[pieatorium]

Where's the game mechanics? Features?

Play Wasteland or Fallout

Who's the target audience?

target audience is people who liked those games.

[Pachterballs]

Couldn't they just set the funding goal sufficiently high enough such that $15 per user wouldn't matter? Do they care about the ARPU for the initial purchase rather than just meeting a funding goal (I dunno, like of say 800 BILLION!!!)?

kickstarter does make it clear that the publishers aren't absolved from legal commitments; so there's actually a legal minefield there. If they do anything there, they can be sued by all the people funding. I think its something they'd want to avoid.

[Foxy Fox 39]

wait until Kotick gets on the band wagon;

I've never seen perfection...until today.

[Fuzzy]

What if Ubi decided to do this so we got BG&E2? Or Capcom doing this to so we got MML3?

[Midou]

I would only donate to indie sort of games or projects I would kill for, say, Tim Schafer making another old school adventure game. I would pay a good amount for something like Shenmue 3 funding too..

[Shalashaska161]

I love the kickstarter idea, but I honestly don't see many of these projects going far unless there is a big name behind it. A random game made by some dude is barely ever going to get attention, no matter how cool or ambitious it is. Big names are the only reason that the DF and Wasteland projects have done so well. Without them, they would receive nowhere near enough media coverage to get even close to their goal amounts.

Plus there is no way the enthusiasm for these kickstarter projects is going to keep up. Right now we've seen 2 successful ones, but what happens when we get to our tenth? 20th? Unless it's some amazing passion project or sequel this initial enthusiasm just isn't going to be there, and there are going to be some unfortunate failures.

[TheExodu5]

I love the kickstarter idea, but I honestly don't see many of these projects going far unless there is a big name behind it. A random game made by some dude is barely ever going to get attention, no matter how cool or ambitious it is. Big names are the only reason that the DF and Wasteland projects have done so well. Without them, they would receive nowhere near enough media coverage to get even close to their goal amounts. Plus there is no way the enthusiasm for these kickstarter projects is going to keep up. Right now we've seen 2 successful ones, but what happens when we get to our tenth? 20th? Unless it's some amazing passion project or sequel this initial enthusiasm just isn't going to be there, and there are going to be some unfortunate failures.

Have you been to Kickstarter? There are a ton of successful projects on there. Check out FTL, for one.

[Sinatar]

What if Ubi decided to do this so we got BG&E2? Or Capcom doing this to so we got MML3?

They have the bankroll to spend on making games, it's completely contrary to the entire concept of Kickstarter.

Kickstarter isn't here to let billion dollar corporations hedge their bets.

[Haunted]

wait until Kotick gets on the band wagon;

omg

[SparkTR]

Plus there is no way the enthusiasm for these kickstarter projects is going to keep up. Right now we've seen 2 successful ones, but what happens when we get to our tenth? 20th? Unless it's some amazing passion project or sequel this initial enthusiasm just isn't going to be there, and there are going to be some unfortunate failures.

By that time Wasteland 2 or DFAdventure will have been release, will be awesome, and people will see that this model is worth investing in. Once we get results that fatigue will be washed away.

There's also the fact that each project appeals to different demographics. The RPG crowd that funded Wasteland 2 most likely didn't fund Adventure and vice versa. There's plenty of niche pockets out there who haven't been exposed yet. Hell, if Obsidian gets on board maybe we'll get a bit of the mainstream exposed as well.

[TheLegendOfMart]

I don't see the problem with this.

Publishers arent willing to take risks on niche or off trend projects, a developer could pitch the game to the gaming public, I don't see any downsides. If its not a popular idea then they wont raise enough money and that's the end of that.

The upside is you don't get another modern/future FPS or another racing game.

[JWong]

Play Wasteland or Fallout target audience is people who liked those games.

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements.

And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

[Shai-Tan]

some of the enthusiasm will drop when one of these projects fail miserably to produce something good but I think it will raise the bar for the pitch to include some prototyping, assets, etc not kill the whole idea

[pieatorium]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements.

You mean like real time and first person perspective improvements don't you.

And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

I'm 30 yes, but I have a great deal more than a slight recollection since Fallout 1 and 2 were favourites of mine and I still play them now and then.

[Fuzzy]

They have the bankroll to spend on making games, it's completely contrary to the entire concept of Kickstarter. Kickstarter isn't here to let billion dollar corporations hedge their bets.

But that's what it'll turn into for some of these companies. Why gamble their capital when they can have gamers pay for it upfront?

[SparkTR]

And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

Is that a bad thing? I'd describe it as return to the glory days of RPGs. Sounds much better.

