The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Kickstarters: When companies cross the line from needing to begging.
Roe
Always to the EastRegistered User regular
Always to the EastRegistered User regular
The latest kick started caught my attention and brought the question, when does kickstarter donations go from giving people a chance to help make a great game, or becomes just begging.
I believe that seeing there hasn't been a game that's been actually released on kickstarter money, begs the question of what exactly are we donating for? Companies making video games are making money like any other company.
What if Starbucks asked for money to make a new flavor but needed the money to make the flavor? In the end, people would be paying for a company to actually make money from gamers, after gamers make the actual game and purchasing the game after donating.
The bottom line is still even if we get a game from kickstarting a company, it doesn't mean the game will be good.
I believe that seeing there hasn't been a game that's been actually released on kickstarter money, begs the question of what exactly are we donating for? Companies making video games are making money like any other company.
What if Starbucks asked for money to make a new flavor but needed the money to make the flavor? In the end, people would be paying for a company to actually make money from gamers, after gamers make the actual game and purchasing the game after donating.
The bottom line is still even if we get a game from kickstarting a company, it doesn't mean the game will be good.
Roe on
0
Posts
Although it seems like a lot of the kickstarter games i've seen have at least had demos and stuff available, in addition to a promotional video.
I don't understand this phrase:
"In the end, people would be paying for a company to actually make money from gamers, after gamers make the actual game and purchasing the game after donating."
Can you please parse that out for me so it's a bit clearer? I mean almost every backer of every kickstarter gets a copy of the game they are kickstarting. Also, gamers aren't making the game, the developers are (though they are certainly gamers too).
I'm just not sure what you are trying to say there.
Honestly, if you don't like a project don't fund it. It's a self solving problem.
I'm (wildly guessing) that he means that fans "invest" money in advance in a kickstarter, making a game possible where it wouldn't be otherwise, and the developer is the one that keeps the rights to make money from it. Essentially becoming an "investor" without any perk associated with the position other than whatever your backer bracket gave you.
Not saying I agree with it, because like Tube says: I only invest when I'm happy with that I'm getting (or believe I may get.)
Developer: We don't make [INSERT DEAD/NICHE GENRE HERE] anymore because [DEAD/NICHE GENRE] wouldn't sell these days.
Gamers: No way! A modern [DEAD/NICHE GENRE] game would totally sell. Plenty of people would buy it.
Developer: Ok, prove it.
So that is why we see so many adventure games/space roguelikes/zombie themed travel simulators/octopus stealth/games where you have a gun that shoots javascript. It's weird shit or dead shit that wouldn't make it commercially on a large scale, so it's sort of a "Put your money where your mouth is" publishing model.
This is why it bothers me so much when games do not have a goal that includes a copy of the game. If you expect money from me, you either need to give me a copy of the game, or some form of profit sharing. I'm either a customer, or I'm an investor. I'm not a charity group.
How is going directly to the consumers worse than shopping around for a publisher? Whether they're "begging" us for money or "begging" the publisher for money, this sort of thing has been going on for decades.
The message seems pretty confused here in general. Judging from the last line, the developer is doing a bad thing by asking for money from the general public because there is no guarantee their game will be good...?
it's p good
Like FTL, though, it was funded after a lot of development already took place.
Some of these have mostly been about what rewards my donation will provide, but for most of them I had a greater purpose in mind. I'm investing in these genres and these developers. Maybe I'm naive in thinking my measly contribution to these games will have any impact on the industry, but I went into them thinking that it just might. I think it says a lot when random people are willing to throw upwards of a hundred bucks at a developer simply because they believe in a project.
I won't get too specific here, but I did donate a considerable amount to Project Fedora, Pinkerton Road, Dead State, and Project Eternity. I donated a considerable (for me) amount to Project Fedora because the dissolution of Access (and thus Tex Murphy, and FMV gaming in general) upset the shit out of me. I loved the Tex Murphy series, and I believe in Chris Jones and Aaron Conners. I donated a lot to Pinkerton Road because, despite their very sloppy Kickstarter campaign (in the beginning), I believe in Jane Jensen and her losing the Gabriel Knight IP despite creating it pisses me off, so my donation to her Kickstarter was primarily an investment toward her potentially getting those rights back. I am interested in Moebius and Mystery Project X but that wasn't even remotely my primary concern in donating.
My Dead State contribution was a mixture of really wanting the game they were selling, wanting to support the turn-based isometric-like genre in general, and the rewards offered by the tier I chose. Project Eternity was a 50/50 split between wanting to support Obsidian and the offered rewards.
