So yeah, because someone’ll shout KICKSTARTER: I’ve said why in more detail in the upcoming issue of Continue Magazine, but (spoilers): basically as a solo dev I don’t want to toy with other peoples’ cash. If I die, or catch some horrible disease, no one else is going to make the game. That money’ll go to waste, the project will die, and angry people will probably wind up hounding my loved ones demanding their fiver back.
I’m also slightly wary of some of the alpha-funding horror stories I’ve heard: seems like people get a sense of entitlement with that kind of funding that I’m keen to avoid – I spoke to one sobbing indie dev who said he was in ‘perpetual crunch’ because being seen to take a single weekend off got him hatemail from his backers.
So that’s why I’m keen to try and stand on my own two feet. For as long as possible.
Have we established that the internet is a horrible, horrible place yet? I mean seriously. I'm not expecting to see anything out of the kickstarters I've donated to for at least a year. I have faith they'll do a good job, and I'm excited to give my feedback, but beyond that I'm a patient man.
I think that's going to be the most telling thing that comes out of Double Fine's documentary - getting to see how douchey the internet really is, from the other side.
Wow. What a sad, angry, bitter man. Even if he has a few good points in there, the whole thing comes over as the rantings of a massive superiority complex.
So yeah, because someone’ll shout KICKSTARTER: I’ve said why in more detail in the upcoming issue of Continue Magazine, but (spoilers): basically as a solo dev I don’t want to toy with other peoples’ cash. If I die, or catch some horrible disease, no one else is going to make the game. That money’ll go to waste, the project will die, and angry people will probably wind up hounding my loved ones demanding their fiver back.
I’m also slightly wary of some of the alpha-funding horror stories I’ve heard: seems like people get a sense of entitlement with that kind of funding that I’m keen to avoid – I spoke to one sobbing indie dev who said he was in ‘perpetual crunch’ because being seen to take a single weekend off got him hatemail from his backers.
So that’s why I’m keen to try and stand on my own two feet. For as long as possible.
Have we established that the internet is a horrible, horrible place yet? I mean seriously. I'm not expecting to see anything out of the kickstarters I've donated to for at least a year. I have faith they'll do a good job, and I'm excited to give my feedback, but beyond that I'm a patient man.
I think that's going to be the most telling thing that comes out of Double Fine's documentary - getting to see how douchey the internet really is, from the other side.
There's already people in the Double Fine backer forum complaining about the art style of the TEST FOOTAGE. The character that they used was from some completely unrelated pre-existing art.
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Please. Tell me they are quoting how much they donated as justification for how much of an asshole they are being.
Please. Tell me they are quoting how much they donated as justification for how much of an asshole they are being.
Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory remains truer than ever. (edit: I haven't checked, I'm just assuming that's the case)
I just signed up, and intend to view my contributions as donations first and foremost. If I'm able to give constructive feedback, that'd be awesome. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a group to uphold their end of whatever contribution incentives, but I'll definitely be erring on the side of avoiding acting like an entitled asshat.
Shadowrun is edging up to $1.5million ($6.5k short at the moment). 2 seems like it'd take a hell of a jump during these last 3 days and change, but it's damned impressive to see the community pull together and quadruple their original target (minus whatever cuts are necessary for Kickstarter, Amazon, paying to produce and mail the physical items, etc).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Man alive, please tell me I am not the only person who believes that by donating money to a Kickstarter project I am not entitled to a voice on the development of the game?
I mean I donate money all the time. Does this mean that I have a say on what direction cancer research goes or that the new children's hospital should totally have Greek columns?
No obviously not. As long as the money is used for it's stated intention (fund research on cancer, build a new hospital, or get a game I like the idea of developed) then as far as am concerned all is right with the world.
Hell, the Wasteland 2 guys can use some of that money to nuke a city if they believed it'll help make their game feel authentic. They're game developers, I am not, so I will trust that they have at least some idea of what they are doing.
To be honest, the fact that you actually get a copy of the game by helping to fund it is a nice bonus IMO. I'd probably still give money to some of these people (not all) even if it meant I'd have to still buy the game full price when it was released. Though I'm more than likely in the minority on that one. :P
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Shadowrun has a hell of a following, both in the PnP scene and in the video game scene. Literally for the last 20 years we've either had crappy game design docs or Microsoft being idiots with the license to blame for not getting a quality product. This turnout doesn't surprise me in the least.
I just hate it being called Shadowrun Returns; for some of us it never went away.
Also, I want to see how this goes once the iron cools down. There's all this talk about the first bomb and snatch and grab, but a lot of the big kickstarters we have seen have been riding on Doublefine's coattails. I personally know I'm way tapped out on money to invest. So how's it going to go once the buzz dies down?
Wow. What a sad, angry, bitter man. Even if he has a few good points in there, the whole thing comes over as the rantings of a massive superiority complex.
Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of valid points in here but it's hard to tell because the whole thing comes across as rantings from an echo chamber. "I’d be surprised if there was any other industry where the failings of intellect and character I’ve listed above are quite as apparent as in the games industry." Really? Really? I mean maybe I'm biased from living in DC but Politics, Advocacy/Lobbying and Professional Fundraising all leap to mind. Big, steaming portions of the financial sector, professional sports, etc.
I also feel like he cherry picked his cases. Yes, Wasteland 2 should have had something more robust to show -- wireframes, gameplay concepts, possible UI sketches, whatever -- as it was a project that had been professionally pitched for years and years. I don't feel bad for putting my money in that bottle and throwing it into the sea for that project though. But kickstarters like FTL and Grim Dawn both launched with substantial development to show potential backers.