[kswiston]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements. And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

Fallout 2 came out in 1998. You are acting like it was an obscure C64 game when it was contemporary with Ocarina of Time and Metal Gear Solid.

[Sho_Nuff82]

Anything that moves us away or gives us an alternative to the traditional AAA publisher model is a good thing. As long as the people donating are smart with their money, they will see games created that otherwise would have been ignored.

Of course some of the games will fail. No funding source or developer can guarantee a perfect game. But you run the same risk with traditional games that you spend $50-$60 on.

Then I wouldn't fund Doublefine Adventure. Their description is comprised entirely of how to give them money, not what the game is about. And their current direction is towards to casual and kid audience. Why would I want to invest in something that I'm not going to play?

That's the beauty of Kickstarter, if something doesn't interest you, you give nothing, if it does, you give something. Why the indignation?

[rainking187]

By that time Wasteland 2 or DFAdventure will have been release, will be awesome, and people will see that this model is worth investing in. Once we get results that fatigue will be washed away. There's also the fact that each project appeals to different demographics. The RPG crowd that funded Wasteland 2 most likely didn't fund Adventure and vice versa. There's plenty of niche pockets out there who haven't been exposed yet. Hell, if Obsidian gets on board maybe we'll get a bit of the mainstream exposed as well.

Actually just looking at the first 50 backers of the Wasteland 2 kickstarter, 37 of them also backed the Double Fine one. Don't know if that holds up in the long run though.

[Zefah]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements. And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

I'm 26 and I played the first two Fallouts when I was a kid along with Playstation and N64 games.

[Shalashaska161]

Have you been to Kickstarter? There are a ton of successful projects on there. Check out FTL, for one.

You know I'd barely gone to the site before now, but looking around I can see there are a ton of successful, awesome looking indie projects on there. So I'll take back what I said about the little guy having troubles, but projects like Wasteland 2 that have $900,000+ price tags are still going to require someone big backing them to get attention.

By that time Wasteland 2 or DFAdventure will have been release, will be awesome, and people will see that this model is worth investing in. Once we get results that fatigue will be washed away. There's also the fact that each project appeals to different demographics. The RPG crowd that funded Wasteland 2 most likely didn't fund Adventure and vice versa. There's plenty of niche pockets out there who haven't been exposed yet. Hell, if Obsidian gets on board maybe we'll get a bit of the mainstream exposed as well.

Like I said if you have the right project or sequel that resonates with people I can still see these kickstarter things being successful in the future. I guess it really depends on how flooded the site gets with these larger companies trying to fund their games. The more there are, the less people are going to care.

[MightyHedgehog]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements. And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

Why the fuck do you care, man? It's been paid for and us oldsters who like old, tired games from before Fallout have a game that we want made (and now it will be) and is due October 2013.

[Orayn]

But that's what it'll turn into for some of these companies. Why gamble their capital when they can have gamers pay for it upfront?

I don't think this is a bad thing at all if we're taking about projects that most publishers wouldn't even consider. Who better to pay for the game then the people who actually want to play it?

[Stumpokapow]

Let me post the name, description, amount I funded, and what I got for the last dozen Kickstarter projects I funded:

12. Obos - Obos are cardboard desktop figurine / action figure type animals. There are six different designs, and every part of each can be swapped with the other ones, so you can make your own Obo. They're made of an environmentally responsible cardboard. They met and exceeded their funding goal; I contributed $31 for 6 Obos and international shipping. That's significantly less than I'd pay for most desktop trinkets. They're on track to ship soon and the project page itself is very clear about everything.

11. Pixel Sand - Pixel Sand is a video game where you draw using different types of pixels, each of which have their own abilities. The programmer is one guy, married with a small child. There's a ton of demo animations on the page as well as an alpha of the game (I haven't played it). I contributed $3 which gets me a copy of the game on PC as well as any other versions they're able to give me. The game seems to be on track for an October 2012 release date. I don't really have an interest in the game but it seemed well made so I donated.

10. Haitian Superflat - I feel a bit weird linking this, because it's a GAFfer. He was looking for funding to help fund his art, which is a mix between Japanese inspired stuff, performance art, and Haitian folk art. I like Caribbean folk stuff, and I'm always glad to support an artist. I contributed $10, which would have gotten me digital copies of some of his images. Funding was not successful in the end, so I was not billed.

9. On Begley Street - This is a documentary web series about Ed Begley Jr.'s eco-friendly home and solar panel setup, directed/produced by the voice actor who plays Kaidan in Mass Effect (?). I'm a fan of Begley's work and sustainability initiatives. I contributed $5 which gets my name in their credits and a personal thank you email.

