Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Double Fine Adventure Crosses $2.5 Million In Kickstarter Funding

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the people-pay-for-things-they-want dept.

Businesses 114

An anonymous reader writes "Double Fine Adventure, the crowd-funded adventure game from Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert (of Monkey Island fame), just crossed the $2.5 million mark in funding on Kickstarter. So far, about 73,000 enthusiastic backers have contributed an average of $35 dollars each, with 3 extravagant backers going as far as to contribute $10,000 (earning them a lunch with Schafer and Gilbert, among other goodies). The total sum is over 6 times the amount Schafer and Gilbert were initially hoping to raise ($400,000). Schafer released a few pictures showing what he's doing with all the money. The project has received attention in mainstream media (sort of), with NPR's Morning Edition covering the story."

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Schafer wins the Internet (5, Insightful)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318215)

Click the pictures link, it's worth your time.

Re:Schafer wins the Internet (5, Funny)

Xemu (50595) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318237)

I agree. I believe my investment is in safe hands.

Re:Schafer wins the Internet (5, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318335)

It appears seemingly more responsible than what Wall Street has been doing at my money.

Re:Schafer wins the Internet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318467)

You can bet neither Tim Schafer nor Ron Gilbert are black. Blacks really dont contribute much to society. Collectively they are a net liability really.

The logic here is real simple. Add up blood transfusions, peanut butter, rap music, jazz, etc on the "Plus" side. Add up dangerous neighborhoods, gangsta culture, the cost of jailing and sometimes executing violent criminals, the costs to their victims, the political divisiveness of votes along racial lines that got us such a shitty president, the costs of all the damned brainwashing "sensitivity trainings" (because you're not "sensitive" if you see facts like their net liability), the costs of so many bastard children who never knew a nuclear family, and the costs of disproportionate use of welfare and public housing on the "Minus" side. They are a net liability.

Blacks add nothing to our culture
Subtract from the wealth of our nation
and Divide us against each-other.
They sure can Multiply though.

Now look I am trying to be rational about this. I'm not making crude jokes centered around "the n word" or anything like that. I don't hate blacks. I just think if we really care so much about them then let's stop kissing their asses with feel-good bullshit like "Black History Month" and be honest with them that we expect better. That would be treating them like an equal. Right now we treat them like a child who has to be humored with "self-esteem" or he'll run away crying. It's part of the problem. Affirmative action? If I were black I would be insulted by the insinuation that I need special assistance and cannot make it on my own. Stop making them dependent on government for a hand-out, it is just another kind of plantation. I don't like them very much but I treat them better and more fairly than the brainwashed PC idiots.

Re:Schafer wins the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319559)

I lost it when I saw him rolling the blunt

Re:Schafer wins the Internet (1)

fish waffle (179067) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321221)

No. Well, I did, but it doesn't render properly, and apparently I need to submit to one or more other websites.

Blocked destinations:
  • googleapies.com
  • wp.com
  • fmpub.net
  • googleadservices.com
  • wordpress.com
  • disqus.com
  • addthis.com
  • gravatar.com
  • google.com
  • google-analytics.com
  • twitter.com
  • linkedin.com
  • quantserve.com
  • clicktale.net
  • parsley.com
  • oomphcloud.com
  • jobthread.com
  • chartbeat.com

Haven't these people made enough money from donation?

Pure genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318257)

Double Fine Forever

now funded by the crowd

Crowd-funding (5, Interesting)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318305)

Crowd-funding is how entertainment will work in the the not too distant future, as far as creators are concerned:

0) Start by making something good, although probably for free, thus starting to build a reputation;
1) Offer to do something, for money, proportional to your reputation;
2) Get funded by the crowd;
3) Deliver a good end result, and with it improve your reputation;
4) Loop back to 1 as much as you need or want;
5) Retire.

Copyright? What for?

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318341)

To keep other people from making something better using your building blocks and leaving you out of it.

Re:Crowd-funding (4, Insightful)

am 2k (217885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318367)

To keep other people from making something better using your building blocks and leaving you out of it.

Unlike yourself, who hasn't used a single concept (like the idea of an adventure game or using a mouse as an input device) from somebody else at all.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319443)

Mod the grandparent up. While it is true we all of us build on the shoulders of those who came before, we ought only build on what is made available willingly. If I work hard on a product, I don't want someone else to just take it and get rich off it while I am left to stew. If I work hard on something I choose to release as open source, then I've made that choice to let others build off of an benefit from my work. That distinction ought to have resonance.

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320915)

I don't think you understand this crowdfunding thing dude. How can you be "left to stew" if you are paid up front in full? If you are just generally trolling Slashdot about how copyright is necessary if artists are to make money then you've picked the wrong story.

Crowdfunding is a counter-example to the faulty argument: "Artists need money therefore artists need copyright."

compare with:

Evolution is a counter-example to the faulty argument: "Humans are too complex to have come about by chance therefore there must exist (or have existed) a designer."

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319475)

I don't think it is so much about the concepts, so much as the characters and world that's been created. The Harry Potter franchise itself is worth a lot of money and any additional works produced in that universe are going to sell loads of copies solely based on the branding. Also, without copyright, anyone can make their own copies of your work as soon as you release it.

