Support NeoGAF

SolarPowered · Oct 21, 2015

I think it'd be good for a meatier article regarding game development costs to have it's own thread so that people not familiar with the Indivisible Indiegogo campaign can share their thoughts and discuss whether or not these misconceptions are giving crowdfunding a bad reputation. There is a lot more to read at the link below. We even get a little into the issue of publishers and demos/prototypes as a proof of concept.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-10-19-skullgirls-dev-explains-why-indivisible-costs-usd3-5m

Earlier this month Skullgirls developer Lab Zero Games launched an Indiegogo campaign for a new action-RPG called Indivisible. The campaign is struggling as in its first two weeks it's only raised $349,920 towards its $1.5m goal. That's only 23 per cent, and it has 27 days left to make the rest.

Lab Zero suspects the lack of funds have been spawned by a handful of misconceptions regarding how much a game costs to develop, what Lab Zero's arrangement with publisher 505 Games is, and the difference between making a demo and a full game.

Lab Zero's Mike Zaimont addressed all these matters very frankly on YouTuber JBgolden's stream over the weekend.

"After a lot of negotiation we were able to convince 505 to be nice and put in $2m of the $3.5m that we need, which is slightly over half, and take care of a lot of the other development costs like localisation and testing and marketing and stuff," he explained. "That means the actual $3.5m can go toward game development. Not extra expenses like backer rewards and the things we needed it to go toward with Skullgirls."

"They are a publisher. They are not our publisher," Zaimont added. "They are not acting in the traditional publisher role of funding the entire thing and taking the entire profit. They have given us a pretty dang good deal on the backend."

One of the stipulations to this agreement is that Lab Zero still needs to raise the other $1.5 on its own. "They are not putting in money unless we can raise this money," Zaimont said.

"That prototype was the result of about three months and one week of super intense work by a very small team of people," Zaimont explained. "That does not translate into an entire RPG." He noted that the prototype has no cutscenes, no implementation of a plot, and only one unfinished level with a mere four playable characters. The final game will have "way the hell more."

"Having a prototype does not mean that the game is getting made in any way," he said. "It means that instead of spending three months making a campaign and trying to convince you that we could do something cool, we spent three months making something that we think is cool that you could play."

"I'm kind of annoyed that so many crowdfunding drives at this point have had like 90 per cent of their funding from investors already and have just used it as an interest gauge, because that basically killed our ability to say 'we don't have a publisher and this is not an interest gauge.'"

What do you guys think? Are full fledged demos/prototypes the way of the future when asking backers to buy into the vision or should campaigns go all in on marketing and conceptual work hoping that the final product turns out as promised? Have crowdfunding campaigns influenced your impression of how cheap or expensive game development can be? You can check the prototype below for yourself to see whether or not prototypes are up your alley for crowdfunding campaigns after all.

http://indivisiblegame.com/

Kintaro · Oct 21, 2015

I think, in the case of this game, they have handled it the best they can. The demo is great. The animation is awesome and we know Lab Zero is great. That said, they chose Indiegogo as their platform (which takes money right away and refunds later if the project fails) and 1.5m is a staggering amount for a project like this (original IP and niche genre). Right off the bat, the goal feels so far away. I mean, it's not impossible. Battletech has raised a ton but that is a known, beloved IP from a dev fresh off Shadowrun.

As for the rest? I think some of the other strange happenings around other crowdfunded titles have soured some people which may hurt support.

I wish them the best. T-T

Cosmo Clock 21 · Oct 21, 2015

Kintaro said:
they chose Indiegogo as their platform (which takes money right away and refunds later if the project fails)

was addressed in MikeZ's video. The advantages with this method is that 1) Lab Zero gets money disbursed immediately when the crowdfunding meets its goal, instead of having to wait until the end of the campaign (because Kickstarter only takes funds at that time), and that 2) immediately charging when the pledge happens reduces the risk of overdrafting or chargebacks from occuring.

FoneBone · Oct 21, 2015

I'm not saying it hasn't hurt them, but the conclusion that "misconceptions" about their budget needs are the primary reasons their campaign is flagging seem both dubious and condescending.

@MUWANdo · Oct 21, 2015

Deja vu, man.

Sou Da · Oct 21, 2015

FoneBone said:
I'm not saying it hasn't hurt them, but the conclusion that "misconceptions" about their budget needs are the primary reasons their campaign is flagging seem both dubious and condescending.