Dunno. I defer to RainbowDespair who linked the post approvingly. I'm certainly no expert on the sausage-making side of games. I like to think I'm not completely uninformed, but maybe I'm wrong. I do think the blogger doesn't take into account people who recognize the shortcomings of the pitch and back the project anyway because it might work out or because they want to be a part of something exciting or even out of a sense of appreciation for work some of the people have done before.
I don't especially like being called a sheep. But, you know, maybe "Baa!"
Yeah, I wish I could throw more at them (and some other projects), but then I look at the bills from buying Magic cards, some Steam stuff, donating to Shadowrun Returns, paints for malifaux figures, more malifaux figures,, the looming release of Diablo 3 (which Amazon has yet to charge me for), etc, etc, and there just aren't enough hours in the day or dollars in the bank to cover every last little thing I'd like to do.
As an aside; thus far, the average person has pledged ~$48 to SR. Now obviously some well funded folks dropped $10k+ for those top tier rewards, but it's amazing how many tens of thousands of people have ponied up nearly a triple-A title's cost well in advance of being anywhere remotely near release.
Just wish I could justify that USB dogtag set. I love the setting, but $140 is a bit rich for my blood at the moment.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Wow. What a sad, angry, bitter man. Even if he has a few good points in there, the whole thing comes over as the rantings of a massive superiority complex.
Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of valid points in here but it's hard to tell because the whole thing comes across as rantings from an echo chamber. "I’d be surprised if there was any other industry where the failings of intellect and character I’ve listed above are quite as apparent as in the games industry." Really? Really? I mean maybe I'm biased from living in DC but Politics, Advocacy/Lobbying and Professional Fundraising all leap to mind. Big, steaming portions of the financial sector, professional sports, etc.
I also feel like he cherry picked his cases. Yes, Wasteland 2 should have had something more robust to show -- wireframes, gameplay concepts, possible UI sketches, whatever -- as it was a project that had been professionally pitched for years and years. I don't feel bad for putting my money in that bottle and throwing it into the sea for that project though. But kickstarters like FTL and Grim Dawn both launched with substantial development to show potential backers.
Dunno. I defer to RainbowDespair who linked the post approvingly. I'm certainly no expert on the sausage-making side of games. I like to think I'm not completely uninformed, but maybe I'm wrong. I do think the blogger doesn't take into account people who recognize the shortcomings of the pitch and back the project anyway because it might work out or because they want to be a part of something exciting or even out of a sense of appreciation for work some of the people have done before.
I don't especially like being called a sheep. But, you know, maybe "Baa!"
I think the article made a lot of good points, but I'll admit it was probably too negative and more than a little condescending at parts.
I'll admit that personally, I go back and forth on the whole kickstarter thing. I fully believe that we could do a moderate-sized ($100k+) kickstarter in a year or two. The question isn't "can we?" so much as "should we?" Like with the CSTW PC port we only had 100-200 backers, most of which were either friends, other developers, or hardcore fans. Extremely supportive group. Something like the Banner Saga ended up with around 20k backers. Having 20k people feel like you owe them something is a lot of pressure to be under.
Man alive, please tell me I am not the only person who believes that by donating money to a Kickstarter project I am not entitled to a voice on the development of the game?
I mean I donate money all the time. Does this mean that I have a say on what direction cancer research goes or that the new children's hospital should totally have Greek columns?
No obviously not. As long as the money is used for it's stated intention (fund research on cancer, build a new hospital, or get a game I like the idea of developed) then as far as am concerned all is right with the world.
Hell, the Wasteland 2 guys can use some of that money to nuke a city if they believed it'll help make their game feel authentic. They're game developers, I am not, so I will trust that they have at least some idea of what they are doing.
To be honest, the fact that you actually get a copy of the game by helping to fund it is a nice bonus IMO. I'd probably still give money to some of these people (not all) even if it meant I'd have to still buy the game full price when it was released. Though I'm more than likely in the minority on that one. :P
I don't donate to for profit companies, I invest in them. I don't plan to be on any forums hate mailing the devs esp. as I plan to be out of country for the majority of the development, but as someone who invested in a for profit venture, I do feel I am entitled to giving reasonable feedback on the process, esp. as many Kickstarters explicitly advertise community involvement as part of the deal.
I've no doubt some people are acting like spoiled children, but I've always thought anti-entitlement tirades, aimed at everything from Kickstarted to games that outright don't boot at launch, were as bad or worse. The only group of video games players who are not actually entitled (without any negative connotation) to something, are pirates.
Wow. What a sad, angry, bitter man. Even if he has a few good points in there, the whole thing comes over as the rantings of a massive superiority complex.
Haha, it's so true. "Man, Brian Fargo, what the fuck does that asshole know about development?"
Besides, there's more than a handful of projects that have in-engine videos, like Nekro.
More than the possibility of someone running away with money, I'm paying closer attention to the way backers are responding after a project has been successfully funded.
Yeah, the least interesting aspect of that article was the whole "Why are you morons giving money to developers when they haven't followed the game industry development timeline and provided an exhaustive design document? Don't you know how unreliable and awful those lying bastard developers are?!" thing, especially since it presumes fans and publishers should have the same expectations and standards for projects they feel like investing in.
