Kickstarter Is Out Of Control

[irishScott]

How do they plan to release Shadowrun in time for January, 2013 deadline they have written there? They don't even show any gameplay videos, or at least are very mumb about providing details about the game. I canceled my pledge because I don't see how they could provide a deep, rich experience in such a short time. (Not even a year!)

You're thinking too much like a big AAA title.

1. Shadowrun returns is a 2D, top-down RPG.
2. The basic gameplay is well established, although they've probably augmented it somewhat.
3. The studio will likely focus 100% on this project, with the ability to cut out much of the administrative, bureaucratic overhead that comes from dealing with a publisher. As other developers have said, it's "pure development".

 

[crownjules]

I can't see how KS is a bad idea. The writer's ideas are preposterous. The big publishing companies are not going to rely on an unreliable source of funding to develop their own games. You're not guaranteed to raise the funding you ask for on KS. I seriously doubt a big name publisher that burns tens of millions of dollars on developing/marketing a game would raise the required funds they need via KS.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

How many projects fail on kickstarter? I saw this interesting one for reflective bike decals.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tonky/rydesafe-reflective-bike-decals

I like the name. Seems more fitting for a motorcycle though.

 

[Gheris]

I think Kickstarter is great and will also send out a message to the bigger companies. People will pay for quality over the crap churned out every year by many of the big game companies.

The Author of this article assumes too much in my opinion.

 

[ichy]

Uh, no. A big part of the kickstarter appeal is KNOWING who is going to be making the game I'm interested.

This. Wasteland 2 got my money because Brian Fargo stakes his reputation on it.

 

[irishScott]

You know, looking at that site, OP: why do you read this crap? Site has an average of < 3 comments per article.

 

[nanobreath]

I would agree that Kickstarter is out of control in the regards to the number of gaming projects on Kickstarter are growing nearly exponentially. However I would make the opposite argument that this is a good thing, not bad. More games means more variety. I can then put my money forward to the exact game type and developer I want.

I think the big thing the writer wrongly assumes is that the developers are in this only to make money. Now that they have made their money already from pre-orders he argues they have no incentive to make a good game. On the contrary lots of these game makers are artists. Artists generally care about their finished product. People that share the artists vision contribute and as a result get a product they want. Also the people getting millions of dollars are not no name people, but instead big established icons of the industry.

 

[mindcycle]

You know, looking at that site, OP: why do you read this crap? Site has an average of < 3 comments per article.

I don't actually read that site, I just ran across it on n4g.com and thought it would make for a good discussion about this topic. Like most of you, I personally don't agree that the projects currently showing up on kickstarter are in any way bad for gaming or anything like that. The only real concern that came across my mind was big publishers exploiting something like this and ruining it for the small guys.

 

[irishScott]

I don't actually read that site, I just ran across it on n4g.com and thought it would make for a good discussion about this topic. Like most of you, I personally don't agree that the projects currently showing up on kickstarter are in any way bad for gaming or anything like that. The only real concern that came across my mind was big publishers exploiting something like this and ruining it for the small guys.

I'd actually hope the big publishers turn to crowd-sourcing. It gives them more accountability to the players, something sorely lacking in today's industry. I don't see how that would crowd out the small guys either unless kickstarter starts discriminating ("favored listings" and such).

 

[mindcycle]

I'd actually hope the big publishers turn to crowd-sourcing. It gives them more accountability to the players, something sorely lacking in today's industry. I don't see how that would crowd out the small guys either unless kickstarter starts discriminating ("favored listings" and such).

What I can see happening is big publishers dumping their games on there to maximize end profits for shareholders, using large sums of marketing money to draw people to the pages, then still releasing piles of crap like normal. That could potentially ruin the whole benefit of using a service like this to gain attention for smaller unknown games developers as they'll be massively overshadowed at that point.

 

[irishScott]

What I can see happening is big publishers dumping their games on there to maximize end profits for shareholders, using large sums of marketing money to draw people to the pages, then still releasing piles of crap like normal. That could potentially ruin the whole benefit of using a service like this to gain attention for smaller unknown games developers as they'll be massively overshadowed at that point.

Well if they do then I imagine most kickstarter backers will cease backing those companies making crap. That's the thing about kickstarter, you're not just "pre-ordering" the game, you're "backing" the game. It may in some cases amount to a very early pre-order, but there is a difference. A person who pre-orders something and is disappointing says "oh well, bad purchase." A person who invests in something that ends up disappointing says "What? And I helped fund this crap? Screw that!".

That's part of the beauty of kickstarter. It's capitalism at its finest. If the product displeases, future funding for that entity will be cut by popular demand.

 

[thespyder]

I am personally of the opinion that this is merely an additional business model in the mix. And if anything, I think it will cause the big names to actually come clean and start flying right.