There's a lot of be said for reducing the duration of copyright back to its original, sane, amount, but outright eliminating is just as stupid. Switching to this model may very well make that happen, but if nothing else it ensures that the money goes to the content creators, not some fat-cat middleman who only really cares about the money.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320777)

I don't think it is so much about the concepts, so much as the characters and world that's been created. The Harry Potter franchise itself is worth a lot of money and any additional works produced in that universe are going to sell loads of copies solely based on the branding.

Uh, you're thinking about trademarks, not copyright. I haven't seen anyone arguing about abandoning trademarks (yet).

Also, without copyright, anyone can make their own copies of your work as soon as you release it.

Yes, but at that point you already got paid in full for your work.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325759)

Uh, you're thinking about trademarks, not copyright. I haven't seen anyone arguing about abandoning trademarks (yet).

Why not? They make as much sense as copyright.

Yes, but at that point you already got paid in full for your work.

So say you got crowdfunding of a thousand quid for your novel that took two years to write, that's all you should ever be able to make off it, even if it goes on to sell millions, be adapted as a movie and so on? Doesn't seem fair to me.

At least with copyright, if your book goes on selling steadily you get some income from it.

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39323417)

I can't believe I'm posting to Slashdot defending Harry Potter fan fiction, but I feel I have to.

If no one created works based on copyrighted works, then Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality [tvtropes.org] wouldn't exist. Yes, copyright holders tend to make sure no one is selling fan fiction and a super version of Sturgeon's Law [wikipedia.org] applies, but even being able to directly use other people's universes and characters without permission is important, although the current balance there (lots of fan fiction with no money going to anyone) seems to be working out okay.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325639)

To keep other people from making something better using your building blocks and leaving you out of it.

Unlike yourself, who hasn't used a single concept (like the idea of an adventure game or using a mouse as an input device) from somebody else at all.

Right, so by that argument your car uses technology and concepts based on other people's work (going back to the inventor of the wheel), so I should just be able to borrow it whenever I feel like it?

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325695)

Right, so by that argument your car uses technology and concepts based on other people's work (going back to the inventor of the wheel), so I should just be able to borrow it whenever I feel like it?

Yes, I should be allowed to construct my own car based on the idea your car was built upon (while still respecting trademarks, as already mentioned).

Re:Crowd-funding (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318389)

Exactly. Copyright isn't the demon here, it's the middle-men that have taken over the administration of creative works at the EXPENSE of the creator.

Copyright isn't inherently evil, but the corporations and interests that are far removed from the average creator's interests are twisting copyright to make it something negative to the consumer.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319159)

"Copyright isn't inherently evil, but the corporations and interests that are far removed from the average creator's interests "

I'm sorry but the average creator is a douchebag, many creators once they get rich push for copyright extension. In the beginning before the rise of the 'middlemen' original creators got rich and then used government to abuse copyright. The bad Creators are just as much a problem. See modern game developers, their sense of entitlement is disturbing. By all means we should be able to access source code to update and repair old games we buy. But that is impossible because of the 'creators', not just the middlemen. See all the MMO's many gamedevs are creating, you pay all that money and the public gets zero ownership. Total BS IMHO. Something like an MMO once shut down should be forced into the public domain.

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321181)

I'm sorry but the average creator is a douchebag, many creators once they get rich

The average creator does not get rich.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325779)

I'm sorry but the average creator is a douchebag

Yes, because of course what is important is your having free acess to anything you want, fuck all that fostering creativity and culture nonsense, eh?

It is clear where your sympathies lie, in your own shallow brain.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319453)

Copyright isn't inherently evil

I like to think of copyright as a poison (monopoly of the expression of culture) which when administered in the right dose, however, proves to be a medicine, and is quite beneficial (albeit with a few side effects).

The problem with copyright is that the junkies have the ear of the prescribing physicians, who keep bumping up the dosage for everyone, regardless of the consequences.

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325071)

I could argue that copyright is inherently evil in that interferes with the free market by giving a monopoly on distribution, but there's also another reason to do away with copyright completely: even if copyright was changed to sane terms we would be having this fight again and again every few years, because earning money by distributing zero cost copies as opposed to getting paid for the actual work performed will always create parasitic middle men. Copyright is a bargain that doesn't work in the long run because it's guaranteed to be abused.

Re:Crowd-funding (5, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318423)

To keep other people from making something better using your building blocks and leaving you out of it.

The (alleged) purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of arts. The moment it starts keeping other people from making something better, i.e., starts PREVENTING the progress of arts, its whole purpose becomes null and void. So, again: copyright? What for?

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318539)

Like the Supreme Court mentioned recently (while lobotomising the public domain), the progress of the arts can be promoted by enabling not just the creation of works, but also their wider dissemination to the public. Strangely, they used this argument to introduce more copyright, which leads me to think that they have no clue what the internet does or how it works... The dinosaurs will be dead soon, it's just a matter of time.

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318577)

I think you're taking my sentence as an endorsement of the reason as opposed to a statement of it.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319455)

Why should that be the only purpose of copyright? Why can't it let people prevent others from profiting from their work without their permission?

Re:Crowd-funding (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318503)

Why is that a problem? With the grandparent's model, you're paid before you release your product. If someone else takes it and makes something even better, then that's great! You can then take their work and incorporate it into your next product. The important thing is to not lose something like trademarks or moral rights: if someone takes your work and builds something great, then they need to credit you. When you're looking for funding for your next project, that credit can be worth a lot...

