There are two inevitable outcomes from increase risk aversion:
- Stagnation leading to an inevitable collapse
OR
- a market correction wherein risk becomes more acceptable.
The current market state is temporary and its precisely because they can rely on stop gaps and risk mitigators like this kickstarter market test strategy that the cerebral state continues. Absent these down the road following a steep decline in growth/profits we would start to see a handful of publishers start to take more risk because they feel forced to do so and would have little to lose thanks to market stagnation. This risk, in a stagnating market, would (should) drive consumer support and lead to success prompting other previously risk averse parties to follow suit. That correction cannot occur so long as publishers are afforded more and more ways to mitigate risk at the cost of the consumer. Instead, if allowed to continue, it would lead to decreasing consumer satisfaction culminating in market wide backlash and collapse.
TLDR: Risk Stop gaps (often at the cost of consumer) are prolonging the current risk averse state of the market not alleviating it .
I want to address this particular comment because the two points about risk aversion causing either stagnation leading to an inevitable collapse or a market correction wherein risk becomes more acceptable is true, but that using Kickstarter to see if there is a market for a game is the market correcting to make risk more acceptable.
The issues the gaming industry has to do specifically with the amount of money customers are willing to pay up front. The majority of customers are unwilling to pay at the prices needed to sell a video game at. This is why the gaming industry focuses on those willing to pay upfront and to pay for extra content in the games. This is why pre-orders are pushed, DLC and microtransactions are made, and why game companies hunt the whales. The people who buy used games and don't buy DLC or microtransactions may as well not exist to publishers because they aren't paying publishers money. People who buy Humble Bundles for $1 are practically giving pennies to the developers. These people are not customers a developer can make money off of but are becoming all too prevalent in the gaming industry. Using Kickstarter in this way is also focusing on people willing to pay for upfront as well. Given how much funding the Shenmue III Kickstarter has gotten and how many people paid into it, the game would cost $80 as that is the average amount that 40,000 people paid for it. In reality, half of those people paid $29, enough to ensure they got a copy of the game.
To be fair, this could end up being misused... but on a personal level, Kickstarters have been getting me various game related things that I actually
want to buy. I mean, both the microconsole and VR came about as things because of Kickstarters proving there is a market for them. In addition, it's also getting me games on PCs and console that interest me as a gamer from both indies and from larger developers who have a history behind them, and now it's done the impossible in making Shenmue III a reality. Again, while this could end up being misused, I'm not going to question it so long as I'm still benefiting from it with games I want. You could call it me being greedy as a customer, but I like to think of it as enlightened self-interest.