[MThanded]

Odd, Bethesda seems to still have my money from Brink....... shitty products will exist regardless of funding method.

If brink had a kickstarter people would be pissed though. I remember reading what brink was going to be like and the game did not end up where I thought it would.

Thats the big difference. When people invest their real money into the development a game they believe they are entitled to a great product. Whether the product is great or not is another issue.

[BannedEpisode]

It all is going to depend on how Doublefine and Wasteland pan out.

If they muck up all faith in the system will be lost.

[patapuf]

Kickstarter is the only way certain types of games (eg. isometric RPG's) can get funding, that alone makes it a good thing in my book. Now that there are some success stories (in terms of getting funding) others jump on the bandwagon

Nobody sensible expects every kickstarter to turn out well, the only thing you can do is decide if you want to take the risk and fund the vision of the developper. If the game turns out to be bad then you just blew 15 or 50 dollar or whatever and won't fund anymore projects because you got burned.

unless you've never bought a bad game i don't really see the problem

[Hobbestetrician]

I don't like how different media outlets are promoting certain projects because their buddies are working on them. There should be a professional separation. Too many people see the media outlets as already being in the bag for the big publishers, they would be best served not raising the same flags here. Otherwise they may as just well be PR and drop the pretense.

[Alextended]

Your friend is an idiot. What you rightly point out as the bad thing, irrespective of the quality of the game or the merits of Kickstarter is the blatant advertisement with not even a pretense of criticism from the enthusiast press. But the enthusiast press fails anyway. I feel like every second game I've been massively failed by the collective review-system.

So, why shouldn't they promote these? They promote and pimp media of unfinshed or just announced games all the time. Or announcements of announcements. Or preorder deals and special editions and whatever else you'd have to buy before the game is out. Why should they discriminate against Kickstarter projects when they're gaming news all the same? It's not like they pimped Mythic, they tend to report on stuff that will likely get made, whatever their final quality. And yes, they could review badly too, games with positive previews get trashed all the time. If anything they should cover more projects, more than just the higher profile stuff, not less (the same for non Kickstarter stuff, more underdog coverage please). It's up to people to decide if they like what is shown and known of the developers etc regardless of any writer's opinion. It's not up to them to guarantee the quality anyway. Why would you let them?

As for the more blatant advertising and begging, which isn't the norm, most of these people made games before Kickstarter, and could have made their own indie games without it under different circumstances, if there is bias now then it was always there and this is business as usual for them. It's up to you to not trust so called journalists either. It's not a Kickstarter issue, it's a press issue that was, is and will probably be there.

People are aware of the risks, everyone at some point has acquired a bad game, and all clearly realise they usually don't even have a demo or review (lol) to go off of with Kickstarter. If they want to risk some money on a project because nothing actually released fills that spot, it's up to them, they don't need their eyes opened for something that is plainly obvious. And if they don't want to, they don't have to. It's cool. I'll Kickstart whatever I get a good enough vibe for, based on my own criteria for the developers and the project, even if the games I've pledged for so far end badly. I'm aware of all the possibilities, good and bad.

And lol @ people trashing the guy for utilising his bio to the fullest, as if he lied about what he did for those games or something. If you have something eye catching for what is essentially a resume, you are in fact going to use it, in any field. Duh. If you don't it's your loss.

[MThanded]

Kickstarter is the only way certain types of games (eg. isometric RPG's) can get funding, that alone makes it a good thing in my book. Now that there are some success stories (in terms of getting funding) others jump on the bandwagon Nobody sensible expects every kickstarter to turn out well, the only thing you can do is decide if you want to take the risk and fund the vision of the developper. If the game turns out to be bad then you just blew 15 or 50 dollar or whatever and won't fund anymore projects because you got burned. unless you've never bought a bad game i don't really see the problem

There is a difference. You can read the reviews on a game before you buy it. On kickstarter you pay before the all of the groundwork has been layed.

I don't think devs are intentionally trying to rip people off(some may). However, I think that when they don't deliver people will be pretty mad.

[butter_stick]

Please make it more obvious this is a troll thread. It's amusing.

Negative opinion doesn't mean troll. I'm bring slightly facetious with the MGS comment, but ultimately it does feel like a lot of these Kickstarters are based on "look what I've done" not "look what I'm doing"

[Erethian]

It's a good thing we have incredibly patronising OPs like these to open peoples eyes.