The more interesting point, at least to me, is the reminder that a lot of these kickstarter game projects are hinging on the "you fans get to do what those dumb publishers are too short-sighted to do, and create this awesome game" hook, which not only leaves those developers open to an economy-sized helping of the dreaded video gamer entitlement, but puts their reputation as developers on the line without the (at least rhetorical) safety net of being able to blame a publisher for any fan disappointment. See, for example, pretty much every single discussion of the supposedly-upcoming Obsidian kickstarter project.
It'll be interesting to see how the inevitable success, failure, vanishing, or moderate disappointment of the current crop of high-profile kickstarted games shapes future pitches.
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Man alive, please tell me I am not the only person who believes that by donating money to a Kickstarter project I am not entitled to a voice on the development of the game?
I mean I donate money all the time. Does this mean that I have a say on what direction cancer research goes or that the new children's hospital should totally have Greek columns?
No obviously not. As long as the money is used for it's stated intention (fund research on cancer, build a new hospital, or get a game I like the idea of developed) then as far as am concerned all is right with the world.
Hell, the Wasteland 2 guys can use some of that money to nuke a city if they believed it'll help make their game feel authentic. They're game developers, I am not, so I will trust that they have at least some idea of what they are doing.
To be honest, the fact that you actually get a copy of the game by helping to fund it is a nice bonus IMO. I'd probably still give money to some of these people (not all) even if it meant I'd have to still buy the game full price when it was released. Though I'm more than likely in the minority on that one. :P
I don't donate to for profit companies, I invest in them. I don't plan to be on any forums hate mailing the devs esp. as I plan to be out of country for the majority of the development, but as someone who invested in a for profit venture, I do feel I am entitled to giving reasonable feedback on the process, esp. as many Kickstarters explicitly advertise community involvement as part of the deal.
I've no doubt some people are acting like spoiled children, but I've always thought anti-entitlement tirades, aimed at everything from Kickstarted to games that outright don't boot at launch, were as bad or worse. The only group of video games players who are not actually entitled (without any negative connotation) to something, are pirates.
Personally if I invest in something then I expect (or hope) for a financial gain. Not just make my money back, but to make more money.
With donating I give money to achieve a goal knowing full well that I will not get that money back, but I may get a t-shirt, bracelet, or a candy bar out of the deal. To me Kickstater falls in this category.
I do not think the Devs are actually beholden to the people who backed them. Which sounds assholish I know, but what I mean is as long as these Devs release the game (and send the rewards that were promised) then the agreement was satisfied. If the Devs invite the community to join in, then awesome. The Devs should politely listen to the backers, but ultimately have the final say. At least that is how I feel.
IMHO the only scenario in which the backers have a legitimate gripe is if they funded a game that was billd as a turn-based tactical rpg, but halfway through the Devs decided to change it to a FPS. I would be pissed at that.
You and I have different ideologies. In my mind I am not entitled to anything other than what rewards my 30-40 dollars entails.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Man alive, please tell me I am not the only person who believes that by donating money to a Kickstarter project I am not entitled to a voice on the development of the game?
I mean I donate money all the time. Does this mean that I have a say on what direction cancer research goes or that the new children's hospital should totally have Greek columns?
No obviously not. As long as the money is used for it's stated intention (fund research on cancer, build a new hospital, or get a game I like the idea of developed) then as far as am concerned all is right with the world.
Hell, the Wasteland 2 guys can use some of that money to nuke a city if they believed it'll help make their game feel authentic. They're game developers, I am not, so I will trust that they have at least some idea of what they are doing.
To be honest, the fact that you actually get a copy of the game by helping to fund it is a nice bonus IMO. I'd probably still give money to some of these people (not all) even if it meant I'd have to still buy the game full price when it was released. Though I'm more than likely in the minority on that one. :P
I think that if the kickstarter people have promised a forum where people can make themselves heard, then it's perfectly fair to use that forum to voice any concerns or whatever about the game. Part of the backer reward for Double Fine, and I'm pretty sure Wasteland 2, was that, for even a pledge of $1, you got access to the forums. So that was a promise to create these places to discuss the development of the game. And the devs have a slight obligation to listen to some of what people are saying. They may not agree, and they shouldn't try and compromise what they are doing just because a bunch of people got mad on the internet, but if a dev promises to listen to fan feedback, then they should at least consider what's said, even if it's stupid and they don't end up doing it. I think where the entitlement comes in is where backers think that all their feedback should be implemented. Rather than making suggestions, they make demands.
But I definately try Fargo and Schafer to filter out all the stupid stuff.
I don't donate to for profit companies, I invest in them. I don't plan to be on any forums hate mailing the devs esp. as I plan to be out of country for the majority of the development, but as someone who invested in a for profit venture, I do feel I am entitled to giving reasonable feedback on the process, esp. as many Kickstarters explicitly advertise community involvement as part of the deal.
I've no doubt some people are acting like spoiled children, but I've always thought anti-entitlement tirades, aimed at everything from Kickstarted to games that outright don't boot at launch, were as bad or worse. The only group of video games players who are not actually entitled (without any negative connotation) to something, are pirates.
Granted if the Kickstarter pledge level does say you get to provide feedback on the direction of the game, then you should get it. However, you're not investing in a project by using Kickstarter, you're purchasing a product and you're entitled to that product and not much else. Granted the actual product could range from anything to a simple thank you card to a party with the development group in some posh location, but it is still just a product.