What do you think the primary reason is?

Basileus777 · Oct 21, 2015

FoneBone said:
I'm not saying it hasn't hurt them, but the conclusion that "misconceptions" about their budget needs are the primary reasons their campaign is flagging seem both dubious and condescending.

Yeah, that line of reasoning doesn't seem particularly well founded.

Ravidrath · Oct 21, 2015

FoneBone said:
I'm not saying it hasn't hurt them, but the conclusion that "misconceptions" about their budget needs are the primary reasons their campaign is flagging seem both dubious and condescending.

There are a lot of assumptions being made about our budget because of Bloodstained. Most people don't know that Bloodstained's started budget was closer to $5M, because the goal was $500k. So I see a lot of "Why do they need 3X what Bloodstained did?"

You can read in the Indivisible thread on here, too, where people say we're lying about needing the money and that 505 will just fund us anyway. Why? Because that's what Inafune did with Red Ash. So obviously we're trying the same thing.

We go out of our way to dispell these misconceptions in the campaign text, but... most people don't even read it.

Cellsai · Oct 21, 2015

Re: the IGG funding reasons.
More and more I'm seeing people say "I would totally fund this, but it's on IndieGoGo".
IGG really need to do something about this apparently shaky reputation they have.

It's a shame that despite L0 having all these reasons for picking IGG, that reputation and average people not understanding how IGG works is causing so much damage to the campaign.

Of course the general "lol. Games don't cost 1.5 million" attitude is a whole different problem too.

Pachinko · Oct 21, 2015

I think the shame here is that if they'd gone the traditional BS kickstarter route and put up a fancy video with a dozen stretch goals and re-tweets/facebook mentions, instagram fan art etc etc. They'd have probably hit their goal without too much trouble.

They could have come out and said "hey we can build this game for reals with just 250,000$ yo" and had a stretch goal at 500,00$, 750,00$ ,1 million$ , 1.25 million $ and 1.5 million $.

Doing this would cost extra money though, they'd need to hire a PR group similar to the one used in Bloodstained and Mighty Number 9 to keep the social media campaign going non-stop for 31 days. Then there's the fact that kickstarter takes a larger cut than indie go-go and having plenty of backer rewards that can nullify as much as 30% of the money received.

It's kind of an idiotic system really, that honesty is actually a bad policy. People keep bitching that kickstarters aren't transparent enough, that stuff like mighty number 9 with all of it's delays is a huge setback but in fact, something like Mighty Number 9 barely got made with the money from KS. It was only really primed for proper release after deep silver threw in more money (perhaps another 5 million ?). That game is due out on 7 platforms and 3 pc OS's.

Basically games are expensive and if you tell people you need 5 million dollars to build a good one they'll jump at the cost and wont' feel like that goal can ever be achieved and thus - won't throw any money down because it sounds impossible. Tell them you need 300,000$ though and they think "okay , yeah that sounds reasonable". I mean if you get 6000 people to throw in 50$ each , boom you have 300K.

1.5 million though, that's 5 times as many 50$ backers. 30,000 people. I'd love it if kickstarter forced at least some extra transparency in their goals though - the project can be funded for X $ but it needs to be spelled out clearly that at this level the game in question is more of a proof of concept or a fancy demo with 1 stage.

Going forward I think crowd funded games will have some interesting problems to overcome.

Kintaro · Oct 21, 2015

Cosmo Clock 21 said:
was addressed in MikeZ's video. The advantages with this method is that 1) Lab Zero gets money disbursed immediately when the crowdfunding meets its goal, instead of having to wait until the end of the campaign (because Kickstarter only takes funds at that time), and that 2) immediately charging when the pledge happens reduces the risk of overdrafting or chargebacks from occuring.

Yeah, I get that. The disadvantage to ME, the person they are asking from, is that it's taken out immediately. I don't get to plan when its taken out (like I do with KS) so either I have it or a don't. Then I have to wait for a refund if its the project fails. What is I don't get my refund? That's a potential pain in the ass.

To the people they are requesting the money from? It's a disadvantage. And the people are the most important cog here.

hawk2025 · Oct 21, 2015

I'm staying positive!