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319123)

Why is that a problem? With the grandparent's model, you're paid before you release your product.

Sometimes old ideas resurface and prove useful again. Before copyright, there was patronage.

It's just that now it's a crowd of regular folks instead of a single wealthy noble.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319237)

Patronage still exists, and indeed is how most creative works are funded. It's just that now the patrons are not kings, they're publishers. They give creative people an interest free loan to fund the cost of creating the work, and then they own it. The only difference now is cutting out the middlemen.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319385)

Patronage still exists, and indeed is how most creative works are funded. It's just that now the patrons are not kings, they're publishers. They give creative people an interest free loan to fund the cost of creating the work, and then they own it. The only difference now is cutting out the middlemen.

Not to quibble but I see them as fundamentally different, both in intent and execution. About the only thing they have in common is that they are both a way to get creative works done.

Patronage was more personal and it was more like sponsoring or hiring someone. You pay the artist, he produces the work. In its heyday there was no easy way to mass-produce copies of a work; if a great painter made a portrait of a king, you could not distribute millions of copies of it. It was much more ... personal. It was not a loan. The artist produced the work for the patron and that was that, end of transaction. There was not an ongoing obligation like modern publishers often demand.

If anything it was more like the way we give government grants to academics to conduct studies and research; you wouldn't really call that a "loan".

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320019)

Patronage still exists, and indeed is how most creative works are funded. It's just that now the patrons are not kings, they're publishers.

I'd agree with the first, but not the second. The biggest form of patronage these days is government grants for artists (at least in Australia - don't know what it's like in the US).

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325853)

If some version of patronage is your alternative to copyright, I prefer copyright.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325833)

The important thing is to not lose something like trademarks or moral rights:

So, some intellectual property is bad, because it stops you just copying anything you want for yourself, but some is good, because...why?

A "moral right" is just a wishy washy version of an actual "copy right". And trademarks are just bollocks all round.

Re:Crowd-funding (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318365)

Music you say ?

0) Start by composing a few good tracks , although probably for free , play in a few pubs thus starting to build a reputation;
1) Offer to go to gigs , for money , proportional to your reputation;
2) Get funded by the crowd that showed up;
3) Deliver a good end result , and with it improve your reputation;
4) Loop back to 1 as much as you need or want;
5) Retire;

Music artists hurt by pirated albums you say ? Tell that to anybody that enjoyes going to concerts.
I've paid for once concert more than I've paid for all my CD's , and a concert is a one-time event,
Good musicians earn their living through concers , shit ones through radio ad revenue.

Re:Crowd-funding (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318517)

The model doesn't just have to be for live music. Release one track, and ask for funding for the rest of the album. Once you've reached the target, record and release it. Encourage people to 'pirate' it (not really piracy, since it's with your consent) and spread it as widely as possible. Then ask for funding for your next album...

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318557)

The Beatles should have skipped making Abbey Road because they were, according to you, shit musicians for not playing concerts any more?
 
What's more, most people listen to music an order of magnitude more than they listen to music at concerts, and you want musicians to minimize the album quality so it's just good enough to convince people to see them live? That's idiotic.

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318997)

I've never cared much for The Beatles , so yes.
More so , albums should not cost a great deal to produce these days.
Your arguments are moot.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319169)

The Beatles should have skipped making Abbey Road because they were, according to you, shit musicians for not playing concerts any more? What's more, most people listen to music an order of magnitude more than they listen to music at concerts, and you want musicians to minimize the album quality so it's just good enough to convince people to see them live? That's idiotic.

I never understood this style of "debate" because it completely throws out the concept of entertaining an idea regardless of whether you agree. It's frankly infantile.

I believe the thought is something like this: "I don't like this idea, so I'm going to be completely dense, take it to the most ridiculously absurd extreme possible instead of trying to see how it may work if done reasonably, and then declare that it's idiotic." No, your methods are idiotic.

This idea may or may not work out. That remains to be seen because we still have traditional copyright. What I can say for certain is that no one who ever truly innovated and changed things for the better approached new ideas the way that you do. Ever heard the saying that if all possible (as opposed to reasonable) objections must first be overcome, nothing would ever get done?

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319227)

He's violating the principle of generosity. When debating somebody, you invariably come across a statement that could be interpreted in several ways. The principle of generosity says that you should try to interpret this in the best way, which makes the strongest argument, and assume that that's what he meant. Be generous to his argument, in other words.

  The usual instinct people have is to take the most idiotic interpretation and use that, since it's easier to attack. But as we see in the GP, it doesn't help your side, it just makes you look like a jackass. Which is why, if you're interested in winning your argument, you need to be generous.

Re:Crowd-funding (2)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319421)

He's violating the principle of generosity. When debating somebody, you invariably come across a statement that could be interpreted in several ways. The principle of generosity says that you should try to interpret this in the best way, which makes the strongest argument, and assume that that's what he meant. Be generous to his argument, in other words.

The usual instinct people have is to take the most idiotic interpretation and use that, since it's easier to attack. But as we see in the GP, it doesn't help your side, it just makes you look like a jackass. Which is why, if you're interested in winning your argument, you need to be generous.