If, for instance, EA were to fund something through Kickstarter, and tried to pull the same crap they always do, I am betting that they wouldn't get a second pass.

And in the mean time, we will (hopefully) get some really good quality games like Wasteland 2 out of the deal.

Now my major concern is if someone actually buys out Kickstarter and starts requiring a commission, and creative control on new games. Please, please, please don't let that happen (I am looking at YOU EA).

 

[BoberFett]

Some of you are so defensive that you can't even see the potential for abuse. The quality of the projects created by this first round will determine the future for Kickstarter based projects. If a bunch of developers decide that they've already got the money in the bank and put out a shoddy product just to fulfill the minimum requirements they set out originally, it will make people wary of the whole service, not just future projects by the offending developer.

And how would you know if a big publisher is using KS or not? What's to stop EA from delivering a poor product through a brand new startup shell company any differently than an indie developer using this to deliver a half-baked product.

 

[BoberFett]

That's part of the beauty of kickstarter. It's capitalism at its finest. If the product displeases, future funding for that entity will be cut by popular demand.

What entity? You mean that cool new developer Kickass Gaming, Inc.?*







*A wholly owned subsidiary of EA, but you'll never know that...

 

[DaveSimmons]

And how would you know if a big publisher is using KS or not? What's to stop EA from delivering a poor product through a brand new startup shell company any differently than an indie developer using this to deliver a half-baked product.

For any publicly-traded company they'd have to disclose this to shareholders, after which it would be front-page new on every gaming site and spread throughout the intrawebs.

Also, $2 million sounds like a lot of money to us, but to Activision or EA it wouldn't be enough money to make the scam worth their effort.

That's one reason why they refuse to fund niche games like Wasteland 2 -- it won't make them enough money to matter.

 

[Craig234]

How about when a project gets the money and then folds?

 

[DaveSimmons]

How about when a project gets the money and then folds?

That will almost certainly happen eventually. Someone will craft a plausible pitch with good-looking graphics, collect the money then just take it and run.

That's going to be a risk with random people, but much less so with industry veterans. The people who did that might never be able to get work again.

However: With EA you give them $60 for a bland rehash. If you spend $60 on 3-4 KS projects and one of them fails you're probably way ahead.

 

[crownjules]

Or such people will get slapped with criminal charges of fraud. It's not exactly legal to say "Give me money to do X" and take it for something other than X.

 

[thespyder]

For any publicly-traded company they'd have to disclose this to shareholders, after which it would be front-page new on every gaming site and spread throughout the intrawebs.

Also, $2 million sounds like a lot of money to us, but to Activision or EA it wouldn't be enough money to make the scam worth their effort.

That's one reason why they refuse to fund niche games like Wasteland 2 -- it won't make them enough money to matter.

More or less this. if the "Start up" price tag is too high, it is suspect. And Big names like EA will demand that high price tag because they have a lot of overhead to cover.

Besides which, anyone who invests in a start up project that doesn't do the research beforehand might learn a valuable lesson. And I think that most people do the research. Or am I just being naive?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Good point. Also, iif there is something odd about the project then everyone doesn't need to find that out for themselves, it only takes one person to dig up the dirt and spread the news.

 

[gothamhunter]

I'm working on an old-school SNES RPG that's mentioned in a couple of my other threads. If I Kickstartered it would you guys fund it?

 

[thespyder]

I'm working on an old-school SNES RPG that's mentioned in a couple of my other threads. If I Kickstartered it would you guys fund it?

I'll donate $0.02. but just so you know, I have friends in low places. And if the game ain't worth the money, they will come and take your kneecaps.

 

[gorobei]

kickstarter is just a new/different source of funding for developers. i does threaten the current publisher advantages in negotiating with developers, but i suspect we may see some hybrid models where KS funds are matched by investor groups.

the 300k$ original goal for double fine is probably enough for an old school 2D point click adventure game, but you wont see many 3d singleplayer epics or mainstream shooters being made for less than several million dollars. there are just too many assets to create.

the real question is what happens when a dev runs through the original funding raised and still hasnt completed the game(which happens a lot regardless of who is backing the game). do they ask for another round of KS, do they bring in a big name publisher, do they release the code to open source if no white knight is found and the project is about to fold?

 

[irishScott]

What entity? You mean that cool new developer Kickass Gaming, Inc.?*







*A wholly owned subsidiary of EA, but you'll never know that...

Yes, you're absolutely right. Now go play with the other conspiracy theory kids, we have a great, big, red sandbox just for you! Play nice!

 

[BoberFett]

Right, because EA and Activision are never underhanded...

Big companies who publish for small developers could see this as an interest free loan. They'd be stupid to ignore millions of dollars in free money. It's a pre-order system where they get all the cash up front.