is always the chance that something like this could be abused (not necessarily by Sony, but any companies that follow suit), so to that degree i can understand people's worries, but on the face of it this seems like a great idea. We live in a world where profits are the first, second, and third priority of these companies, their manufacturers, and retailers. If something like this ends up allowing Sony to push out cool ideas that would otherwise have been nipped in the bud by some chap in a suit, then i'm all for it.
Zekkyou said:
Damn, great post. I'm going to have to tag this for every time this topic is inevitably brought up over the next few months :p
There is always the chance that something like this could be abused (not necessarily by Sony, but any companies that follow suit), so to that degree i can understand people's worries, but on the face of it this seems like a great idea. We live in a world where profits are the first, second, and third priority of these companies, their manufacturers, and retailers. If something like this ends up allowing Sony to push out cool ideas that would otherwise have been nipped in the bud by some chap in a suit, then i'm all for it. |
If people saw first hand the original design/features/functionality of the products they buy, compared to what it turned out like when it hit retail, people would understand instantly that the way business is conducted currently, favors profits over innovation and risk, the only way this is going to change is if the risk is reduced or removed, and the descision making either taken away from the men in suits or at the very least, influenced in a weighted manner by the consumer and not the fat cats milking every last dime out of a product PO without willingness to take any risk in the process.
People are ready and willing to say "theyre big companies they dont need our money!", but when a product releases and it doesnt meet their expectations or falls short of what it could have been, those same people are the first to criticize it and say "why didnt you do it differently? why doesnt it have x feature or y option?"
Theyre ignorant to the idea that if theyre not willing to demonstrate first hand what they WANT (crowdsourcing the projects they like, ignoring what they dont) then they should expect products being released that forego some of their needs in exchange for reduced retail risk on the part of the manufacturer and retailer.
By being against crowdsourcing product development, you are in effect, going against the ability for companies to skip the usual retail handholding and get approval directly from the customers and not the middle men.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