Wow. What a sad, angry, bitter man. Even if he has a few good points in there, the whole thing comes over as the rantings of a massive superiority complex.
I gave up on the article after he called Double Fine's game an RPG, and to be developed at a target of $400,000 (adventure and $300,000, the extra was for the video crew) and he completely ignored the Takedown project wasn't looking to make a game for $200,000. He may have had a point somewhere in that mess, but how can you take a guy seriously when he's pulling arguments from source material he all but directly admits he didn't read?
nessin on
0
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
Man alive, please tell me I am not the only person who believes that by donating money to a Kickstarter project I am not entitled to a voice on the development of the game?
I mean I donate money all the time. Does this mean that I have a say on what direction cancer research goes or that the new children's hospital should totally have Greek columns?
No obviously not. As long as the money is used for it's stated intention (fund research on cancer, build a new hospital, or get a game I like the idea of developed) then as far as am concerned all is right with the world.
Hell, the Wasteland 2 guys can use some of that money to nuke a city if they believed it'll help make their game feel authentic. They're game developers, I am not, so I will trust that they have at least some idea of what they are doing.
To be honest, the fact that you actually get a copy of the game by helping to fund it is a nice bonus IMO. I'd probably still give money to some of these people (not all) even if it meant I'd have to still buy the game full price when it was released. Though I'm more than likely in the minority on that one. :P
I don't donate to for profit companies, I invest in them. I don't plan to be on any forums hate mailing the devs esp. as I plan to be out of country for the majority of the development, but as someone who invested in a for profit venture, I do feel I am entitled to giving reasonable feedback on the process, esp. as many Kickstarters explicitly advertise community involvement as part of the deal.
I've no doubt some people are acting like spoiled children, but I've always thought anti-entitlement tirades, aimed at everything from Kickstarted to games that outright don't boot at launch, were as bad or worse. The only group of video games players who are not actually entitled (without any negative connotation) to something, are pirates.
Wow. What a sad, angry, bitter man. Even if he has a few good points in there, the whole thing comes over as the rantings of a massive superiority complex.
Haha, it's so true. "Man, Brian Fargo, what the fuck does that asshole know about development?"
Besides, there's more than a handful of projects that have in-engine videos, like Nekro.
I think everyone reading that article would agree that the guy writing it is an asshole who is also somewhere on the autism spectrum, because he clearly has no idea how he is coming across. That said he's mostly right when he isn't making unsupported assertions about how dumb people are or the "real" state of the gaming industry. The kickstarter pitches people have bought into are way below that which a normal investor or publisher would expect from a game studio. I would expect most if not all of the games being developed to go grossly overbudget - for all of the evils publishers do, they play the role of adults in the room. With a bunch of developers suddenly freed from discipline and oversight and project management I would expect both the Shadowrun and Wasteland projects to come back in a year, hat-in-hand, with all sorts of excuses for why they blew their budget. Frankly the budgets they propose aren't reasonable for any sort of complete game. Shadowrun might come in at $2-$3mm, but for what Wasteland wants to do in terms of art asset and complexity, they will have big development costs to get over the finish line - bug squashing, optimization, art assets - they can't meet with their current total.
I think Brian Fargo knows this. What the kickstarter will let him do is get something like 80% of a finished project - he will then have no difficulty kickstarting (or getting from a publisher) the remaining $1-2$mm he'll need to finish the project and sell it. We'll see how Jordan Weisman does.
I think what we'll see out of this process is an appreciation of publishers and the role they perform.
I think everyone reading that article would agree that the guy writing it is an asshole who is also somewhere on the autism spectrum, because he clearly has no idea how he is coming across. That said he's mostly right when he isn't making unsupported assertions about how dumb people are or the "real" state of the gaming industry. The kickstarter pitches people have bought into are way below that which a normal investor or publisher would expect from a game studio. I would expect most if not all of the games being developed to go grossly overbudget - for all of the evils publishers do, they play the role of adults in the room. With a bunch of developers suddenly freed from discipline and oversight and project management I would expect both the Shadowrun and Wasteland projects to come back in a year, hat-in-hand, with all sorts of excuses for why they blew their budget. Frankly the budgets they propose aren't reasonable for any sort of complete game. Shadowrun might come in at $2-$3mm, but for what Wasteland wants to do in terms of art asset and complexity, they will have big development costs to get over the finish line - bug squashing, optimization, art assets - they can't meet with their current total.
I think Brian Fargo knows this. What the kickstarter will let him do is get something like 80% of a finished project - he will then have no difficulty kickstarting (or getting from a publisher) the remaining $1-2$mm he'll need to finish the project and sell it. We'll see how Jordan Weisman does.
I think what we'll see out of this process is an appreciation of publishers and the role they perform.
The whole Wasteland 2 kickstarter, which he hounds on, is a perfect example of the exception rather than the rule.
The Banner Saga destroys his stressing of the gaming "myths and legends/idols". It could very well be leveraging on ignorance if the product doesn't get released or goes over-budget, but it's still a counter-point to his argument.
Second, apparently he believes a quality game can only be pushed out the door for more than 400,000, or maybe even millions (he's only clear that 400,000 for an RPG isn't enough)? What about all the games that came before the Kickstarter explosion, especially the non-Kickstarter games without a publisher. Bastion, Trine, Braid, Star Ruler, Legend of Grimrock (granted, after, but still indie), World of Goo, and so on... I don't know how much any of those cost to make, especially if you calculate the time spent in development when the developers may have had another job or at home overtime, but they all didn't take millions of dollars. Maybe if his intention was to focus on Wasteland 2 rather than hold it as an example he wouldn't be a complete idiot, but his beef goes against Kickstarter as a whole rather than one or two projects.
