Originally Posted by -Apocalypse-
A developer pitches a risky game to a publisher, publisher says raise X amount via crowdsourcing for the game, and we'll foot the rest of the bill.
Still rude and greedy? Without extending the offer and showing that the publisher would be open to such a proposition, games that might make it via this scenario would be shut down at the developer level because they'd never even pitch it, knowing that it'd get shut down for the standard style agreement, and this offer would never be made.
There's 2 sides to every coin...
Yes it is rude, I would say semi greedy. Lets place this in some other context. I am your friend. I need to borrow 1,000 dollars to get my car fixed.
1.) I ask you to ask your friend to borrow for 1,000 dollars using only your name as proof that the money will be paid back.
2.) I ask your friend to borrow 1,000 dollars using my name that the money will be paid back.
You see the difference? By shielding me from the person that I am borrowing the money from, it is not only dishonest, but places you as the scape goat if anything goes wrong with me paying you back.
Even though I agree with most of your posts, I can see where the OP has a problem with the system. By the publisher saying they want you to use your name to borrow money from a 3rd party, because they know that the third party would never give them money in the first place is just dishonest. But then to state that the risk of borrowing money has no reward but only being used as a scape goat if something goes wrong, is greedy and rude. Sorry. just is.