[FieryBalrog]

I'm going to reiterate what I think the sleazy bit is:

Kickstarting is all about going whaling, just like F2P games. The only difference is, one is a game that actually exists and you can play it right now and make an informed decision. The other is a pile of screenshots, bombastic text and maybe a video.

People don't like it when companies try to milk their player base excessively. Except that's what a lot of kickstarters are, and things like stretch goals are part of that psychological hook.

I don't like how different media outlets are promoting certain projects because their buddies are working on them. There should be a professional separation. Too many people see the media outlets as already being in the bag for the big publishers, they would be best served not raising the same flags here. Otherwise they may as just well be PR and drop the pretense.

This too.

[Zeliard]

If brink had a kickstarter people would be pissed though. I remember reading what brink was going to be like and the game did not end up where I thought it would. Thats the big difference. When people invest their real money into the development a game they believe they are entitled to a great product. Whether the product is great or not is another issue.

How is that any different than spending $60 on a new game and finding out that it sucks? You become leery of that developer and their games when making a purchasing decision later on. This is the same thing.

Whoever fails to deliver on a product through Kickstarter - whether it's a game or something else - will simply ensure that people are less likely to buy from them in the future. That's how it has always worked.

[outunderthestars]

If brink had a kickstarter people would be pissed though. I remember reading what brink was going to be like and the game did not end up where I thought it would. Thats the big difference. When people invest their real money into the development a game they believe they are entitled to a great product. Whether the product is great or not is another issue.

Hang on, I'm not allowed to be pissed that Brink turned out to be a POS because i'm not the publisher? Somehow my $60 spent at launch is not "real money" now?

[MThanded]

How is that any different than spending $60 on a new game and finding out that it sucks? You become leery of that developer and their games when making a purchasing decision later on. This is the same thing. Whoever fails to deliver on a product through Kickstarter - whether it's a game or something else - will simply ensure that people are less likely to buy from them in the future. That's how it has always worked.

Because the game is complete. You can rent it, read reviews, ask your friends.

You can't do that when the game is pre-alpha and some guys are on the internet telling you what the game is going to look like in 2 years.

Hang on, I'm not allowed to be pissed that Brink turned out to be a POS because i'm not the publisher? Somehow my $60 spent at launch is not "real money" now?

I wanted Brink. Up until the day reviews came out I had the money set aside. I didn't buy it because of reviews. If Brink was a kickstarter, my money would have already been gone. I think the difference is pretty clear. You have options post-release. You have no options day -700.

[Jackson]

How is that any different than spending $60 on a new game and finding out that it sucks? You become leery of that developer and their games when making a purchasing decision later on. This is the same thing. Whoever fails to deliver on a product through Kickstarter - whether it's a game or something else - will simply ensure that people are less likely to buy from them in the future. That's how it has always worked.

Most people on KS will overpay to help fund it. So it is a bit different there.

[Dog Problems]

Negative opinion doesn't mean troll. I'm bring slightly facetious with the MGS comment, but ultimately it does feel like a lot of these Kickstarters are based on "look what I've done" not "look what I'm doing"

For some people that's just enough. I don't need to know anything more than "Tim Schafer is making a new adventure game," or "Jane Jensen is making a new adventure game." I'm sold because they have a history of making quality games.

[bigtroyjon]

So, why shouldn't they promote these? They promote unfinshed or just announced games all the time. Or announcements of announcements. Why should they discriminate against Kickstarter based projects when they're gaming news all the same? It's not like they pimped Mythic, they tend to report on stuff that will likely get made, whatever their final quality. And yes, they could review badly too, games with positive previews get trashed all the time. If anything they should cover more projects, more than just the higher profile stuff, not less (the same for non Kickstarter stuff, more underdog coverage please). It's up to people to decide if they like what is shown and known of the developers etc regardless of any writer's opinion. It's not up to them to guarantee the quality anyway.

They aren't previewing or simply promoting these games, they are actively trying to get people to give money to these projects that they have zero knowledge about besides the fact that their buddy is making it. You really think they will negatively review a game they told people to give money to?

At the end of the day, that is what's going to kill Kickstarter. The minute all these gaming bloggers have to admit they helped hoodwink a bunch of gamers, is the minute they stop promoting these things all together.

Edit-I don't have any issues with Kickstarter and think it's great. I just have a problem with all the begging going on by all these sites and the complete lack of objectivity it's going to lead to when turds start popping out.

[ctrayne]

.

[MThanded]

I like kickstarter. It will be interesting to see how well it works for games in the long run.