You make a promise to listen to backer input. You don't promise to follow their every whim and edict. As long as the Kickstarter devs remember this they'll be fine. People will always rant about unreasonable shit on the Internet and as always the best response is to ignore them.
I think what we'll see out of this process is an appreciation of publishers and the role they perform.
Perhaps not really related, but I follow Larian Studio's official blog, which is run by a developer who hates publishers so very, very much they decided to publish their next game themselves.
I don't donate to for profit companies, I invest in them.
No, not through Kickstarter you don't.
It's donations and the site is pretty crystal clear about it.
That said I will admit I wish for all these game Kickstarters they'd include a FAQ along the lines of
Q: Hey, so I'm donating, that means I get a say in the final product, right?
A: Absolutely not! You get zero say, maybe even negative say! Unless of course we think you have a good idea, then you might actually end up with some form of say. But really you'll probably never know if that was us listening to your idea or just coming up with it on our own (in which case high-five we're both awesome with the idea-coming-up-with thing).
Q: What if I think my idea is super awesome, shouldn't you use it then?
A: Absolutely not! Unless it actually is super awesome of course in which case see previous quesiton. Anyways if, while you might think you have the best idea in the history of ideas, the reality is your idea is terrible? Well, since we think it's dumb? Ain't happening. On the upside we promise not to spend your donation on flying to your house, patting you on the head and informing you how adorable your horrible horrible idea was in the most condescending voice we can muster.
0
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Donating really isn't the right word for supporting a kickstarting, but it's not investing in the traditional sense either.
And they don't need to include those in the FAQ. Nowhere is it even implied that backers get input on a product outside of specific projects where they state it in the rewards.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
I think what we'll see out of this process is an appreciation of publishers and the role they perform.
Perhaps not really related, but I follow Larian Studio's official blog, which is run by a developer who hates publishers so very, very much they decided to publish their next game themselves.
Donating really isn't the right word for supporting a kickstarting, but it's not investing in the traditional sense either.
Feels like the right word to me.
I'm having a hard time distinguishing it from PBS or Public Radio collection drives. They have a stated goal to stay on the air. They give out rewards the more you donate. And in return, you get a promise they will create (license) new content.
I've never heard anybody who donated to PBS call themselves an investor even in a nontraditional sense.
Steam: hewn
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
0
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Donating really isn't the right word for supporting a kickstarting, but it's not investing in the traditional sense either.
Feels like the right word to me.
I'm having a hard time distinguishing it from PBS or Public Radio collection drives. They have a stated goal to stay on the air. They give out rewards the more you donate. And in return, you get a promise they will create (license) new content.
I've never heard anybody who donated to PBS call themselves an investor even in a nontraditional sense.
That's a donation because you're giving money to generate content which will be freely distributed.
That (very rarely) is the case on Kickstarter. Here, you're pre-ordering a product and there is a specific goal that has to be reached. And that cash directly funds its production. Again, this is how it works in most cases, you get badly set up ones that want to offer you bits of unrelated crud rather than the product, but they don't succeed.
IndieGoGo also is more like donation, because there you give the money regardless or whether they hit the target (in most cases, they've recently added a proper system for campaigns that aren't just scams)
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Oh man that Odious Repeater dude is a PROFESSIONAL GAME DESIGNER he must know his shit. (Read: Probably an idea man. Read-read: Probably an idiot.)
As for the actual content of the article: Indie games tend to be a lot cheaper, because they aren't going for photo realistic ideas, they aren't changing content all the time when a publisher comes in and says they don't like X or Y, and an 18 month development cycle with an actual professional team is actually a really long time. Especially if you have the creative groundwork done.
His doom and gloom prophecies about the teams coming back to ask for more money is pretty amusing, as well, considering he just kind of pulled that factoid out of his ass. I wonder if he likes to prophecy mayan doomsdays in his spare time.
On the subject of the money. You're a backer. Thats why they specifically call it that. It isn't a donation, or an investment or anything else. It's financial backing, which means pretty much, 'You gave them money, dude.'
On the subject of the money. You're a backer. Thats why they specifically call it that. It isn't a donation, or an investment or anything else. It's financial backing, which means pretty much, 'You gave them money, dude.'
You can call me a harlequin parade troupe squire as long as the game is made and I receive the reward tier.
On the subject of the money. You're a backer. Thats why they specifically call it that. It isn't a donation, or an investment or anything else. It's financial backing, which means pretty much, 'You gave them money, dude.'
You can call me a harlequin parade troupe squire as long as the game is made and I receive the reward tier.
That'd be pretty cool for the games that are putting people in the credits. give them different titles in the credits based on reward tier.
I think what we'll see out of this process is an appreciation of publishers and the role they perform.
Perhaps not really related, but I follow Larian Studio's official blog, which is run by a developer who hates publishers so very, very much they decided to publish their next game themselves.
I think what we'll see out of this process is an appreciation of publishers and the role they perform.
Perhaps not really related, but I follow Larian Studio's official blog, which is run by a developer who hates publishers so very, very much they decided to publish their next game themselves.
Those are really interesting posts. Also depressing. I feel his pain on the conference stuff. One event I attended charged $120 for a power strip w/ 8' cord and someone else had to plug it in.