I understand the usual crowdfunding curve, but 25% with 25 days to go is a ways, but it's still very much possible. This article will also certainly give the campaign some more attention.

C'mon people, just try out the prototype

Kintaro said:
Yeah, I get that. The disadvantage to ME, the person they are asking from, is that it's taken out immediately. I don't get to plan when its taken out (like I do with KS) so either I have it or a don't. Then I have to wait for a refund if its the project fails. What is I don't get my refund? That's a potential pain in the ass.

To the people they are requesting the money from? It's a disadvantage. And the people are the most important cog here.

I agree in general terms, and I think this is important to point out. We understand at this point the why, but we may also want to ask the question if it's worth it nevertheless due to potential lost revenues due to skittish backers.

Dio · Oct 21, 2015

FoneBone said:
I'm not saying it hasn't hurt them, but the conclusion that "misconceptions" about their budget needs are the primary reasons their campaign is flagging seem both dubious and condescending.

It's the reason why people flipped their shit about Squigly in Skullgirls, another one of their titles. People generally don't know or don't want to bother reading WHY something costs the price it does, they'd rather talk about how they could totally do that in their basement for 20 dollars.

Nappuccino · Oct 21, 2015

Cellsai said:
Re: the IGG funding reasons.
More and more I'm seeing people say "I would totally fund this, but it's on IndieGoGo".
IGG really need to do something about this apparently shaky reputation they have.

It's a shame that despite L0 having all these reasons for picking IGG, that reputation and average people not understanding how IGG works is causing so much damage to the campaign.

Of course the general "lol. Games don't cost 1.5 million" attitude is a whole different problem too.

1.5 mill seems so reasonable compared to so many other price points. It's just a lot to put on fans in advance.

@MUWANdo · Oct 21, 2015

Cellsai said:
Re: the IGG funding reasons.
More and more I'm seeing people say "I would totally fund this, but it's on IndieGoGo".
IGG really need to do something about this apparently shaky reputation they have.

IGG's solution was to work out deals with proven, trustworthy companies like Lab Zero in order to attract attention and lend credibility to their own service, but I think everyone underestimated just how much prejudice exists against IGG (or, more to the point, how difficult it is to engage with people whose brains turn off the moment they read the word "Indiegogo").

charlequin · Oct 21, 2015

Sou Da said:
What do you think the primary reason is?

Platform selection.

Cellsai said:
Re: the IGG funding reasons.
More and more I'm seeing people say "I would totally fund this, but it's on IndieGoGo".
IGG really need to do something about this apparently shaky reputation they have.

They have a shaky reputation because they have a bad website, the pledging experience is dramatically less friendly for the backer, and they made a big point of distinguishing themselves with a funding method ("flex funding") that feels fundamentally sketchy. They also have less curation than Kickstarter which isn't necessarily a problem on its own but combines with the other issues to hurt their reputation further.

@MUWANdo said:
IGG's solution was to work out deals with proven, trustworthy companies like Lab Zero in order to attract attention and lend credibility to their own service, but I think everyone underestimated just how much prejudice exists against IGG (or, more to the point, how difficult it is to engage with people whose brains turn off the moment they read the word "Indiegogo").

IGG's deals were also supposed to include a large marketing push on their side, which I think we can now say with relative certainty is insignificant or non-existent.

Kintaro · Oct 21, 2015

May I also point out the other elephant in the room? Timing. With a platform that takes money immediately, a person may balk because of the amount of awesome games coming out in the next month. So, a pledge of $30+ is $30 less they have towards a Call of Duty, etc. So, that could also play into things a little bit here.

Sou Da · Oct 21, 2015

charlequin said:
Platform selection.

My thoughts exactly.

They have a shaky reputation because they have a bad website, the pledging experience is dramatically less friendly for the backer, and they made a big point of distinguishing themselves with a funding method ("flex funding") that feels fundamentally sketchy. They also have less curation than Kickstarter which isn't necessarily a problem on its own but combines with the other issues to hurt their reputation further.

IGG's deals were also supposed to include a large marketing push on their side, which I think we can now say with relative certainty is insignificant or non-existent.

I didn't know about this though, I thought this was a simple "I don't want use something unfamiliar, put it on KS instead".

@MUWANdo · Oct 21, 2015

charlequin said:
IGG's deals were also supposed to include a large marketing push on their side, which I think we can now say with relative certainty is insignificant or non-existent.