[whalleywhat]

I don't like how different media outlets are promoting certain projects because their buddies are working on them. There should be a professional separation. Too many people see the media outlets as already being in the bag for the big publishers, they would be best served not raising the same flags here. Otherwise they may as just well be PR and drop the pretense.

Except these aren't big publishers. They're playing off the same kinship that consumers feel with the people who make the games they like. This issue of promoting Kickstarters is interesting though. I wonder if all the ethical procedures that are in place when talking about a game your friend worked on are being disregarded when advising people to contribute to their Kickstarter. It's not like you're promoting a bad game, because no one knows if it will be good or bad.

[SouthernDragon]

Yo, butter, you know this is how business usually start, right? With hopes and dreams and money from people who believe in those hopes and dreams.

[Kusagari]

Negative opinion doesn't mean troll. I'm bring slightly facetious with the MGS comment, but ultimately it does feel like a lot of these Kickstarters are based on "look what I've done" not "look what I'm doing"

Republique had far more information than 99% of gaming kickstarters though. I do agree that a lot of gaming kickstarters seem more like pitches than actual games, but Payton delivered quite a bit of information on his vision.

[outunderthestars]

Most people on KS will overpay to help fund it. So it is a bit different there.

Actually the vast majority pledged $15 or less.

[CFMOORE!]

Yo, butter, you know this is how business usually start, right? With hopes and dreams and money from people who believe in those hopes and dreams.

those people investing have motivation to succeed in the form of more money. here, we're funding their dream and only getting a product in exchange that may or may not be good. and if it is good, the success isn't shared to those who funded the dream.

[patapuf]

There is a difference. You can read the reviews on a game before you buy it. On kickstarter you pay before the all of the groundwork has been layed. I don't think devs are intentionally trying to rip people off(some may). However, I think that when they don't deliver people will be pretty mad.

This is why i wrote funding a project is taking a risk. If you want to be 100 percent sure to get your money's worth don't fund projects in advance

I recently saw a poll in a german pc mag that asked how many were willing to fund a project in advance and only a small percentage were willing to, and it will always be like that. Games won't be crowd-funded on a large scale in the future

on the other hand waiting for an isometric rpg like wasteland 2 and hoping EA or whoever will be nice enough to publish it is futile. If i blow 15 dollars in the hope it may turn out good then so be it, it won't ruin me. I may be pissed and angry but it just means i won't support the developpers again.

[Mechazawa]

Wait a minute, why the hell is Payton drumming himself up with Halo 4? Not only is the game not even out yet, but he even quit in the middle of the development because he didn't want to work on the game anymore.

[DTKT]

Some kickstarter projects are shady. Some kickstarter project are good.

Make an intelligent choice and you won't get burned.

[SovanJedi]

I would discuss this properly, but the title isn't even slightly suggestive and paints the entire thing in a really negative manner and will attract more biased opinions. Trying to take the opposing side seems futile.

Leave the open discussion threads to Mama Robotnik, please.

[Instro]

Republique may be good. Tim Schafers thing (remember that?) may be good (I guess). But do we really want a new developer begging us for money every week?

Double Fine Adventure also has a documentary following the development, which has delivered 100% so far.

[Dreams-Visions]

Because the game is complete. You can rent it, read reviews, ask your friends. You can't do that when the game is pre-alpha and some guys are on the internet telling you what the game is going to look like in 2 years.

...then wait until the game comes out and rent/read reviews/ask your friends.

Jesus christ, this isn't rocket science. If you want to help bring the game to market, you can. You may even get the game for slightly less by doing so via the KS. If you want to wait and see...THEN WAIT AND SEE!

What's the goddamn problem.

[benny_a]

So, why shouldn't they promote these? [snip]

They should handle kickstarter projects just like any other preview.

And any other preview, at least on sites that I visit, are critical evaluation with the caveat that the product isn't finished so it errs on the positive side. But at least the concerns of the people are being voiced.

What isn't critical evaluation is what some press have done where they said: Please help this dude pursue is dream. What are 15 dollars man. It's their dream.

[Kusagari]

In terms of coverage, projects like DFA, Wasteland, Shadowrun, Republique, etc are big news. It would be moronic for gaming sites not to cover them.

Obviously, they shouldn't be pleading to their readers to support them.

[Zeliard]

Because the game is complete. You can rent it, read reviews, ask your friends. You can't do that when the game is pre-alpha and some guys are on the internet telling you what the game is going to look like in 2 years.

You're taking a risk either way. There's never any guarantee you're going to enjoy your purchase and that also extends beyond gaming. You don't quite know how something will turn out until you experience it for yourself, and there certainly isn't always a chance to. How do you rent PC games? And if you purchase something digitally you're generally stuck with it.

We get countless comments and threads here and elsewhere about people upset that a certain game was hyped ("GAF recommended such and such and I hate it", etc) and that they ultimately regretted their purchase.

Being mindful of where one spends money applies to everything. You want to go with as little risk as possible with Kickstarter? Then only give money to creators with proven track records. You want to help some up-start by throwing some cash their way? Then do so. People are ultimately doing what they want with their own money, which is generally how society functions.

Most people on KS will overpay to help fund it. So it is a bit different there.

The minimum payment - usually $15 at most - gets you the full game, and if people are paying more it's probably due to the tier system, where they are essentially purchasing extra goodies. Kickstarter wouldn't be as effective as it is without the tier system as it is being funded by consumers, and I don't think the $15 minimum is crushing people's bank accounts. If people are paying more than that, they can probably afford to do so, in which case it becomes like any other purchase.

[The Faceless Master]

I like kickstarter. It will be interesting to see how well it works for games in the long run.

yeah, this.

i like the idea of kickstarter, just not for game funding.

[Blunt]

stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg - The Thread

[Chuck]

Negative opinion doesn't mean troll. I'm bring slightly facetious with the MGS comment, but ultimately it does feel like a lot of these Kickstarters are based on "look what I've done" not "look what I'm doing"

It's the worse when they do the "look what I did 15-20 years ago" thing but fail to mention what they have done since.

[patapuf]

There are plenty of good reasons not to fund kickstarter projects.

don't get mad at people who despite those good reasons decide to take the risk and fund a game that might turn out good. what's the worst that can happen?

[MThanded]

...then wait until the game comes out and rent/read reviews/ask your friends. Jesus christ, this isn't rocket science. If you want to help bring the game to market, you can. You may even get the game for slightly less by doing so via the KS. If you want to wait and see...THEN WAIT AND SEE! What's the goddamn problem.

There is no problem. I have funded projects. I'm saying its an interesting concept and it will be interesting to see how well it fits the gaming world.

[Famassu]

But do we really want a new developer begging us for money every week?

If it gets us games like DFA, Wasteland 2, Moebius, then HELL YES. I'd rather support something like this even if it DOES end up being bad/not as good as I'd hope than spend 1$ on Call of Duty or Mass Effect. It at least gives us the OPPORTUNITY to vote with our wallets to get games we actually want that aren't ruined to hell and back by focus groups.

Of course there's still place for the Uncharteds and Assassin's Creeds in the world, but this is a great alternative to get those games wuzz-ass-publishers are too afraid to publish anymore.

[DTKT]

It's the worse when they do the "look what I did 15-20 years ago" thing but fail to mention what they have done since.

That's mostly because the game that have been kickstarted were part of "dead" genres.

[Globox_82]

Payton is capitalizing on his hipsterness to sell the game indeed, just look at this scarf.

Pathetic. He takes credit for MGS and Halo 4 (game that he abandoned) talk about ego.

Speaking of kickstarter I am not giving one single dollar to any of these people. Make the game, then I will buy it if I like it. I don't care about anyone dreams and goals. No one cares about mine. So that is just silly excuse. If you want to donate, donate to red cross and to someone who really needs it.
I bet if he approached for example EA with EA partners he would get a deal day one, and would get to keep IP. But then he would have to share with them. So kickstarter is basically that, you help someone get richer.
I love the drama "only two days" to support, etc. I guarantee this game was getting made even if got only 100k. Nonsense.

[I should be doing hw]

People always make these anti-Kickstarter threads, which ultimately show the OP's ignorance of the topic, since they really just mean "Video Game Kickstarters" and have obviously not looked at the site as a whole.

Pretty much this. I'm looking at something I funded through Kickstarter right now from where I am sitting. Something that wouldn't exist without KS, and long before people here associated with it being solely some platform for socialist videogame publishing.

Tim Schafers thing (remember that?) may be good (I guess). But do we really want a new developer begging us for money every week?

So much hyperbole, I don't even want to believe you wrote this after applying a minutia of thought to the topic your talking about.

[DTKT]

Pathetic. He takes credit for MGS and Halo 4 (game that he abandoned) talk about ego. Speaking of kickstarter I am not giving one single dollar to any of these people. Make the game, then I will buy it if I like it. I don't care about anyone dreams and goals. No one cares about mine. So that is just silly excuse. If you want to donate, donate to red cross and to someone who really needs it. I bet if he approached for example EA with EA partners he would get a deal day one, and would get to keep IP. But then he would have to share with them. So kickstarter is basically that, you help someone get richer. I love the drama "only two days" to support, etc. I guarantee this game was getting made even if got only 100k. Nonsense.

This is painful to read. Most of the kickstarters are there for a reason, no one would give them the money to do it. AAA on iOS? Nonsense, no one would pick it up. It's an unproven market for AAA releases and why invest 500k when you can put out crap at 99cents.

And, really, your bring up the argument about donating to the red cross? What are you doing here, wasting time on an internet message board? Go volunteer or something! And really, I doubt Ryan Payton will suddenly become a rich man after Republique.

[Globox_82]

This is painful to read.

Truth can be painful. Accept it, or go get drunk and lie to yourself.

[MThanded]

Pathetic. He takes credit for MGS and Halo 4 (game that he abandoned) talk about ego. Speaking of kickstarter I am not giving one single dollar to any of these people. Make the game, then I will buy it if I like it. I don't care about anyone dreams and goals. No one cares about mine. So that is just silly excuse. If you want to donate, donate to red cross and to someone who really needs it. I bet if he approached for example EA with EA partners he would get a deal day one, and would get to keep IP. But then he would have to share with them. So kickstarter is basically that, you help someone get richer. I love the drama "only two days" to support, etc. I guarantee this game was getting made even if got only 100k. Nonsense.

[Chuck]

That's mostly because the games that have been kickstarted were part of "dead" genres.

That's fair, but kickstarters like inXile's don't make much sense to me. They've not made a game that has been received well. At least Double Fine has shown they can make very good games.

[I should be doing hw]

This is painful to read.

Let me get my violin out.

[outunderthestars]

This is painful to read.

Just those parts? I found the whole thing painful to read......

[element]

I like how he's still using the MGS brand to try and promote his unrelated product.

I really didn't like the way they did lower thirds with the products they worked on. It just felt odd.

Is this the future of game development?

In some way yes, but in its current form no. I believe there will be a kickstarter backlash in 6 to 12 months. We have already seen some such as the ZionEyez backlash and Leisure Suit Larry was delayed a week after being funded. There has to be some type of guarantee, not necessarily in quality, but delivery dates.

Do you think Kickstarters are awesome?

I like the concept of kickstarter, but games have kinda ruined it for me.

Have you put down $125 for the special edition of Republique with an iPhone case?

Nope.

Am I being unreasonable and just trying to crush someone's vision?

I don't think you are being unreasonable. We have seen a number of projects that fall into press "darlings". Either from pedigree or connections, these games have gathers an insane amount of attention from the gaming press, even to the point of pressuring readers to support the projects.

While I hope a lot of these games come out and are great, making games is extremely difficult and challenging, especially with a small team and lofty goals. While I don't want to see it happen, I am sadly expecting some horror stories from some of these projects.

[Perkel]

lol another of kickstarter is bad thread ?

Dude it's not your money so don't complain because someone get funded by that way.

For me game could bomb hard on normal sales channel and i will still be happy to play my version.

I vote only on project who need money to completly create a game. Pre-order or partial creation is out of qquestion. For partial creation exist alpha funding.

The possible outcomes are :

you loose 15$ - whoaa that is a loooot of cash...
you get the game - it's bad
it's good
it's awasome


If kickstarter idea would get bigger i would gladly not buy anymore games from normal channel. dev > publisher > retailer and i would give all my money to developers.

[Kandrick]

I don't care much for kickstarter. People are free to do whatever they want with their money.

What i don't like about this whole thing is reading about it everywhere. People pressuring others to help funding, etc. I am getting sick of it really fast.

Kickstarter is not bad, people that are crazy about it are bad.

[Dog Problems]

Pathetic. He takes credit for MGS and Halo 4 (game that he abandoned) talk about ego. Speaking of kickstarter I am not giving one single dollar to any of these people. Make the game, then I will buy it if I like it. I don't care about anyone dreams and goals. No one cares about mine. So that is just silly excuse. If you want to donate, donate to red cross and to someone who really needs it. I bet if he approached for example EA with EA partners he would get a deal day one, and would get to keep IP. But then he would have to share with them. So kickstarter is basically that, you help someone get richer. I love the drama "only two days" to support, etc. I guarantee this game was getting made even if got only 100k. Nonsense.