Yeah, they doubled their money today, but I still don't think it's going to make it.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I find it hilarious that games like Republic, which honestly looks a bit like something a publisher may have wanted to publish perish and die on Kickstarter. Mean-while 2D turn based games, which are typically the plague to publishers are getting funded pretty easily. It's practically bizarro world at this point.
Personally I am hoping Wasteland 2, Shadowrun or Banner Saga works out. Even if all of them don't, if I get one good game out of that this whole Kickstarter thing would have been worth it. Because it would have been 1 game more than I would have got from traditional publishers that is for certain. I am not going to be shocked and indignant when some of these fail (I just hope they don't), because I think that's a certainty that someone is going to fail. But if a few get through and we get some turn based RPG goodness that would never have existed otherwise, I will be happy.
On the other hand, couldn't care less about "Let's make generic looking FPS number #4000", I can get that shit from publishers on a yearly basis. It's called CoD and it's very very very good at what it does and very fun. I don't need to kickstart someone (EG gamble) with my money to get something I'll already get spades of. Things like Republic don't interest me much either, but I honestly think they should consider going to a publisher with what they have - might be able to get it through.
Posts
Have we established that the internet is a horrible, horrible place yet? I mean seriously. I'm not expecting to see anything out of the kickstarters I've donated to for at least a year. I have faith they'll do a good job, and I'm excited to give my feedback, but beyond that I'm a patient man.
I think that's going to be the most telling thing that comes out of Double Fine's documentary - getting to see how douchey the internet really is, from the other side.
Wow. What a sad, angry, bitter man. Even if he has a few good points in there, the whole thing comes over as the rantings of a massive superiority complex.
This is pretty informative discussion, Al Lowe talks about his beginnings as a programmer, and how he came to Sierra Online.
There's already people in the Double Fine backer forum complaining about the art style of the TEST FOOTAGE. The character that they used was from some completely unrelated pre-existing art.
Gabe's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory remains truer than ever. (edit: I haven't checked, I'm just assuming that's the case)
I just signed up, and intend to view my contributions as donations first and foremost. If I'm able to give constructive feedback, that'd be awesome. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a group to uphold their end of whatever contribution incentives, but I'll definitely be erring on the side of avoiding acting like an entitled asshat.
Shadowrun is edging up to $1.5million ($6.5k short at the moment). 2 seems like it'd take a hell of a jump during these last 3 days and change, but it's damned impressive to see the community pull together and quadruple their original target (minus whatever cuts are necessary for Kickstarter, Amazon, paying to produce and mail the physical items, etc).
I mean I donate money all the time. Does this mean that I have a say on what direction cancer research goes or that the new children's hospital should totally have Greek columns?
No obviously not. As long as the money is used for it's stated intention (fund research on cancer, build a new hospital, or get a game I like the idea of developed) then as far as am concerned all is right with the world.
Hell, the Wasteland 2 guys can use some of that money to nuke a city if they believed it'll help make their game feel authentic. They're game developers, I am not, so I will trust that they have at least some idea of what they are doing.
To be honest, the fact that you actually get a copy of the game by helping to fund it is a nice bonus IMO. I'd probably still give money to some of these people (not all) even if it meant I'd have to still buy the game full price when it was released. Though I'm more than likely in the minority on that one. :P
I just hate it being called Shadowrun Returns; for some of us it never went away.
Also, I want to see how this goes once the iron cools down. There's all this talk about the first bomb and snatch and grab, but a lot of the big kickstarters we have seen have been riding on Doublefine's coattails. I personally know I'm way tapped out on money to invest. So how's it going to go once the buzz dies down?
Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of valid points in here but it's hard to tell because the whole thing comes across as rantings from an echo chamber. "I’d be surprised if there was any other industry where the failings of intellect and character I’ve listed above are quite as apparent as in the games industry." Really? Really? I mean maybe I'm biased from living in DC but Politics, Advocacy/Lobbying and Professional Fundraising all leap to mind. Big, steaming portions of the financial sector, professional sports, etc.
I also feel like he cherry picked his cases. Yes, Wasteland 2 should have had something more robust to show -- wireframes, gameplay concepts, possible UI sketches, whatever -- as it was a project that had been professionally pitched for years and years. I don't feel bad for putting my money in that bottle and throwing it into the sea for that project though. But kickstarters like FTL and Grim Dawn both launched with substantial development to show potential backers.
Dunno. I defer to RainbowDespair who linked the post approvingly. I'm certainly no expert on the sausage-making side of games. I like to think I'm not completely uninformed, but maybe I'm wrong. I do think the blogger doesn't take into account people who recognize the shortcomings of the pitch and back the project anyway because it might work out or because they want to be a part of something exciting or even out of a sense of appreciation for work some of the people have done before.
I don't especially like being called a sheep. But, you know, maybe "Baa!"
Steam profile.
Getting started with BATTLETECH: Part 1 / Part 2
As an aside; thus far, the average person has pledged ~$48 to SR. Now obviously some well funded folks dropped $10k+ for those top tier rewards, but it's amazing how many tens of thousands of people have ponied up nearly a triple-A title's cost well in advance of being anywhere remotely near release.
Just wish I could justify that USB dogtag set. I love the setting, but $140 is a bit rich for my blood at the moment.
I think the article made a lot of good points, but I'll admit it was probably too negative and more than a little condescending at parts.