It just seemed so natural and obvious to me that I didn't realize there was a term for it. Thank you -- seriously, you have educated me today.

I agree with you about the nature of it but I disagree in terms of emphasis. You're correct that this kind of impatient "I must be right and you must be wrong so easy-to-attack is all I care about" mentality doesn't work very well and often backfires. But I don't really view it so much in terms of working or not working.

To me it's the product of an (emotionally) immature mind. It's like the two-year-old who has to be first in line, has to have the biggest piece of candy, etc. People like him think that if you say "hey, that's a great point and you've changed my mind about this" then you have lost something. Avoiding that is their major priority because they're coming from a puerile ego level. It has no concern for the truth; truth is something to be downplayed or spun in whatever way is convenient.

I think that's bullshit. If you really want to be right so badly, you start by realizing you don't automatically have all the answers.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320011)

Wow, you both make great points rarely seen in this day... Thanks for the enlightenment...

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320565)

That's one way to look at things. I doubt it's the best way to point things out if you'd like to convince them to change their behavior, though. "You're an immature ass" is less likely to work than "your tactics are self-defeating," as the first will feel like an attack, while the latter shows them a better way to get what they're after.
  It also works both ways, an immature outlook can create immature tactics, but adopting mature tactics can change your outlook, too.
  Too many people (influenced by certain parts of our media, which use confrontation to generate excitement) think that winning an argument involves shouting at the other guy until he backs down and leaves, but you haven't won in that case. He's walking away, thinking "Wow, that's guy's wrong, and he's an asshole, too!" Even worse, bystanders will likely think "Wow, what an asshole. He's probably wrong."
  That's not a victory; you have to slowly establish your argument and show why you think you're right. If you can't do that, you're wrong. I always say, you can't be right until you admit you can be wrong.

  Another thing to keep in mind, related to the above, is to always avoid anything that might feel like you're attacking the other person. Benjamin Franklin used to say that "I think" and "it seems to me" are the best ways to put forward your argument. In fact, they're like magic. Taking that kind of tack will give the other person room to be right. It keeps the two of you from shifting into a flamewar grudge match, and it helps psychologically prepare you to admit when you're wrong, while you're at it.

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320927)

How else do you interpret "Music artists hurt by pirated albums you say ? Tell that to anybody that enjoyes going to concerts.
I've paid for once concert more than I've paid for all my CD's , and a concert is a one-time event,
Good musicians earn their living through concers , shit ones through radio ad revenue."?

He's arguing specifically against the idea of albums as a revenue source, that they should only be used for promoting concerts, and that artists who don't make their money off of concerts are shit. There is no way to interpret his argument that doesn't argue directly against the need, want or desire for albums like Abbey Road -- where the artists income is based off of the album, and they do not play concerts. What you're calling "violating the principle of generosity" is what most people would, in this case, call a counterexample refuting the person's point.

Re:Crowd-funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321301)

The principle doesn't explain why he's wrong, it's just a guideline you should follow when arguing. There's no way for anyone else to know for sure that he's violating it, since that's all inside his head, but we can take a guess. No, violating the principle is bad because when you do it, you are likely to construct bad arguments that sound good to you and anyone on your side, but look awfully flimsy to everyone else.

  In his case I think the real mistake he's making is to assume that since Abbey Road was made in a certain way, that it could only have been made that way, and (and this is where he seems to be arguing in bad faith) that the OP therefore would knowingly and willfully do away with such albums. It seems apparent to me that the Beatles would have recorded the songs anyway, and supported themselves in another manner. (Or lived on their vast proceeds from their earlier career.)
  Musicians are not motivated solely by profit, and to say that they wouldn't record Abbey Road at all unless it were a vital profit center for them seems like an odd idea to me. They stopped touring largely because they had done it for many years, and were so wealthy by that point that they didn't need to do it anymore.

  You also seem to be taking that quote you bolded as if it were a hard-and-fast law that was the guy's primary point, rather than a simple rule of thumb guide to which bands he considers likely to be worth keeping. I would expect there to be some exceptions to such a loose rule, and would feel that it has value anyway. A rule that's right 8 times out of 10 is still handy.

  The exceptions would mostly be cancelled out -- good musicians do it because they love doing it, so most of them will still record even when they're not making fat cash; the OP's argument is that by doing away with these profits, the bands that you're most likely to lose are the same ones that are just looking to cash in on the latest fad by mimicking the popular trends of the moment. IE, crap.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39323531)

This idea may or may not work out. That remains to be seen because we still have traditional copyright. What I can say for certain is that no one who ever truly innovated and changed things for the better approached new ideas the way that you do. Ever heard the saying that if all possible (as opposed to reasonable) objections must first be overcome, nothing would ever get done?

I am all for new ideas, but this is not really a new idea. This is an idea that's been playing out over the past one hundred years, with the main difference being the distribution of the media. Even the distribution hasn't changed hardly at all since the heyday of mp3.com, which was a service I used quite frequently to find new bands who quickly disappeared because they made no money. This is continuing to play out today, where many of my friends are in bands or DJ, and most of them couldn't make enough money to buy their own gear, much less live on it. I've had a heartbreaking talk with the lead singer of a band who got a great review in Rolling Stone, and three reviews with 4 or more stars at All-Music, and after 8 years still couldn't pay the bills by touring, and had to break up the band because she felt she'd been taking advantage of her boss's generosity and leniency in her schedule. What was true before is still true now: If you want to be a musician who makes money by touring, the one realistic option is to be in a cover band. (You could possibly opt for being a session musician, but that requires waaaay more chops. I know there's no way I could hack it.) I would love for this to not be the case; I would see my friends start to make a living doing what they love most, and I would soon join them. But that's not happening with any regularity.
 
