You know what I find really random about this whole "they funded it" excuse?, the fact that we have gamers funding games over on PC, that sometimes make their way to more than just one platform. So why is it that a company can fund partly for game (I say partly, because they'd actually need a semi functional game to actually show that it's worth putting money into) is allowed to keep the game forever, while a crowd funded game is allowed to go wherever it wants to. You could sum up a crowd's worth of money to a company that managed to obtain a crowd's worth of money from past paying customers, I mean that's where the vast majority of money comes from in a business anyway (they can't all 100% rely on investors, let alone indefinitely), which is why I see both as being the same, only one is handled by a dev taking the money vs a company giving a dev money. 

I also find it rather backwards to release the first game across multiple platforms, and then seemingly cutting off all ties with everyone else. It's like selling a movie that's supported across all forms of DVD players, but then suddenly certain movies are only playable on only one type of DVD player, which limits how it can be played, let alone bought from.

You know what I find really random about this whole "they funded it" excuse?, the fact that we have gamers funding games over on PC, that sometimes make their way to more than just one platform. So why is it that a company can fund partly for game (I say partly, because they'd actually need a semi functional game to actually show that it's worth putting money into) is allowed to keep the game forever, while a crowd funded game is allowed to go wherever it wants to. You could sum up a crowd's worth of money to a company that managed to obtain a crowd's worth of money from past paying customers, I mean that's where the vast majority of money comes from in a business anyway (they can't all 100% rely on investors, let alone indefinitely), which is why I see both as being the same, only one is handled by a dev taking the money vs a company giving a dev money. 

I also find it rather backwards to release the first game across multiple platforms, and then seemingly cutting off all ties with everyone else. It's like selling a movie that's supported across all forms of DVD players, but then suddenly certain movies are only playable on only one type of DVD player, which limits how it can be played, let alone bought from.

You know what I find really random about this whole "they funded it" excuse?, the fact that we have gamers funding games over on PC, that sometimes make their way to more than just one platform. So why is it that a company can fund partly for game (I say partly, because they'd actually need a semi functional game to actually show that it's worth putting money into) is allowed to keep the game forever, while a crowd funded game is allowed to go wherever it wants to. You could sum up a crowd's worth of money to a company that managed to obtain a crowd's worth of money from past paying customers, I mean that's where the vast majority of money comes from in a business anyway (they can't all 100% rely on investors, let alone indefinitely), which is why I see both as being the same, only one is handled by a dev taking the money vs a company giving a dev money. 

I also find it rather backwards to release the first game across multiple platforms, and then seemingly cutting off all ties with everyone else. It's like selling a movie that's supported across all forms of DVD players, but then suddenly certain movies are only playable on only one type of DVD player, which limits how it can be played, let alone bought from.

You know what I find really random about this whole "they funded it" excuse?, the fact that we have gamers funding games over on PC, that sometimes make their way to more than just one platform. So why is it that a company can fund partly for game (I say partly, because they'd actually need a semi functional game to actually show that it's worth putting money into) is allowed to keep the game forever, while a crowd funded game is allowed to go wherever it wants to. You could sum up a crowd's worth of money to a company that managed to obtain a crowd's worth of money from past paying customers, I mean that's where the vast majority of money comes from in a business anyway (they can't all 100% rely on investors, let alone indefinitely), which is why I see both as being the same, only one is handled by a dev taking the money vs a company giving a dev money. 

I also find it rather backwards to release the first game across multiple platforms, and then seemingly cutting off all ties with everyone else. It's like selling a movie that's supported across all forms of DVD players, but then suddenly certain movies are only playable on only one type of DVD player, which limits how it can be played, let alone bought from.