I'll admit that personally, I go back and forth on the whole kickstarter thing. I fully believe that we could do a moderate-sized ($100k+) kickstarter in a year or two. The question isn't "can we?" so much as "should we?" Like with the CSTW PC port we only had 100-200 backers, most of which were either friends, other developers, or hardcore fans. Extremely supportive group. Something like the Banner Saga ended up with around 20k backers. Having 20k people feel like you owe them something is a lot of pressure to be under.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
I don't donate to for profit companies, I invest in them. I don't plan to be on any forums hate mailing the devs esp. as I plan to be out of country for the majority of the development, but as someone who invested in a for profit venture, I do feel I am entitled to giving reasonable feedback on the process, esp. as many Kickstarters explicitly advertise community involvement as part of the deal.
I've no doubt some people are acting like spoiled children, but I've always thought anti-entitlement tirades, aimed at everything from Kickstarted to games that outright don't boot at launch, were as bad or worse. The only group of video games players who are not actually entitled (without any negative connotation) to something, are pirates.
Haha, it's so true. "Man, Brian Fargo, what the fuck does that asshole know about development?"
Besides, there's more than a handful of projects that have in-engine videos, like Nekro.
Twitter
The more interesting point, at least to me, is the reminder that a lot of these kickstarter game projects are hinging on the "you fans get to do what those dumb publishers are too short-sighted to do, and create this awesome game" hook, which not only leaves those developers open to an economy-sized helping of the dreaded video gamer entitlement, but puts their reputation as developers on the line without the (at least rhetorical) safety net of being able to blame a publisher for any fan disappointment. See, for example, pretty much every single discussion of the supposedly-upcoming Obsidian kickstarter project.
It'll be interesting to see how the inevitable success, failure, vanishing, or moderate disappointment of the current crop of high-profile kickstarted games shapes future pitches.
Personally if I invest in something then I expect (or hope) for a financial gain. Not just make my money back, but to make more money.
With donating I give money to achieve a goal knowing full well that I will not get that money back, but I may get a t-shirt, bracelet, or a candy bar out of the deal. To me Kickstater falls in this category.
I do not think the Devs are actually beholden to the people who backed them. Which sounds assholish I know, but what I mean is as long as these Devs release the game (and send the rewards that were promised) then the agreement was satisfied. If the Devs invite the community to join in, then awesome. The Devs should politely listen to the backers, but ultimately have the final say. At least that is how I feel.
IMHO the only scenario in which the backers have a legitimate gripe is if they funded a game that was billd as a turn-based tactical rpg, but halfway through the Devs decided to change it to a FPS. I would be pissed at that.
You and I have different ideologies. In my mind I am not entitled to anything other than what rewards my 30-40 dollars entails.
Twitter
I think that if the kickstarter people have promised a forum where people can make themselves heard, then it's perfectly fair to use that forum to voice any concerns or whatever about the game. Part of the backer reward for Double Fine, and I'm pretty sure Wasteland 2, was that, for even a pledge of $1, you got access to the forums. So that was a promise to create these places to discuss the development of the game. And the devs have a slight obligation to listen to some of what people are saying. They may not agree, and they shouldn't try and compromise what they are doing just because a bunch of people got mad on the internet, but if a dev promises to listen to fan feedback, then they should at least consider what's said, even if it's stupid and they don't end up doing it. I think where the entitlement comes in is where backers think that all their feedback should be implemented. Rather than making suggestions, they make demands.
But I definately try Fargo and Schafer to filter out all the stupid stuff.
Steam // Secret Satan
Granted if the Kickstarter pledge level does say you get to provide feedback on the direction of the game, then you should get it. However, you're not investing in a project by using Kickstarter, you're purchasing a product and you're entitled to that product and not much else. Granted the actual product could range from anything to a simple thank you card to a party with the development group in some posh location, but it is still just a product.
I gave up on the article after he called Double Fine's game an RPG, and to be developed at a target of $400,000 (adventure and $300,000, the extra was for the video crew) and he completely ignored the Takedown project wasn't looking to make a game for $200,000. He may have had a point somewhere in that mess, but how can you take a guy seriously when he's pulling arguments from source material he all but directly admits he didn't read?
I think everyone reading that article would agree that the guy writing it is an asshole who is also somewhere on the autism spectrum, because he clearly has no idea how he is coming across. That said he's mostly right when he isn't making unsupported assertions about how dumb people are or the "real" state of the gaming industry. The kickstarter pitches people have bought into are way below that which a normal investor or publisher would expect from a game studio. I would expect most if not all of the games being developed to go grossly overbudget - for all of the evils publishers do, they play the role of adults in the room. With a bunch of developers suddenly freed from discipline and oversight and project management I would expect both the Shadowrun and Wasteland projects to come back in a year, hat-in-hand, with all sorts of excuses for why they blew their budget. Frankly the budgets they propose aren't reasonable for any sort of complete game. Shadowrun might come in at $2-$3mm, but for what Wasteland wants to do in terms of art asset and complexity, they will have big development costs to get over the finish line - bug squashing, optimization, art assets - they can't meet with their current total.
I think Brian Fargo knows this. What the kickstarter will let him do is get something like 80% of a finished project - he will then have no difficulty kickstarting (or getting from a publisher) the remaining $1-2$mm he'll need to finish the project and sell it. We'll see how Jordan Weisman does.
I think what we'll see out of this process is an appreciation of publishers and the role they perform.