8. Farmageddon - This is a card/board game about farming crops and selling them for money. It reminded me of the classic german game Bohnanza. I like the theme and mechanics. The project made very clear that they had already playtested and developed the game, and every preview material they had looked like the presentation would be good. I contributed $12 which gets me a copy of the game shipped to me in Canada as well as the game's first expansion. The same game at retail is probably going to be $20+.

7. L'Chaim - To Life - This is a documentary about a chess player who quits professional chess to take care of his Holocaust survivor mother. I was attracted to both the personal/human interest element of the documentary and the Jewish culture element. The project noted that they had a matching grant from a film agency, so every dollar I gave basically became $2 to them. I pledged $25 which gets me a digital download, a thank you card, a postcard from the director's previous short film, and my name on their website. I contributed quite so much because it was very close to not making its funding goal, and that would have been tragic.

6. Manifold Clock - This is a really pretty piece of art / clock that uses an interesting visual design. The hands hold a banner between them which twists and untwists based on the position of the hands. It is inspired by geometry and mathematics. I contributed $45, which got me one of the clocks. I'm giving it to my best friend, who is going away to pursue his PhD in Physics this fall. He shares an appreciation of art with me, and I remember him doing a lot of fun work with geometry and particularly with fractals, so I think he appreciates the interaction of mathematics and visual beauty. I'm sure he'll love it. They've got prototypes right now and are producing the final clocks, to the point that they even have samples of their final packaging.

5. Outreach - The Search for Mankind - A simple iOS/PC game with cool, robot-themed pixel art. It'll be freemium on iOS, cost money on PC. It's a launching / projectile / angle game, but I like the theme and the pixel art samples so far. I pledged $5 to make the game happen, which gets me a copy of the game for PC. It's not my favourite genre or anything, I might not even play it, but it looks neat. The team released one game before now and the scope of the game is small enough, I'm confident it'll be finished. Not yet funded, should end soon.

4. Feeble's Fable - A Steam / iOS / Android game with a sort of puzzle / adventure genre. The project is pretty thin on details, which might be cause for concern, but I think they've got a pretty solid aesthetic laid down and they're a medium sized independent team with a record of releasing games, so I feel confident they'll finish it. I contributed $12 to get a copy of the game for the platform of my choice (Steam). Due out October.

3. Nubuwo - Indie video game music bundle. I got 6 albums for $6. The download code was delivered the same day the project ended, I basically did it to get the ilomilo soundtrack.

2. Americana Dawn - Top-down 16-bit style 2D RPG about the American new world circa 1620. Inspired by 16-bit JRPGs, Suikoden, and with a fencing / dueling system like Secret of Monkey Island. I love the theme. The game is going to be freeware, but I donated $7. This technically lets me put an NPC in their developers' room in the game--but I'm just giving the money to help the project finish. Being done by one guy.

1. Full Length Mississippi - A project where two senior citizens biking up and down the Mississippi. They previously did a video about their walk around Lake Superior. I like the human interest and the conservation / freshwater awareness elements of the documentary. They're going to make it into a video blog and probably a book. I am donating $10 which technically gets me a window cling banner, but I'm just doing it to help the project get done.

I didn't fund Double Fine Adventure and I am not planning on funding Wasteland 2. I'm watching about 10 other projects that I haven't decided whether or not I'm going to donate to, including sculpture The Wunky, documentary Some Things Should Never Be For Sale, board game Velociraptor! Cannibalism!, and art/sculpture Childhood Monsters.

If anyone thinks I'm an idiot or exceedingly risky or that I'm being taken advantage of by corporate greed, feel free to mock me, no holds barred. I only donate to projects where I think the combination of the person or team making the project, the scope of the project, and the outcome of the project are good. I'm willing to donate as little as the minimum or a lot more to help make things happen. Donating to one project doesn't preclude me from donating to other projects, and I haven't given any less money to external charity since I got involved with Kickstarter. So, am I an idiot? Am I being duped? Is supporting these projects hurting others? Is the whole thing a house of cards?

[Fancy Corndog]

I'd also like to note that Kickstarter must be getting a lot of people in the industry thinking about how good of a job they're doing. When several publishers pass on a game, and then their own audience turns around and raises a million dollars to get the game made, it becomes very evident that there is a disconnect somewhere and that publishers must be losing a lot of money on a regular basis because of it.

I would be very surprised if publishers haven't begun to take a very serious look at the success of Kickstarter, because every time someone makes a donation so that they can buy a product that someone has failed to put on a shelf, it's not a stretch to call it $60 (or whatever cut publishers get) lost for someone.