I want to add that some people -- pretty much only people who have no real experience in the field of music -- think that because there's digital software, that all of the sudden making great records is dirt cheap. This is simply not the case. The kind of records you can make on a home recording set-up are much closer to the kind of records you could make in the old days on a four-track than the kind you could make with access to a great recording studio. It's awesome that software lets you manipulate the audio easier; I make my living writing that kind of software, and I do it because I want it to be as useful to me as possible when I'm recording my music. But this doesn't eliminate the need for well-designed acoustic spaces, $1k+ microphones, expensive AD/DAs, broken-in monitors that fit your ears without hiding things, and many, many other things. Even for people who only make laptop music, they still are going to fuck up the mastering if they try to do it themselves -- which in many cases is fine, so long as it's considered a demo and isn't trying to land on Billboard. And I doubt the guy who started this by saying "musicians who make money from the radio are shit" is really a big fan of laptop musicians.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325883)

Fuck off, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go and see live music any more. Once you reach the age of twenty, you will probably feel the same.

I want to listen to music in the comfort of my own home, same as when I read a book.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318419)

If this actually works out. You'll start seeing some FUD over this from the big game houses like EA.

Thats the real thing all the riaa, mpaa, game publishers and everyone else is really scared of. Becomming irrevelant and not needed.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318485)

EA will love this.
Let the 'crowd' risk the money to see if the developers are worth a shit. If they prove themselves EA can buy a proven studio, if not then EA didn't lose any money so why should they care?

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318777)

Why would a studio that can attract crowdfunding ever let themselves be bought out by EA? Do creative types have a predilection for 80 hour weeks and having their decisions dictated by corporate suits all of a sudden?

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325013)

Maybe best of both worlds? Funding through Kickstarter, distribution via EA Partners/Origin? This new game will for instance be distributed via Steam (and a DRM-free version to backers, ref. the first update video) for the PC/Mac editions.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319539)

If this actually works out. You'll start seeing some FUD over this from the big game houses like EA.

When large governmental or corporate interests are against something and launch FUD campaigns against it, in my eyes whatever they're railing against couldn't possibly have received a better endorsement. "Consider the source". The next most priceless event is when that Puritannical "you must live as I do" mentality gets its panties in a wad.

Re:Crowd-funding (2)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318497)

Crowd-funding is how entertainment will work in the the not too distant future, as far as creators are concerned:

0) Start by making something good, although probably for free, thus starting to build a reputation; 1) Offer to do something, for money, proportional to your reputation; 2) Get funded by the crowd; 3) Deliver a good end result, and with it improve your reputation; 4) Loop back to 1 as much as you need or want; 5) Retire.

Copyright? What for?

Crowd funding is already what we do. They make a good game, you buy lots of it, they make a sequel. What you're talking about is cutting out the middle man (publisher/developer who lends them money) and doing it yourself.

Re:Crowd-funding (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319047)

Doesn't work. You really think that this kickstarter project is endlessly reproducible? There are so many great movies and TV shows and books and songs and video games that would never have seen the light of day if they had to be funded in advance.

By your own admission, you have to do some good, free works first, before you get jack. And one good game ain't gonna cut it. You really think people would dump millions of dollars onto some developer who's only claim to fame was a single, albeit fun, flash game? Of course not. You'd have to make hit after hit, and only then, after years of unpaid hard work, would you even have a chance of getting paid.

Kickstarter, the Humble Bundles, they're all nice supplements. But for the vast majority of content, copyright is necessary. It needs reform, but it is necessary.

Re:Crowd-funding (2)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319373)

This. Crowdsource funding is a fun one-off for already established artists with a large following.

In addition to the problem for non-established artists, if every single artist/author/video game producer had their hat in hand asking for crowd-sourced money, it would become an ignored barrage. Projects like these work because they're unusual enough to get people's attention and maybe even a couple Slashdot articles.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

OneMadMuppet (1329291) | more than 2 years ago | (#39323573)

First point first - ALL movies, TV shows, books, songs and video games (made commercially) ARE funded in advance - usually by publishers. The change is from the single publisher/financier model to the self-published crowd-financed model. Having the cash before producing things hasn't changed. I can also tell you than in the game industry (and there isn't a significant difference for the others) you have to do some good, small, sometimes free works first before the publisher will touch you. Second, why would you think people will jump from a flash game to AAA? There are many small games on kickstarter looking to get $1000 and hit it, then next time create a bigger game for $2000. These guys already delivered several AAA games, and were looking for 400k, not millions of dollars. Copyright is automatic and has nothing to do with how a project is funded.

Re:Crowd-funding, good idea but theres more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39323941)

The problem is Tim was not happy with being told what to do from his big wig bosses, and wanted to branch out to create games he wanted to make. The story mentions that.. Claiming artistic freedom, thats is fine, but the old supply and demand ruins that. If he wants to make games the way he sees fit, then he should branch out and do that. But it is not what the artist wants it is what gamers want.