I always understood the "marketing push" to mean "we will feature you prominently on our site" which, yeah, isn't worth shit, but I don't think they misrepresented the amount of coverage they were going to provide. Maybe they promised more or maybe LZ overestimated them, I have no idea.

charlequin · Oct 21, 2015

Dio said:
It's the reason why people flipped their shit about Squigly in Skullgirls, another one of their titles. People generally don't know or don't want to bother reading WHY something costs the price it does, they'd rather talk about how they could totally do that in their basement for 20 dollars.

I just don't see any particular evidence that these misconceptions actually affect pledge levels. The target demographic for crowdfunding isn't cheap people or people with high risk-aversion for small purchases; it's people who have free disposable income and are willing to risk it on projects that they believe in, knowing that there's a non-zero chance their pledge is wasted. I don't see a lot of people in this category skipping a pledge because they think someone else is going to do it for them.

@MUWANdo said:
I always understood the "marketing push" to mean "we will feature you prominently on our site" which, yeah, isn't worth shit, but I don't think they misrepresented the amount of coverage they were going to provide. Maybe they promised more or maybe LZ overestimated them, I have no idea.

If it meant "we will feature you prominently on our site" then they definitely didn't deliver it, given that I went to the IGG page several times during the first few days of the campaign and had to dig through random menus just to find the project.

Sou Da said:
I didn't know about this though, I thought this was a simple "I don't want use something unfamiliar, put it on KS instead".

Nope. As people have alluded to in this thread, just the funding timing (i.e. immediately at pledge time, rather than at close of project only if the project succeeds) alone is a big obstacle to many people.

blakep267 · Oct 21, 2015

Was anybody else turned off by the estimated delivery date Like I guess that's standard time but like I don't like to wait that long when I pledge for stuff

Tinfoilhatsron · Oct 21, 2015

charlequin said:
I just don't see any particular evidence that these misconceptions actually affect pledge levels. The target demographic for crowdfunding isn't cheap people or people with high risk-aversion for small purchases; it's people who have free disposable income and are willing to risk it on projects that they believe in, knowing that there's a non-zero chance their pledge is wasted. I don't see a lot of people in this category skipping a pledge because they think someone else is going to do it for them.

These misconceptions may color the view of those who do have the disposable income avaliable to invest in the kickstarter. It may influence someone to think that the developers are "greedy" and therefore may take away money to give it something more "worthy".

petghost · Oct 21, 2015

They obviously have a very distinctive animated style but I wonder why they didn't try something different this time knowing how much cost and effort it took to produce it for sg.

Ravidrath · Oct 21, 2015

blakep267 said:
Was anybody else turned off by the estimated delivery date Like I guess that's standard time but like I don't like to wait that long when I pledge for stuff

...How am I supposed to address this?

Games take time to make. And you admit that it's a pretty standard amount of time.

And we've had tons of people come out of the woodwork, saying that we should've lied about our goal and tried to make it up in the stretch goals.

Is this something else we should've lied about in order to make people feel comfortable contributing?

petghost said:
They obviously have a very distinctive animated style but I wonder why they didn't try something different this time knowing how much cost and effort it took to produce it for sg.

Because this is what our staff does, and we're the best at it.

And what else would we try? Training people to do anything else, building a new pipeline, etc. would likely cost more than enough in lost time and productivity to offset any potential savings.

And would likely result in the game looking like everything else out there, and not stand out at all.

Anjin M · Oct 21, 2015

I'm just going to hang here until everyone notices that Ravidrath dropped into the thread.

edit:// well that was fast

blakep267 · Oct 21, 2015

Ravidrath said:
...How am I supposed to address this?

Games take time to make. And you admit that it's a pretty standard amount of time.

And we've had tons of people come out of the woodwork, saying that we should've lied about our goal and tried to make it up in the stretch goals.

Is this something else we should've lied about in order to make people feel comfortable contributing?

I'm not attacking you guys or anything. It's just that me personally, I'd be more inclined to pledge for a game that for example started its page today and had an estimated date of Fall 2016 etc. ( I'm not saying a game starting from scratch, but a game that's been worked on for some time already and needs an extra push) that's just my mindset on it

SerRodrik · Oct 21, 2015

blakep267 said:
Was anybody else turned off by the estimated delivery date Like I guess that's standard time but like I don't like to wait that long when I pledge for stuff

Any game Kickstarter I've ever backed has taken that long, if not longer to come out. Even if their original target date was sooner, it gets delayed. At some point, that's just how long most games need to get made. I mean, I understand not wanting to wait that long after paying for something (only half of the games I've ever backed have actually come out so far) but there's not really anything to be done about it, and at least they're being upfront.

