Development Of Neal Stephenson’s CLANG Halted | Hacker News Reader

Development Of Neal Stephenson’s CLANG Halted

rockpapershotgun.com

34 pointsgilrain18 comments

Oh dear.

Better read the Clang team's Kickstarter update here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/260688528/clang/posts/60...

These people sound really, really discouraged and bitter about not having found an investor.

From what I can tell, their pitch on Kickstarter said that they were going to use that money to build their idea. But in fact they used it to look for investment, which they couldn't find... because they were not building any product but rather had a demo (which they themselves described as not very good) and were only shopping that around.

On the one hand I feel for them - meeting tons of investors and getting only a "no" is definitely discouraging - but it may be the case that they are missing something and/or doing something very wrong to have not found any investor at all.

Below are some (out-of-context) quotes which I think the team may regret having written.... they seem overly cynical. But at the same time it breaks my heart a little bit because I understand that these folks are just exhausted, and have run out of ideas after busting their asses for so long and only hearing "no".

"Kickstarter is amazing, but one of the hidden catches is that once you have taken a bunch of people's money to do a thing, you have to actually do that thing, and not some other thing that you thought up in the meantime." -- this is not strictly true - I mean, kickstarter projects aren't legally obligated to deliver anything at all - so they could certainly decide to do something else. (But still, this quotation beggars belief.)

"What can people do to help? Probably not that much, unless they happen to be qualified investors or superstar game programmers looking for an adventure."

" In the climate of anxiety that seems to pervade the industry now, however, any perceived risk factor is sufficient to torpedo a pitch, and so all such discussions end up following the template of the justly famous "Tesla pitches VCs" video."

"The potential financiers most likely to talk to us are Neal Stephenson fans. Once they have actually met Neal and gotten their books signed, it turns out that they are not really that interested in our project. But they don't want to make Neal Stephenson feel bad and so they don't give him any useful feedback; instead they just go dark."

Overall, the Clang team's kickstarter update is just too negative - which is not going to help. I guess that means that they really do believe that they have explored every avenue and that they really think that no one can help... which is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. At the same time, I think the backers might feel like they have been lied to since the money didn't go towards what they thought it would.

If anything, this will remind people that Kickstarter is not something that is selling you a product. It is patronage, and you might not see any result of the money you have put in. But you still might have helped someone try to achieve their dream, which is what it is really all about.

People would likely be very, very angry and call them fraudulent if they changed their idea. Perhaps the point is that Kickstarter backers are investing in an idea (or worse, a product) whereas VCs are investing in the combination of idea + team. At the end of the day, Kickstarter backers want the product you promised, while VCs are pretty happy with you increasing their investment, no matter what road you take to get there.

"From what I can tell, their pitch on Kickstarter said that they were going to use that money to build their idea. But in fact they used it to look for investment"

They did build their idea (a prototype/demo), and it was shipped to backers. It seems they were /also/ looking for follow on funding but couldn't find any.

The update was definitely badly written. It makes them sound like naive, incompetent morons.

Some more communication over the past 5 months and someone to proofread this particular update would have helped a lot.

Hang on, I was a backer, they shipped the demo and all other rewards to backers. Their goal was always "to produce a game prototype" not much more.

I don't feel like they've let their backers down and the article seems to suggest. It's just sad that they've not been able to find follow on funding to continue their work.

I still haven't looked at the demo yet, but the update in which it was announced said that the next step was to make a prototype/proof of concept with which to draw extra funding. That sounds like the demo isn't the promised prototype yet, and the prototype didn't get finished before money ran out.

Also, I checked, and the original campaign didn't actually promise a prototype, it promised a game. A simple one, but still a fully functional one.

But the wordt thing about the whole story is that they were silent for 5 months after they had promised to start working on that prototype.

You should play the demo, it hits just about all the goals they set out for their prototype. It isn't perfect and I can beat the AI 9 times out of ten using a really cheap tactic, but if I limit the cheese the game works pretty well and introduces some concepts I wish other games would copy (best sword fighting sim on the market).

The problem here is that aren't good at PR. This update could have been, we did a great job and shipped the product we promised (which by all measures they did), but instead they choose to announce that their product isn't good enough and that they would keep trying.

Normally this wouldn't be so bad but a bunch of reporters are looking for the story "Don't Trust Kickstarter" and the update fit that narrative.

The author of the article doesn't seem to know what Kickstarter is, to be frank. If they delivered the rewards there is no claim for any backer to get their money back.

Also, if they didn't deliver.

Did no one else read this title as, a fork of the C frontend for LLVM by Neal Stephenson is being abandoned?

I was pretty interested in seeing why Neal Stephenson felt the need to fork it in the first place. :)

I fully recognize that Neal Stephenson isn't my bitch[1], and if he wants to work on a new video game that frankly I am neither physically fit enough nor coordinated enough to ever want to play, that's his absolute right. That said, if it doesn't work out, and that causes him to go back to writing novels (preferably solo, no offense to the rest of the Mongoliad team), that's a positive outcome from my point of view.

[1] http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.htm...

I'm somewhat astounded that Bushido Blade (1997) for the PS1, after all those years, still seems to be the most innovative sword fighting game out there.

Severance: Blade of Darkness (2001) for PC[1] was pretty good. Sadly, it suffered from two fatal flaws: horrendous bugs (even by today's standards) and no strafe. The sword fights were awesome, though. You could cut off a goblin's hand, pick it up and beat him to death with it. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tbcZvGSgVk

Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6414214

tl;dr

If you're doing a software startup that might need to pivot, don't use Kickstarter.

Longer critique: 1. Your kickstarter supporters expect what you promised them, not something else. 2. If the kickstarter supporters are in any way "investors", you're probably hosed for getting professional investors down the road.

It's a point I've never really considered before. With some of these projects they are accepting angel size funding with consumer expectations - e.g. Consumers don't care if your pivot actually works and makes money they care about what they paid for.

Are there examples of kickstarters attempting to pivot?

There are probably examples. I can think of at least one - a film project a friend of mine became involved in (after they raised their kickstarter round). It seems to me that the product they wind up with won't be exactly what they kickstarted - although frankly, that shouldn't be too surprising given the scope of something like a movie.

I haven't followed this at all but if I were them I'd push to be the best Rift/STEM based sword game available when those launch in the next year or two. Maybe look at iRacing as an example of building of a subscription based model for enthusiasts willing to spend big bucks on best setups. I can totally see someone in a few years having a room dedicated to VR games like this and haptic suits and weapons (tatical haptics) to feel blows, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com