Saying that, I remember the games for the Amiga and while they were not popular, partly because the Amiga was not popular, they were fun games and really had no big wigs controlling what the artist wanted to do. No doubt there is a market for this, but he seems to be using open money to create games, and those that invested the proper amount get rewards, like a copy of the game, but I could see problems with this.

I am getting ahead of myself, I hope he has oncepts for games so those investing money, know it is a game to be throwing money at. I would not demand a certain game to be made, I just want to know what they are coming up with, and if it is something I would play, probably not, as I get older those old Amiga games seem to bore me, much like the crap commercial games that are out there now.

Re:Crowd-funding (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325617)

And yet, reality has already shown how this works:

0) Start by making something good, although probably for free,thus starting to build a reputation;
1) Offer to do something, for money....
2) Watch your fans/community/users/whatever turn on you like a pack of piranna, for they have come to expect, nay, are entitled by the very gods, to the fruits of your labour for free. Sellout!

Ep!!!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318437)

legitimise doing shout the loudest GAY NIGGERS FROM [idge.net] many users of BSD The most. Look at Contact to $see if and shouting that log on Then the which allows to fight what has to download the transfer, Netscape Of various BSD into a sling unless and I probably around return it am protesting but now they're fact there won't users of BSD/OS. A Than make a sincere from now on or Software lawyers perform keeping to you by Penisbird words, don't get guys are usually Website. Mr. de significantly

There's also a Tactical Shooter! (5, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318483)

A few of days ago I submitted a story about another high-profile game creator following Schafer's lead by using Kickstarter, but /. mods chose to post ads about Apple TV instead (because obviously Apple needs the help more than an indie team).

"..an independent team led by Chistian Allen (lead designer/creative director for games like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Halo: Reach) has launched a Kickstarter for a new hardcore tactical shooter."

Their PR is nowhere as good as Schafer's, but tactical shooters deserve some love too! [kickstarter.com]

Re:There's also a Tactical Shooter! (1)

IICV (652597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319747)

... I thought they already made that, and called it Frozen Synapse [frozensynapse.com] ?

But then I've signed up for the kickstarter, so I guess not :)

Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318491)

2.5 Million? And we'll never own the game.

For 2.5 Million we could fund the same effort or more and enrich the commons with a high quality opensource game that would allow a wide array of derivative. Instead the commons is robbed and is given a proprietary game.

Slashdot should not be posting kickstarters for software and other things that aren't free/libre open source licensed or creative commons licensed.

Use kickstarter to compensate creative people for their effort, but pay them to contribute to the commons as well.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318625)

Or we could use the money to cure cancer!

Seriously though, people spend the money on whatever they want. There's always something better they could have spent the money on, but things don't work that way. If they did we'd all be giving all our money to whatever society deemed the absolute most important cause.

As for turning slashdot into a church of RMS .. bleh.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318889)

"Or we could use the money to cure cancer!"

Read this to prevent much cancer and even maybe cure a bit of it: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx [drfuhrman.com]

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

sethmeisterg (603174) | more than 2 years ago | (#39322757)

Amen! I'm so sick of people pontificating about this stuff. I'll spend my money on what I like, thanks very much, and if you don't like it, stuff it.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318709)

Then some opensource creator should use Kickstarter to make some games. If it is so important to you, go search for such an opensource start-up and post it on /. I know I would kick money into it if I *knew* I was going to get some great product.

Tim Schafer has a reputation for being one of the best and lots of people have played games that he touched. This is where a lot of his support is coming from.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (4, Insightful)

Garth Smith (1720052) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318715)

We donated millions to Tim Schafer because he has a rightly earned reputation for making great games. Tim is being rewarded for all the hard work he put in. Are you saying that good work and effort should go unrewarded? Is it a problem that we want to help people out who have already proven they can enrich our lives? Kickstarter has helped us get a new old-school adventure game where previously where was none.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (4, Interesting)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318813)

AC had a good point. Creativity is generally not improved by rewards, and there are other ways to support people than linking the right to consume with an increasingly precarious income-through-jobs link. We could have had $2.5 million of free stuff, and now we are getting yet more proprietary stuff.

See my essay on that theme (though it is directed more at tax-exempt non-profits):
http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [pdfernhout.net]
Longer version: http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html [pdfernhout.net]

See also on why creativity diminished if done for material gain:
"RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc [youtube.com]

From 1964 on the strained income-through-jobs link.
http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm [educationa...ocracy.org]

Alternatives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy [wikipedia.org]
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_dictionary_of_alternatives.html?id=IKZVKMPEQCEC [google.com]

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318765)

high quality opensource game

That there is an oxymoron. There are no high-quality F/OSS games.

Slashdot should not be posting kickstarters for software and other things that aren't free/libre open source licensed or creative commons licensed.

/. doesn't exist to drive F/OSS agenda, it exists to propagate news items about stuff that people are interested in.

Use kickstarter to compensate creative people for their effort, but pay them to contribute to the commons as well.

Tell some high-quality F/OSS dev to make a kickstarter project then and stop whining about it here.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (4, Insightful)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318841)

"Tell some high-quality F/OSS dev to make a kickstarter project then and stop whining about it here."