BreezyLimbo · Oct 21, 2015

charlequin said:
Nope. As people have alluded to in this thread, just the funding timing (i.e. immediately at pledge time, rather than at close of project only if the project succeeds) alone is a big obstacle to many people.

This is what turned me sour on it. I enjoyed Skull Girls back in the days, and I was like 'Oh cool a platform RPG' when I saw the Game Grumps video of them playing the demo.

And then I saw it was on IndieGoGo. I thought to myself, 'that's not a big red flag!'. But then I saw they wanted 1.5 million, which is a huge amount. And I read up, they already had a Publisher, and I just got a bunch of red flags in my head .-.;

Not saying they're untrustworthy, but it's just a culmination of things that make me do a double take at it.

Dio · Oct 21, 2015

Ravidrath said:
Because this is what our staff does, and we're the best at it.

And what else would we try? Training people to do anything else, building a new pipeline, etc. would likely cost more than enough in lost time and productivity to offset any potential savings.

And would likely result in the game looking like everything else out there, and not stand out at all.

Just so you know, I am really really happy you guys exist. Animation's my passion and it really pains me to see so many games using flash-style/spine/tweening/paperdoll animation because they can't afford the alternative - and the fact that you guys are still doing it is an inspiration, really.

In fact, I recently wrote a paper when I was in my Master's that covered Skullgirls as an example of a smaller studio being able to do hand-drawn 2D animation without completely ridiculously going over budget (King of Fighters 12/13, for a character in those titles it takes over a year and a half to get a single character's animation work done alongside the others via commissioning 3D models, handpainting shadows, and is a meticulous rotoscoping/hand-drawn hybrid.)

Robert at Zeboyd Games · Oct 21, 2015

Sou Da said:
What do you think the primary reason is?

Use of Indiegogo
Lacks a strong low tier reward. Many crowdfunding campaigns make a substantial amount of money from something in the $10-$20 range. Hardly anyone is choosing anything in the under $30 tier on this project.
Very high goal for a fairly niche combination of subgenres.
No stretch goals to maintain momentum & interest as the campaign proceeds (this was a problem we ran into ourselves - we got our goal pretty quickly but then donations dropped drastically since we wouldn't do concrete stretch goals).

With all that said, the campaign has slowly but relatively steadily been raising money. If it's able to pick up the pace even a little (say an average of 2%/day) then it would get close enough to the goal by the last week that a final surge would be quite possible and it would make the goal in the last 48 hours.

I've been thinking about this a lot since this project went up and I think we may be seeing that having a public prototype might actually not be very useful to getting funding. The problem is that by putting the prototype out there, you've already played your hand at the start of the campaign which makes it very hard to maintain interest as the campaign continues. You've already let people play your game - what more can you reveal within a month unless the game is almost done already? Also, a playable prototype asks a lot out of people - you're asking somebody to download & then spend 30 minutes on a game that might not ever get created to evaluate if they want to spend money to support the project. That's 30 minutes that your average PC gamer could instead spend on playing a game they picked up in a bundle or in a Steam sale that's in their backlog. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who play the prototype would have contributed anyway if there was no prototype.

It might be more effective to create a prototype-worth of stuff but keep it private - use the prototype to create materials to market the game (like animated gifs, your pitch video, live streams where you invite people to come watch you play through part of the prototype, etc.). I.e. something like the recent Battle Chasers Kickstarter campaign - they had a ton of really high quality assets on their page that made the game look very polished & very far along.

Ravidrath · Oct 21, 2015

Dio said:
Just so you know, I am really really happy you guys exist. Animation's my passion and it really pains me to see so many games using flash-style/spine/tweening/paperdoll animation because they can't afford the alternative - and the fact that you guys are still doing it is an inspiration, really.

Hate to break it to you, but we did have ZONE animate the boss in Flash.

We obviously worked with him to get it to look not-Flash and fit everything else, but a sprite that detailed and large just isn't feasible to animate without some kind of assistance.