The whole Wasteland 2 kickstarter, which he hounds on, is a perfect example of the exception rather than the rule.
The Banner Saga destroys his stressing of the gaming "myths and legends/idols". It could very well be leveraging on ignorance if the product doesn't get released or goes over-budget, but it's still a counter-point to his argument.
Second, apparently he believes a quality game can only be pushed out the door for more than 400,000, or maybe even millions (he's only clear that 400,000 for an RPG isn't enough)? What about all the games that came before the Kickstarter explosion, especially the non-Kickstarter games without a publisher. Bastion, Trine, Braid, Star Ruler, Legend of Grimrock (granted, after, but still indie), World of Goo, and so on... I don't know how much any of those cost to make, especially if you calculate the time spent in development when the developers may have had another job or at home overtime, but they all didn't take millions of dollars. Maybe if his intention was to focus on Wasteland 2 rather than hold it as an example he wouldn't be a complete idiot, but his beef goes against Kickstarter as a whole rather than one or two projects.
Perhaps not really related, but I follow Larian Studio's official blog, which is run by a developer who hates publishers so very, very much they decided to publish their next game themselves.
It's an interesting insight into why:
A) Developers might really hate publishers
No, not through Kickstarter you don't.
It's donations and the site is pretty crystal clear about it.
That said I will admit I wish for all these game Kickstarters they'd include a FAQ along the lines of
Q: Hey, so I'm donating, that means I get a say in the final product, right?
A: Absolutely not! You get zero say, maybe even negative say! Unless of course we think you have a good idea, then you might actually end up with some form of say. But really you'll probably never know if that was us listening to your idea or just coming up with it on our own (in which case high-five we're both awesome with the idea-coming-up-with thing).
Q: What if I think my idea is super awesome, shouldn't you use it then?
A: Absolutely not! Unless it actually is super awesome of course in which case see previous quesiton. Anyways if, while you might think you have the best idea in the history of ideas, the reality is your idea is terrible? Well, since we think it's dumb? Ain't happening. On the upside we promise not to spend your donation on flying to your house, patting you on the head and informing you how adorable your horrible horrible idea was in the most condescending voice we can muster.
And they don't need to include those in the FAQ. Nowhere is it even implied that backers get input on a product outside of specific projects where they state it in the rewards.
Interesting read but his way of trying to abbreviate money makes my eyes bleed. (2MUS$ The fuck?)
Steam // Secret Satan
Feels like the right word to me.
I'm having a hard time distinguishing it from PBS or Public Radio collection drives. They have a stated goal to stay on the air. They give out rewards the more you donate. And in return, you get a promise they will create (license) new content.
I've never heard anybody who donated to PBS call themselves an investor even in a nontraditional sense.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
That (very rarely) is the case on Kickstarter. Here, you're pre-ordering a product and there is a specific goal that has to be reached. And that cash directly funds its production. Again, this is how it works in most cases, you get badly set up ones that want to offer you bits of unrelated crud rather than the product, but they don't succeed.
IndieGoGo also is more like donation, because there you give the money regardless or whether they hit the target (in most cases, they've recently added a proper system for campaigns that aren't just scams)
There's a chance you could get paddled.
As for the actual content of the article: Indie games tend to be a lot cheaper, because they aren't going for photo realistic ideas, they aren't changing content all the time when a publisher comes in and says they don't like X or Y, and an 18 month development cycle with an actual professional team is actually a really long time. Especially if you have the creative groundwork done.
His doom and gloom prophecies about the teams coming back to ask for more money is pretty amusing, as well, considering he just kind of pulled that factoid out of his ass. I wonder if he likes to prophecy mayan doomsdays in his spare time.
On the subject of the money. You're a backer. Thats why they specifically call it that. It isn't a donation, or an investment or anything else. It's financial backing, which means pretty much, 'You gave them money, dude.'
You can call me a harlequin parade troupe squire as long as the game is made and I receive the reward tier.
That'd be pretty cool for the games that are putting people in the credits. give them different titles in the credits based on reward tier.
Thanks for linking to this. I had read some of these before but couldn't find his blog again.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
(@lowlylowlycook, check your PMs, man.)
Those are really interesting posts. Also depressing. I feel his pain on the conference stuff. One event I attended charged $120 for a power strip w/ 8' cord and someone else had to plug it in.
Steam profile.
Getting started with BATTLETECH: Part 1 / Part 2
It could be too late to matter though.
Personally I am hoping Wasteland 2, Shadowrun or Banner Saga works out. Even if all of them don't, if I get one good game out of that this whole Kickstarter thing would have been worth it. Because it would have been 1 game more than I would have got from traditional publishers that is for certain. I am not going to be shocked and indignant when some of these fail (I just hope they don't), because I think that's a certainty that someone is going to fail. But if a few get through and we get some turn based RPG goodness that would never have existed otherwise, I will be happy.
On the other hand, couldn't care less about "Let's make generic looking FPS number #4000", I can get that shit from publishers on a yearly basis. It's called CoD and it's very very very good at what it does and very fun. I don't need to kickstart someone (EG gamble) with my money to get something I'll already get spades of. Things like Republic don't interest me much either, but I honestly think they should consider going to a publisher with what they have - might be able to get it through.
Hey, I was really interested in that game, I was just like no since my iPhone can't run games for shit. It was on Kickstarter? And on PC?
Goddamnit Kickstarter, you're milking me dry and I can't even complain about it. Pledged.