The problem is that the social dynamics of Kickstarter don't work very well for F/OSS, given that pledges are generally tightly tied to specific rewards (and pledges are amplified by the project creating "artificial scarcity").

The big issue is that people need to wake up to the notion that they are supporting and even creating "artificial scarcity" with how they spend their time and money. Related by me: http://www.artificialscarcity.com/ [artificialscarcity.com]

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319775)

To be honest, that is just lack of imagination. In the creation of anything, there is plenty of stuff you could give to pledges: stickers, magnets, concept art, original sketches, NPC names... F/OSS can use kickstarter, it just need to plan ahead on what things it can give as pledges, while still retain enough cash for the goals.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319893)

People don't respond to idealistic ideas as well as their basic nature.

The idea of Kickstarter can work well for F/OSS, but these GNU/BSD/MIT people need to understand social engineering better.

P.S. voted you up

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320043)

The problem is that the social dynamics of Kickstarter don't work very well for F/OSS, given that pledges are generally tightly tied to specific rewards (and pledges are amplified by the project creating "artificial scarcity").

So? The scarcity in the rewards doesn't have to be scarcity of the software - and if you look at the rewards offered, that's generally only true of the very lowest tiers. Above that, you have rewards like "name in the credits", or participation in the creative process, or game elements named after you, or a dozen other things of that nature.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (3, Informative)

elifer (1840010) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320335)

There are at least two succesful open source projects in kickstarter:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/149077132/a-house-in-california-a-point-click-art-game?ref=live

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1384519763/pissed-off-penguins?ref=live

Just because people backed the project doesn't mean it can be released freely afterwards. They still can get their recognition through the rewards

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

replicant108 (690832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39324359)

GitHub are really well positioned to provide a crowdfunding platform for FOSS projects.

I suspect that, with the success of Kickstarter and other similar sites, it's only a matter of time before someone makes the model work for commons-based stuff.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319685)

high quality opensource game

That there is an oxymoron. There are no high-quality F/OSS games.

Slashdot should not be posting kickstarters for software and other things that aren't free/libre open source licensed or creative commons licensed.

/. doesn't exist to drive F/OSS agenda, it exists to propagate news items about stuff that people are interested in.

Use kickstarter to compensate creative people for their effort, but pay them to contribute to the commons as well.

Tell some high-quality F/OSS dev to make a kickstarter project then and stop whining about it here.

Even a dyke is still a typical woman. You always chime in at odd times to complain about why somebody is wrong, why it'll never work and all of that.

I have never seen you start your own thread where you advocate your very own ideas. Tired of being a stereotype yet?

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319827)

I actually post my own ideas and opinions quite often, I just don't post them here.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320169)

I actually post my own ideas and opinions quite often, I just don't post them here.

So it's not who you are, it is where you are?

I do it because of who i am. I am not that much of a leaf in the wind.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320103)

That there is an oxymoron. There are no high-quality F/OSS games.

Well maybe there would be if people would donate $2.5m to make it happen....

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325459)

That there is an oxymoron. There are no high-quality F/OSS games.

Freespace series? Search & Rescue series? FlightGear? None of those are high-quality?

(I was also just checking the progress on Vdrift, screenshots look good now, I'll have to give it a try.)

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320013)

Oh boy, it is one of you morons, the "you don't own it" types.

We don't give a damn about "getting something in return from our investment", other than, y'know, the damn game.
We don't want to invest in the business, we just want to directly fund a game and cut out the middlemen who only want to fund popular games instead of niche titles. (and rightly so, I'd sooner pay up front for niche games than cater to generic [insert game here] titles)

If we wanted to invest in his business, we would do that. There is a huge difference between us investing and us funding a new game. HUGE difference.
Please stop pushing this nonsense opinion. Also quit sucking off the RMS juice for once in your life. This sort of funding is completely decent.

Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320079)

Free and open source are always portrayed as the holy grail but they more often than not fall short of what the public actually wants. Look at open source graphics software. Yes Blender is powerful and can do what most of the big boys can yet hardly any pros use it and they are still willing to pay $3,000+ for software where as Blender is free. The interface is clunky making it slow and painful for most to work with damning it to the side lines. Gimp has fallen to a similar fate although is far more useful than Blender it still comes up short for pros so we all still pay our yearly Adobe tax.

Personally I use Open Office every day and have for many years but the latest version is buggy as hell and I do loose time to it which isn't normally acceptable for professional use. Years ago Microsoft Office succumbed to feature bloat and I was forced to abandon it. I found every time I slipped when typing it was some bloody shortcut. In the late 90s I kept having documents reformat when I'd try to do a capital "K" and accidentally hit Shift+Control+K. The computer at the time took a few seconds to reformat a 50 to 100 page documents so I had always managed to type more before I found the mistake meaning it was impossible to undo. I switched to open source and never looked back.

I'm a big supporter of open source but "free" is highly overrated. I want quality not free. I find that free and quality rarely belong in the same sentence.

Great. Although... (1)

PessimysticRaven (1864010) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318499)

The only problem I can see is that now that the precedent has been set, the result better be the gaming equal to the Second Coming, else the fickle "gamerz" out there will raise so much Internet fury that everyone will be too scared to attempt this again.