And of course we have ideas for much larger bosses, too.

Robert at Zeboyd Games said:
No stretch goals to maintain momentum.

Every bit of advice we've received is to keep Stretch Goals out of the mix until you're nearing your goal. Often times they can end up discouraging contribution because it looks like you're getting too far ahead of yourself, or because they do something to fragment the contributors, such as new platforms, more languages, etc.

I think we have some really awesome stretch goals planned, but there really isn't anything to gain by trotting them out this soon.

Dio · Oct 21, 2015

Ravidrath said:
Hate to break it to you, but we did have ZONE animate the boss in Flash.

We obviously worked with him to get it to look not-Flash and fit everything else, but a sprite that detailed and large just isn't feasible to animate without some kind of assistance.

And of course we have ideas for much larger bosses, too.

Oh no, no, I'm not referring to the fact that Flash was used. Flash is just a program that you can do stuff in including hand-drawn 2D animation, I'm referring to the 'Flash look' - hell, UbiArt is fantastic at masking that effect. I just mean it's really jarring when you can really tell it's tweened and there are quite a few 2D games coming out these days that it's so obvious and it hurts, really.

Hastati · Oct 21, 2015

It looks like Lab Zero has been let down by Indiegogo, unfortunately. But I wouldn't waste too much time trying to clear up individual misconceptions and just do everything possible to get the word out. Don't let the outliers get to you, I think success is still possible, just have to keep rolling.

Also, changing the art style to match current industry qa tested standards is a terrible thought. Your artistic voice is wonderful and refreshing, and is one of the reasons that I have backed you.

I mean, isn't one of the points of crowdfunding to help fund projects that don't speak broadly, but have their own unique identity? Shouldn't it be? There needs to be some way for art house projects to exist, not everything needs speak to the masses.

charlequin · Oct 21, 2015

Tinfoilhatsron said:
These misconceptions may color the view of those who do have the disposable income avaliable to invest in the kickstarter. It may influence someone to think that the developers are "greedy" and therefore may take away money to give it something more "worthy".

We're off pretty far in hypothetical waters here. What makes this apply to one project and not another? If people think developers are so "greedy" then why are other projects seeing record-breaking funding levels? Without a deeper dive into how exactly this plays out I'm just not convinced that it's a major factor in under-funding.

Robert at Zeboyd Games · Oct 21, 2015

Ravidrath said:
Every bit of advice we've received is to keep Stretch Goals out of the mix until you're nearing your goal. Often times they can end up discouraging contribution because it looks like you're getting too far ahead of yourself, or because they do something to fragment the contributors, such as new platforms, more languages, etc.

I think we have some really awesome stretch goals planned, but there really isn't anything to gain by trotting them out this soon.

I agree that you don't announce stretch goals until you're near or past the initial funding stage. That's why projects like Bloodstained keep the initial goal so low - they expect they'll reach the goal quickly and so they can keep that momentum going by a steady reveal of stretch goals.

Meia · Oct 21, 2015

Cellsai said:
Re: the IGG funding reasons.
More and more I'm seeing people say "I would totally fund this, but it's on IndieGoGo".
IGG really need to do something about this apparently shaky reputation they have.

It's a shame that despite L0 having all these reasons for picking IGG, that reputation and average people not understanding how IGG works is causing so much damage to the campaign.

Of course the general "lol. Games don't cost 1.5 million" attitude is a whole different problem too.

Very much this. I really think they'd be a hell of a lot closer to their goal, if not hit already, if they had just launched on KS. The supposed "reasons" for using IGG don't matter one iota if you don't get funded to begin with.

Metroidvania · Oct 21, 2015

Indiegogo and it's relative lack of exposure compared to Kickstarter definitely isn't helping, though I don't know if I'd say that's the primary reason.

The goal would still be pretty damn high on Kickstarter, but that's much better explained re: the not having a publisher chipping in for 50-90% of the total amount....though just the mention of the publisher matching funds (even if it's super good to be transparent) isn't doing any favors either, given Mighty No. 9, to say the least.

Rooting for Lab Zero, at any rate.

Mr. X · Oct 21, 2015

If it was on KS they would've had to ask for more though.

I wish the full game tier was a bit less. Even if it was like "First Dibs" with a limited amount of backers.