I guess my point is, "investment" means more than what you physically get in return. No, we don't get a stake in the eventual profits these games can make, but regardless of rewards, I think we're showing publishers and the like that (a) we want broader choices than what THEY are willing to invest in and (b) they aren't as relevant as they might think. Publishers have enjoyed a monopoly on what kind of projects have gotten green-lit. I think Kickstarter shatters that monopoly in a very clear cut way. I'm not saying that publishers are evil, but they do avoid taking risks on what they consider less popular genres. Well, I'm happy with supporting the genres I'd like to play and that I'd like to see other people play. That's an investment too - an investment in the industry we consume.
On the other hand, I donated $125 to Hero-U mostly because I wanted a Meep toy. So there is that.
It's hard to tell how much development is "a lot" of development, though.
There was that indie dev who talked about how their game was slammed for being "too finished" for Kickstarter (because the screens and videos they released looked super polished) even though 90% of their game was untextured beta levels.
At the very least, those two games had actual, real work done with them before they got Kickstarted to finish development (FTL was shown off at IGF prior, for instance), and wasn't pitched as an idea to fund like many other Kickstarters. I have no idea what Kickstarter assumes is "too finished" though, especially since Chivalry finished its funding drive last September and released only a month later since that much of the game had already been completed. In fact, one of the stated Kickstarter goals for Chivalry was, straight-up, a way to do preorders without going through the redtape of DD distributors.
For example, I've had high hopes for both Dead State and Grim Dawn since well before they were kickstarted, so it was a no-brainer for me to support them. I already know I'll buy pretty much any Obsidian game that doesn't have "South Park" in the title, so the Project Eternity kickstarter was also an immediate wallet-opener. Other games have caught me on a good day or pitched a concept that I thought was interesting enough to take a gamble on.
I do draw the line at "I give you money, you give me an actual game", though. I'm not a Pathfinder fan, but the whole Pathfinder MMO Kickstarter that was for nothing but funding a tech demo for a publisher pitch is a definition of a Kickstarter I'd avoid like the plague.
But if you don't have faith that a Kickstarter game will actually be more than vaporware, or will turn out to suck, you're not forced to give a dime. Just wait for the game to come out, the same as for any other traditionally funded and published game.
Sure. I went for the full $50 on Wasteland 2 because I wanted the boxed copy, but there's a point when I'm not willing to pitch in more. I wasn't willing to go for $100 for Double Fine Adventure's boxed copy, for instance.
And some I just don't hear about until it's too late. I would have loved to have gotten in on Strike Suit Zero and nabbed some of the rewards, but oh well.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
For the most part, I don't have a particularly huge budget so most of the time I'll just go with whatever tier guarantees the game, but I will back games that look interesting enough, or ones that I certainly need to see come back.
I didn't go for the Double Fine Adventure(I got into Kickstarter after it ended), but I did go for a good number after that. Wasteland 2, Project Fedora, Shadowrun Returns were givens. Tex Murphy needs to ride again. Two Guys Burgers and Fries(SpaceVenture) I of course had to go into, not the least of which because I was so annoyed by Sierra's killing off of Space Quest 7, and I'm holding onto hope that one day the dynamic duo can somehow get a hold of the Space Quest IP and make 7 finally happen.
FTL was an obvious choice, I love sci-fi stuff, I love roguelikes. So like, 2 + 2 = 30.
Aside from wanting the game itself, I also went in on Leisure Suit Larry for not the least of reasons that Al Lowe became the most teddy bear old grandpa type you'd ever meet. It's incredibly contrasted with his absolutely dirty mind and I can't help but love the guy and want to see him succeed.
I also went in on Skyjacker and Kitaru because they looked pretty interesting and actually had proof of concept going into the Kickstarter campaigns.
There were some other projects however that were so unique in their premise and execution that I was absolutely compelled to get into them. Star Castle has to be the most unique Kickstarter campaign I've seen to date. I ended up tossing a good amount of money more than I usually do into it, partly because I absolutely had to see that one happen, and partly because I also wanted to be the owner of one of only about three hundred cartridges that will ever exist(even fewer that came with full box and manual - and incidentally probably be worth an unhealthy amount of money given a decade or so). Also, my name is totes immortalized in the contributors section of the instruction manual now(woohoo).
This same idea also drove me to back Diamond Trust of London as well. Knowing these games will never be in mass production and will be ridiculously hard to find after the fact was a big contributing factor in backing them.
For the most part however, it's nothing really more complex than whether or not the game looks interesting enough to back and the likelihood of it ever actually coming out. If the game or artwork looks like it was drawn in some high schooler's text book during first period, I'm probably going to pass, for example.
This is exactly the way I feel about the process.
It's like, for years I've been saying that I want another Rainbow 6-like game - loadout, planning, execution, etc. So, when someone comes up and says, "Hey - I've done this kind of thing before, and I can't get investor buy-in without your help," well, then, it's time for me to put my money where my mouth is. Or, "Gosh darn it! How come no one's made a good follow-on to Freespace?"
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]