Blips: Papers, Please

Source: Crowdfunding's Secret Enemy Is PayPal
Author: Patrick Klepek
Site: Giant Bomb

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a lot of money being thrown around in crowdfunding campaigns these days. PayPal, the online payment processing company has noticed as well, since they're handling a significant portion of the funds being contributed to these campaigns. More than a handful of times, PayPal has withheld funds and frozen accounts of some high-earning projects as a means of making sure the companies' intentions are legitimate and defending PayPal from getting stuck footing massive chargeback bills. The problem is that these game developers aren't properly informed of this procedure, and have had to resort to public complaints to reverse PayPal's actions. In a new article by Patrick Klepek, he details the frustration that crowdfunded game developers are facing when they're raised a bunch of money, and then aren't given it without having to spend time and energy making a fuss.

From PayPal's side, the desire to protect themselves from the repercussions of scammers and money laundering schemes is legitimate. The problem is how they're going about it. If it was stated up front that there would be a set timetable for the release of funds from PayPal, that would be one thing, but is the instances that Klepek notes in his piece, PayPal typically doesn't make their move until after a campaign has come to a close. Even a word from the crowdfunding platforms would be a helpful forewarning about the series of events to follow. Perhaps PayPal could offer a verification system upfront, the same way they do after the fact for establishing legitimacy, so that these game developers can clear up any confusion before it becomes an issue.

That said, Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are services that allow users to raise money on nothing but promises, and don't necessarily require any prior experience or background in what's being projected (though it certainly helps). Still, it's hard to see these recent kerfuffles as anything but poor communication and customer policy on the part of PayPal, which is already just about the least human, most faceless company I can think of. I'm glad to hear that so many of these cases did see resolution in the end, and hope PayPal has learned their lesson here. If they're not working on changes to keep unnecessary funds withholding regarding crowdfunding campaigns from occurring on a regular basis, then their reputation will see further damage and the doorway for competition will crack open a little further. Ultimately, that might not be such a bad thing either.

Blips: Final Reaction

Source: Taking A Risk
Author: Stephen Winson
Site: re/Action

The news is about a week old, but if you hadn't heard, re/Action, the video game criticism website that aimed to provide a platform for voices not heard elsewhere and pay their writers well for the work they create, did not reach their crowdfunding goal before their deadline. This means that the re/Action project is not going forward since the editors would only have proceeded if they could pay their writers what they saw as a fair rate ($200 per article). In a sort of post mortem, technical editor Stephen Winson penned a look back at the re/Action campaign, thanking all involved and continued to advocate for decent pay for writers.

I was really hoping re/Action would succeed because I thought they were onto something pretty great. Yes, they did publish a piece of mine, but I'm not speaking out of self interest here. I wouldn't have sent them a pitch had they not impressed me with their initial batch of articles and inclusive mission statement about seeking minority voices and opinions. I was just excited to be a part of it. I'd also like to note that my experience going through the re/Action editorial process was quite pleasant, and the feedback I was given was tremendously helpful in focusing an article that I struggled to keep from digging too deep into several pools of minutiae. Also, like Bit Creature, which also went under this year, I thought re/Action's website was pretty and had some nice design touches that complemented the essays contained within.

If it's any consolation, at least re/Action is still online, which gives me the opportunity to read some of the articles that I never got around to checking out. I hope people remember the re/Action campaign in the future when they consider voids in games criticism, but hopefully not as a detraction from trying something similar; on the contrary. In their IndieGoGo video, Managing Editor Andrea Shubert referred to re/Action as a "grand experiment," and in that spirit, I think even the results of an experiment that didn't turn out as planned can be useful in continuing to test the original hypothesis. So, let's pour one out for re/Action, but then, let's raise our glasses to the continued pursuit of the ideals for which it stood.