I donated and want this game made. I believe in the dream.

Jarmel · Oct 21, 2015

It does sound super shitty but yea I don't think honesty is the best policy. 1.5 might be what is needed but it is a large value and probably seemed impossible to a few backers hence them not deciding to bother. Part of Indivisible's problem is the lack of momentum.

I understand they did everything people wanted but I'm not sure it matters.

toddhunter · Oct 21, 2015

Sou Da said:
What do you think the primary reason is?

The animation and art-style. I can only speak for myself, but I don't care what platform it is on. If it is something I want, I'll just fund and see what happens.

I looked at it, it wasn't something I wanted.

It may be their "thing", but that doesn't mean it will be the thing of enough other people.

Crocodile · Oct 21, 2015

charlequin said:
IGG's deals were also supposed to include a large marketing push on their side, which I think we can now say with relative certainty is insignificant or non-existent.

Yeah I still haven't gotten a good explanation of what that was supposed to mean. I don't see this advertising support :/

Ravidrath said:
And we've had tons of people come out of the woodwork, saying that we should've lied about our goal and tried to make it up in the stretch goals.

Is this something else we should've lied about in order to make people feel comfortable contributing?

It's like people don't remember how upset people were when Comcept tried to sell Red Ash as a piece meal game or remember the number of Kickstarters, like that recent Midoira (sp?), that had a successful campaign but then X months later make a post of "oops we ran out of money"! There are serious problems with underselling your actual budget with real, often scummy, consequences that people don't seem to understand.

BreezyLimbo said:
This is what turned me sour on it. I enjoyed Skull Girls back in the days, and I was like 'Oh cool a platform RPG' when I saw the Game Grumps video of them playing the demo.

And then I saw it was on IndieGoGo. I thought to myself, 'that's not a big red flag!'. But then I saw they wanted 1.5 million, which is a huge amount. And I read up, they already had a Publisher, and I just got a bunch of red flags in my head .-.;

Not saying they're untrustworthy, but it's just a culmination of things that make me do a double take at it.

Yeah you're going to have to explain this to me. Many large KS projects have some manner of publisher support (assuming the campaign is successful) or get some after the campaign. The initial release of Skullgirls, before the campaign, wouldn't have happened without a publisher (it was publisher issues that forced them to crowdfund). The budget they are asking for is reasonable had has been fully explained. Unless I've misunderstood you none of your objections make sense.

charlequin said:
We're off pretty far in hypothetical waters here. What makes this apply to one project and not another? If people think developers are so "greedy" then why are other projects seeing record-breaking funding levels? Without a deeper dive into how exactly this plays out I'm just not convinced that it's a major factor in under-funding.

"Fuck Konami"
"Fuck Capcom"
"Fuck Rare/Microsoft"
"OMG a sequel 15 years in the making - its a dream come true"
"Spiritual successor/actual successor by some number of the original developers of thing you loved as a child"

All these do a good job boosting funding

toddhunter said:
The animation and art-style.

It may be their "thing", but that doesn't mean it will be the thing of enough other people.

I see nothing to suggest this is an issue here.

EDIT: Ok you clarified you're just speaking about yourself.

Purple Cheeto · Oct 21, 2015

I'm totally with Mike Z in the last bit about people abusing crowdfunding to judge market viability instead of raise funds they actually need. And not just notorious scammers like Robert Space Industries, Double Fine, Igarashi, Inafune etc but also some of the smaller lesser known projects.

Dreavus · Oct 21, 2015

This thread reminds me that I need to get in there and pledge. After SG, I'm in for pretty much anything LZ wants to do *shrug*.

GuardianE · Oct 21, 2015

blakep267 said:
I'm not attacking you guys or anything. It's just that me personally, I'd be more inclined to pledge for a game that for example started its page today and had an estimated date of Fall 2016 etc. ( I'm not saying a game starting from scratch, but a game that's been worked on for some time already and needs an extra push) that's just my mindset on it

When I see too quick a turnover, it instantly sets off alarms in my head that the company is using Kickstarter as a glorified preorder system. Generally, I expect a few years time because that's how long it takes to make a game. I don't want someone to be dishonest about it. It just ends up making them seem like they don't know what they're doing.