Re:Great. Although... (1)

Garth Smith (1720052) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318735)

It'll either be awesome or crash and burn horribly. Those are the only two options Tim gave us. =p

Re:Great. Although... (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318775)

What? Have you been living under a rock or something? It's Tim Schafer, man; it CANNOT be anything short of orgastic.

Re:Great. Although... (1)

PessimysticRaven (1864010) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318799)

I know who it is. But even the most epic game designers can have off-games. It's one thing to have a company breathing down your neck for "quality assurance," but to have MILLIONS of fans that have donated their hard-earned cash, directly funding your project?

That's some serious pressure.

Re:Great. Although... (2)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318875)

I get what you are saying and some lesser designer might indeed start to crack under the pressure, but looking at what Schafer has been saying in the public and his pictures here, it doesn't seem like he even notices it. I really doubt quality is an issue, but one thing that people WILL complain about is that it takes so long for the game to materialize. People are impatient and a large adventure game is a multi-year project, that is going to cause some quarreling eventually.

Re:Great. Although... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320145)

"People are impatient and a large adventure game is a multi-year project, that is going to cause some quarreling eventually."

Tim has indicated his deadline for the game to be later this year. If it does become a multi-year project, then there can be some understanding why people may bicker about it.

But then, all those who paid enough for the lowest benefit (15 dollars iirc) will be participating or at least have the option to participate, in the closed beta of the game as its' being produced. If there are snags that might drag it on, they'll at least be kept well informed of what's going on.

Most people that I see get uptight over things taking long to complete are usually caused by a lack of communication from the company/group in question.

Throwing dice: How slashdot picks stories! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318529)

No, really, this totally stinks and makes no sense at all.

When the Order of the Stick (a niche-audience webcomic based on D&D and fantasy RPG) just recently hit over a million $ several stories were submitted, none were taken. Now Tim Schafer hits roughly double that, it's "News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters"?

Seriously, editors? Have you taken crack? How is a RPG-fantasy webcomic that started from zero ten years ago that now hits 1.2 million $ on kickstarter not "News for Nerds" but when some known and famous (within his circle) game developer hits a measly double of that it suddenly is?

The point is not that the Webcomic was not featured here, the freaking point is that suddenly another kickstarter project (as impressive as it is and I backed it as well, btw) that plays in the very same level of spectacularity is? Both results on kickstarter are very impressive and are a clear sigh something changes at the moment. Something how things are financed, how independent authors can create a business. I find that very, very awesome and it's something that has never been seen as this in human history.
But you guys think it's not newsworthy. That, dear slashdot, plainly sucks. Hand in your geek cards.

"News for ners, stuff that matters" should become "We do not freaking care if it's News for Nerds, we only like to throw dice and pick our stories without any discernible criteria". That'd of course explain all those stupid non-nerd stories you took from somewhere that pop up here.

Re:Throwing dice: How slashdot picks stories! (1)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320801)

Wow, you're really mad over a bad webcomic.

If this game is anything but perfect... (0)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318783)

...he's gonna have some 'splaining to do.

Silly NPR! Gaming isn't just for kids! (2)

jensen404 (717086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318795)

From NPR:

Schafer plans to do just that and make a documentary about it, to demystify the process for kids who think that only big publishers can make games.

The 74,000 backers are obviously just buying the game for their kids.

Investment Market Development (1)

Thrull (1200785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319365)

It makes so much sense for the crowd to fund the creator, rather than a publisher who takes on the risk and exerts creative control over your product. Using the right online platform, you can turn your entire consumer base into a focus group that tells you exactly what they want, and even pays for it in advance.

We're returning to a model of creative production based on Renaissance "patronage," but with that patronage distributed throughout the population of individuals who will actually be using the product you produce. There is huge potential here if we can find the right kind of online platform (I do think we need to go beyond Kickstarter's model in the long term).

Gilbert's involvement might be overstated (3, Insightful)

Malibee (1215790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319783)

I'm not sure it's accurate to say this game is "from Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert." See http://grumpygamer.com/5694081 [grumpygamer.com]

Erfworld kickstarter (1)

Hyperhaplo (575219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39323631)

and while we are on the topic, the Erfworld Kickstarter [kickstarter.com] has raised over $64000 with over 880 backers to fund a motion comic

Additional funds will go towards [partiallyclips.com] -

        New Erfworld website [erfworld.com]
        Free Erfworld book 1 for a variety of people
        Funding a reprint of book 1
        Funding to making Hamstard [hamstard.com] beanies
        Funding for a make-your-own-Hamstard-comic tool
        Funding for a soundtrack album

This seems not good to me... (1)

YurB (2583187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39324353)

What I like about this fact is that people think positively: they're ready to donate to something they like. But in most of it... As this talented speaker [ted.com] on TED said, we need to integrate the technology, entertainment, design, i.e. the happy (and consumer) part of our life with the awareness of injustice, bad life of poor, bloody lessons of history and other things which would make us little more adequate about what world we live in. He also said that the indicator of health of society is how they treat the poor, not the rich. I join those commentators who think that $2.5M would do much more useful and meaningful things if it was donated elsewhere, i.e. with a little bit deeper thougth.

ah kickstarter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325745)

i'm waiting for the feds to audit kickstarter. a company that does zero due dilligence for its projects has to be funding some seriously shady stuff.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>