I think that the fact that Kickstarter is so popular highlights, bolds, cuts out, and superglues flaws within the industry to publishers' foreheads. In all likelihood, the effect of Kickstarter on the gaming industry will be a lot bigger than Kickstarter. I think people will begin to realize that we've been sitting on a lot of lost communication between demand and supply.

[subversus]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements. And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

ok, and what is wrong with that? You say this like 30-40 year old are inferior human beings while games should be played by young and beatiful only.

as for no improvements it's this type of game that can only be refined. How do you improve chess? they can include cover system, add more dynamic destructability, refine interface but the base game should remain the same because it's basically chess with different rules.

[epmode]

Why the fuck do you care, man?

He's trying to impress everyone with his finely-honed business sense. The thing he doesn't seem to realize is that the backers ARE the target audience. Even if the game sells 0 copies, the developer is no worse off than before. And if it does sell a few copies, the dev will be far better off than they would be with a traditional publishing deal.

[Lancehead]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements. And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

Why are you assuming there won't be any changes and improvements? If anything, one should assume there'd be improvements where needed. And the target audience is whoever is funding the project. That couldn't be more obvious. Why is their age such a concern for you? And Fallout 1&2 are not as ancient as make them out to be; a lot of people still play, and remember them.

[SparkTR]

Actually just looking at the first 50 backers of the Wasteland 2 kickstarter, 37 of them also backed the Double Fine one. Don't know if that holds up in the long run though.

Withouts any facts to support me, I'd say those early ones would be Kickstarter supporters fresh from the DF project. The kind of people who didn't need to hear the news from their forum a day or so later. Looking at the last page of backers shows a majority of people without any prior ties to the website. Though yes there will be an overlap, but not to that extent.

[entrement]

Nope. Patronship has been around for centuries. The Internet is making it more democratic.

[Arcteryx]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements. And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

What a silly thing to say

[Vulcano's assistant]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements. And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

I'ts kind of a good thing if the industry could evolve into something where you can have games for old audiences only without having to appeal for younger demographics. I mean, I don't mind that movies like MAMMA MIA exits just because it is not my cup of tea, since my mom loves that stuff.

[JWong]

You mean like real time and first person perspective improvements don't you. I'm 30 yes, but I have a great deal more than a slight recollection since Fallout 1 and 2 were favourites of mine and I still play them now and then.

Moving away from isometric top down is an improvement for narrative sake. I agree it's not an improvement for a strategy RPG.

I do too, but I don't discount that all 30-40 gamers will be able to remember it as well as we do, especially with all the Fallout games of current.

Is that a bad thing? I'd describe it as return to the glory days of RPGs. Sounds much better.

Sounds like a good cover up. Now let's hear what will make it a "return to the glory days".

Fallout 2 came out in 1998. You are acting like it was an obscure C64 game when it was contemporary with Ocarina of Time and Metal Gear Solid.

OoT's devs are still alive and kicking, and they just had a remake of it.
Bethesda is trying their best to make people forget what Fallout 2 was like.

That's the beauty of Kickstarter, if something doesn't interest you, you give nothing, if it does, you give something. Why the indignation?

Because investment in a product with very little information is not good business practice. I'm not sure about you or any of the donators, but I'd like to see my dollars becoming worthwhile. I don't even donate to charities until I know how effective they will use the money and who runs the charity.

[lockload]

I know Kickstarter has been around for a while, and many successful products have been brought to the masses using this method, but in the gaming world. Already a few companies have initiated their own Kickstarter campaign, and gamers are eagerly supporting them. Now, this is making other companies look at the naiveness of some gamers (don't mean to offend anyone), and how easily/blindly they will just toss money away. The downside to me, is that if these projects fail, this will kill any future Kickstarter campaign efforts for other companies, some who might make incredible games. I'm not here trying to hate on anyone. it's great that people are supporting companies, it just seems like this is moving way too fast, and might explode.

If it fails then the future kickstarters will have to be for prototype 'single level' funding to prove it works then a second round

In some ways i would prefer this as there may be even more variety

[Roxas]

I dont like big studios like Double Fine and inXile using it. I think it should be used for new up and coming indie developers not for studios who have been around for years and produced flops/blown their money.

[SparkTR]

Because investment in a product with very little information is not good business practice. I'm not sure about you or any of the donators, but I'd like to see my dollars becoming worthwhile. I don't even donate to charities until I know how effective they will use the money and who runs the charity.

Kickstarter users have been doing that as well. Tim Schafer and Brian Fargo are the reasons those two projects are getting funded, they have pedigree and are in positions to make those games, there's guaranteed to be results. Compare that to the Tactical Shooter kickstarter, which is failing due to it's uncertain nature and poor pitch.

I dont like big studios like Double Fine and inXile using it. I think it should be used for new up and coming indie developers not for studios who have been around for years who have been around for years and produced flops/blown their money.

Those new indie studios are receiving boosts thanks to the traffic those big names are bringing. Everybody wins.

[Noisepurge]

i like it as long as i can pay that 15$ or so to buy the actual game. that way i'm sort of just placing a pre-order on a game i really do want to play.

[JWong]

Looking at Stumpokapow's post, that's the thing I like to see. Research in the investment.

I only say what I said because I hope that people would give more pause when they throw dollars at a project.

[Aaron]

So it'll be a tired, old game with no improvements. And the target audience are 30-40 year olds who might have a slight recollection of Fallout before Fallout 3.

For someone with a Journey avatar you are astoundingly close minded. You should save this post and read it back in about six months when you'll be able to realize it was bullshit.

[Sinatar]

Looking at Stumpokapow's post, that's the thing I like to see. Research in the investment. I only say what I said because I hope that people would give more pause when they throw dollars at a project.

Why do you care?

[pieatorium]

Moving away from isometric top down is an improvement for narrative sake. I agree it's not an improvement for a strategy RPG.

But that is what people are funding, a top down/isometric strategy rpg. It's a smaller project that doesn't require the 10's of millions of dollars budget that a third person/first person action rpg would.

I do too, but I don't discount that all 30-40 gamers will be able to remember it as well as we do, especially with all the Fallout games of current.

Ofcourse all 30-40's won't remember it as well but that doesn't matter because the ones that do will and have funded this project beyond it's goal and will get their copy of the game.

[Des0lar]

Looking at Stumpokapow's post, that's the thing I like to see. Research in the investment. I only say what I said because I hope that people would give more pause when they throw dollars at a project.

No one is throwing money blindly out the window as you make it seem. The tactical shooter kickstarter will fail because there are not enough good ideas behind it and no one knows the guy who does it. People know that double fine amd fargo will at least deliver on the game part. If it is a shitty game? Bad luck. It's not worse than pre-ordering a game for 60$ and have it disappoint you in the end.

Only with kickstarter my investment is much lower, because I can get the game for 15$.

[JWong]

For someone with a Journey avatar you are astoundingly close minded. You should save this post and read it back in about six months when you'll be able to realize it was bullshit.

I could read it 10 years later and know my decision won't change.

It's practical and logical to have information about a product before investing into it.

And I also did see that Brian Fargo's only Fallout involvement is Fallout Tactics....

[Pachterballs]

Jwong's being sort of pathetic in this thread. Its not even a POV on the matter. Its just blind hate

[subversus]

Moving away from isometric top down is an improvement for narrative sake. I agree it's not an improvement for a strategy RPG.

but people who fund this don't give a shit about cinematic narrative. They fund a strategy RPG.

And I also did see that Brian Fargo's only Fallout involvement is Fallout Tactics....

ok, tell us more.

[Pachterballs]

And I also did see that Brian Fargo's only Fallout involvement is Fallout Tactics....

PERKS in the fallout series was his idea you wally

[MikeE21286]

I think it's awesome.

If games can get funded that normally wouldn't otherwise then it's good.

The thing that is rough is if it starts spilling into greedy ventures, such as funding projects that would have happened regardless of funding through kickstarter.

[JWong]

Jwong's being sort of pathetic in this thread. Its not even a POV on the matter. Its just blind hate

Like I said, I'd rather people research their investments.

Or are you saying that's a bad thing?

[hey_it's_that_dog]

I dont like big studios like Double Fine and inXile using it. I think it should be used for new up and coming indie developers not for studios who have been around for years and produced flops/blown their money.

I understand this gut reaction (and you're not the only one who has had it) to larger studios using Kickstarter. Don't they have their own money? Why are they "taking advantage" of their fanbase instead of funding it themselves?

The way I view Kickstarters is not as a tool for mitigating risk for small startups, but as a tool for mitigating risk, period. The problem of niche audiences exists for large and small development houses alike. There are surely many interesting ideas floating around at Double Fine and other successful developers that simply will not be made using a traditional publishing model. Gamers want variety and gamers want to see interesting ideas, and Kickstarter is a way to support that while circumventing the selective pressures of the big-budget publishing ecosystem.

And for the doubters and skeptics, if you don't trust an idea enough to donate, you can still buy it when it comes out if it's something you want.

[ScreenSplitter]

Eh? How could this in anyway be negative?

Even if a big company saw how much money Tim Schafer raised, wouldn't that just result in a string of awesome new adventure games? We're already naive anyway, might as well be naive for a good reason.