At the end of the day, if a project needs to be mostly done for you to consider backing, then crowd funding probably isn't for you.

charlequin · Oct 21, 2015

Crocodile said:
"Fuck Konami"
"Fuck Capcom"
"Fuck Rare/Microsoft"
"OMG a sequel 15 years in the making - its a dream come true"
"Spiritual successor/actual successor by some number of the original developers of thing you loved as a child"

All these do a good job boosting funding

Which suggests that the absence of a compelling emotional narrative is holding back funding here, rather than that a perception that crowdfunding campaigns are scams is doing so.

Purple Cheeto said:
And not just notorious scammers like Robert Space Industries, Double Fine, Igarashi, Inafune etc but also some of the smaller lesser known projects.

notsureifserious.gif

SatelliteOfLove · Oct 21, 2015

They're good for it, and they're getting better at this. If it doesn't work out, we get our funds back. It's a risk I'm willing to take.

In short, stay postive: have Kikuta.

@MUWANdo said:
Deja vu, man.

Pretty much. If only the real scam artists were given such a thorough grilling 100% of the time.

El Sloth · Oct 21, 2015

blakep267 said:
I'm not attacking you guys or anything. It's just that me personally, I'd be more inclined to pledge for a game that for example started its page today and had an estimated date of Fall 2016 etc. ( I'm not saying a game starting from scratch, but a game that's been worked on for some time already and needs an extra push) that's just my mindset on it

I get you. Basically, you prefer backing games that already have something to show for themselves instead of projects that are still just concepts on paper. I believe it's worth backing both kinds of projects, just have to go about it in a smart way.

Personally, I'm always suspicious of estimated dates that are only a year or so off. Especially if they don't have some sort of thing playable already. Tells me the people behind the kickstarter are either naive or incompetent. Especially for something meaty like an RPG.

BreezyLimbo said:
This is what turned me sour on it. I enjoyed Skull Girls back in the days, and I was like 'Oh cool a platform RPG' when I saw the Game Grumps video of them playing the demo.

And then I saw it was on IndieGoGo. I thought to myself, 'that's not a big red flag!'. But then I saw they wanted 1.5 million, which is a huge amount. And I read up, they already had a Publisher, and I just got a bunch of red flags in my head .-.;

Not saying they're untrustworthy, but it's just a culmination of things that make me do a double take at it.

I feel you on all that, but like all your concerns are addressed in the article and video linked in the OP.

Decado · Oct 21, 2015

Sou Da said:
What do you think the primary reason is?

High budget, niche genre, terribe choice of platform (indiegogo). Never had much of a chance and they are fooling themselves if they think the publisher angle is the reason.

Crocodile · Oct 21, 2015

charlequin said:
Which suggests that the absence of a compelling emotional narrative is holding back funding here, rather than that a perception that crowdfunding campaigns are scams is doing so.

It's hard to construct a narrative out of something you don't have though at the same time I don't think it would have hurt to try to put a more human element at the forefront like maybe have the team speak in the campaign video about how important this for them to continue working & stay together.

That being said, its clear a non-insignificant number of people are (you can find at least one example in this thread already) concerned about budgets and "scam potential", etc. The fact that I often couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on with the Shenmue 3 campaign for so long was a big reason I decided not to back it (I'm glad it happened for long time Shenmue 3 fans though). The contents of this article were generated in response to what Lab Zero was seeing/reading out there, not just gut feelings.

That also being said, the issue of course is that when you make your campaign based mostly on narrative instead of substance (be it transparency, real gameplay, etc.) you can run into real issues later. If Mighty No. 9 had a playable prototype, I'm sure there would have been a lot less current backlash to the game as more people would know exactly what they were putting money into (this is also a point I make towards to Robert at Zeboyd Games). The dissonance between what is promised, what backers imagine the final product to be and what the final product actually is can be a big deal and the way Lab Zero has done things here basically prevents that from happening.

Reallink · Oct 21, 2015

Decado said:
High budget, niche genre, terribe choice of platform (indiegogo). Never had much of a chance and they are fooling themselves if they think the publisher angle is the reason.

You omitted perhaps the most important, no nostalgic IP/Pedigree.

Support NeoGAF

[Eurogamer] Skullgirls dev explains development costs and publisher role in crowdfund

Member

Worships the porcelain goddess

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Worships the porcelain goddess

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Worships the porcelain goddess

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

People called Romanes they go the house?

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Santa May Claus

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads