Your opinion is harsh, but not rude, and also is properly expressed in English, that indeed is not my native language.
Sorry, was just trying to determine whether it was a poorly-constructed effort, or just trouble in translation. Glad to hear it's the latter.
As I mentioned above, and I summarize here, I preferred (I was the one responsible) to use a descriptive name for the project. Other candidates were 'Star Trek Online Cooperative Adventures', abbreviated as STCOOL, or 'Star Trek Multiplayer Online Adventures' (STMOLA).
The word 'online' appears in almost all cases… because it is an online game. Maybe we have to regret that the name of the official Star Trek MMO would not have been a more original little, but maybe they thought the same: In describing the game with his name.
As also mentioned above, we consider it a job name, convenient but not very creative, and do not rule out to changing it later.
I just mention it because you have basically NO chance at going legit if you keep that name, so why not spend the time upfront to attempt to improve the situation? It's perfectly descriptive, but already taken. Any attempt to go bigger, you'll get shut down. Why be stubborn and force them to do it? Even changing the word "online" to something like "co-operative" at least gives you a CHANCE, whereas leaving it alone FORCES CBS and STO to sue you just on defense of copyright and you trading on their licensed name.
This is a production made by fans for fans.
As you know, there are many productions made in this scheme, to some extent tolerated by the owners of the license. Without going any further, 'Star Trek Phase II', and many (many) series and games and texts… many of which are likewise subject to crowfunding campaigns, just like ours, and they are intended to cover, at least in part, production costs.
I can't speak to their funding, I don't know. Just know that attempting to raise $50k trading on a license you don't own, with intellectual copyright you don't hold, seems problematic. Are you doing this for fun, or is this a full-time job for several people? What's your expense profile here? $50k is a lot of money, how's it being spent?
In addition, as some of those other productions, we will intend (illusion to some extent) to attempt to obtain a formal license.
To submit a project on the paper at this levels is an impossible task, and we may have more chances of success once we be able to present a working product.
ZERO chance here, IMO. CBS holds the license, and develops projects it's interested in. If you approach with a product you want them to sign off on, you'll get dismissed at best, and kicked out holding papers from a law firm more likely. Kinda like how tie-in media books work. You can't write a book and try to pitch it, they wouldn't listen even if it was THE best book of all time. You wouldn't even get a meeting. They contract writers to do the work for them, they don't have open auditions.
In other crowfunding campaigns they offer a video. I thought that would be most valuable to gift a game that had some value in itself, and shows some skills.
They offer the video to show that some work has been done on the game, and hint that the end result may someday appear.
Since in this case, I don't think you can legally produce the end product, you're really just giving them the mini-game for their money, and that's very likely all they'll ever see.
I'm not trying to over-state the mini-game, I just don't think there's a producible end-product, so you have to be happy with the mini-game if you donate.
How's the game itself coming?
Again, not trying to attack you, just skeptical about the process itself, and whether what you're trying to do is even legal, much less achievable. Adding in the amount of money you're trying to raise, and it's not quite a harmless endeavor anymore.
Best of luck, as it DOES sound like a fun idea. Actually, it really just sounds like a co-operative online version of Interplay's 25th Anniversary game.