• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Should successful crowd-funded developers return to crowd-funding?

A

Arulan

Member
I posted this in the other Kickstarter thread but I feel it's important enough of an issue to merit its own thread. In particular I'm talking about this article:

http://www.lar.net/2014/10/01/the-halo-effect/

Swen Vincke said:
Not so long ago, in fact, just a few weeks ago when I posted my last blog entry, I said that Kickstarter might not be the right route for our future projects. I argued that it’s a limited pool and that it would be wrong for us to fish in it if our games are earning sufficient money for us to invest in our future projects.

I immediately received a few strong reactions, both publicly but also privately about how I got it all wrong, and that in fact I should steer Larian back to Kickstarter. The reasoning is that successful crowdfunding projects send more people to the crowdfunding scene and that benefits the smaller projects. This is referred to as the “halo effect” and one particular bright person compared it to “a restaurant sitting alone or on a block with many others. They all do better with more traffic”.

I have to say that that got me thinking.

This image is now part of Larian's history
Blasting through our Kickstarter goal was a very important moment in Larian’s history and we’re forever indebted to the people who made it possible.


Just today there’s been a report from a consultancy firm called Ico partners that there’s less money going to fewer game projects on Kickstarter. They project that Kickstarter earnings in 2014 will be half of what they were in 2013, and blame “the lack of low-hanging fruit, a waning enthusiasm – partly driven by some high-profile failures – and the introduction of some serious and well publicized alternatives”, the latter referring to the rise of Steam Early Access.

According to the article quoting the Ico report, half of the money in 2013 was brought in by the big names and the question is raised whether it’s really a case of waning popularity or just a gap in the schedule because all those big names are now busy delivering on their promises. And if the latter is the case, the question remains if this indeed negatively affects the smaller projects because less people are attracted to the crowd funding platforms.

While this is in no way an announcement that we’re preparing a new Kickstarter campaign, I am genuinely wondering if we shouldn’t start reconsidering our position. There’s many advantages to starting a new game via Kickstarter. The main reason that we’re not doing a new campaign is that we don’t want to be seen as abusing the system.

Crowd funding is a wonderful invention and something that has changed the lives of many independent developers. It has rekindled innovation in an over-consolidated market where the traditional powers now have you pay extra to fight the coolest bosses. It should be cherished and protected at all costs and gamers would do well to prefer buying their games via crowd funding lest they find themselves playing games designed by whoever talks best at some marketing meeting.

So, if it indeed is the case that a return to crowd funding by past success stories helps boost the scene then I’m all pro. Only fools and dead men don’t change their minds.

I would very much appreciate hearing your thoughts about this, especially if you’re somebody who crowd funded before. Is it ok for a company who’s enjoyed a certain level of success thanks to a crowd funding to return to crowd funding? Is it something that should be encouraged so that more people discover crowd funding? Or is something that should be discouraged because the pool of crowd funding is limited?

Share your thoughts!
Click to expand...

Obsidian is debating a similar issue, although I believe their current stance is that they'll use Kickstarter for new IPs, and hopefully the ones who have already been funded will generate enough income to fund their sequels. That said, they have posed the question several times whether it's ok or not to return to Kickstarter for these sequels.

Uber Entertainment just announced their new Kickstarter "Human Resources" after having officially released Planetary Annihilation. So far however the reception appears to be somewhat cold due to mixed or poor reception of Planetary Annihilation.

How do you feel about this issue?

Personally I'm more than willing to support a developer returning to Kickstarter who has already demonstrated that they can deliver on quality. Larian Studios for example has demonstrated to me that they can do this, and if Kickstarter allows their sequel or future project to be even more ambitious I would gladly support it.
 
No, if you can self fund don't go begging for charity.

I think to whole things gross anyway but repeatedly going back for charity once you are sustainable is pathetic.
 
Developers should do whatever is best for them. If kickstarter falls to a shadow of its former self in the future. then the market is likely finding other compelling means by which to allow these developers to make their games [early access etc.] But I believe developers should act within their own best interests and not attempt to work through kickstarter solely to improve its relevancy
 
Looks like the not so good indies just want to leech off the good indies rather than making successful kickstarters themselves, which is pathetic. IMHO a kickstarter should be there to kickstart a company or idea, not to keep it running forever.
 
Seems fine to me, most devs are not going to be self-sustainable with a moderate post release success. There's no reason to limit the available capital if they can pour both kickstarter money along with their own money into the next project. Devs who have proven themselves will be funded, devs who didn't do well the first time around will not. There's really nothing wrong with that business model if that's a route a dev wants to take, inXile seems to be doing fine.
 
lazily quoting my post from the other thread


A-V-B said:
Uh, absolutely to the quote in bold. If any of the companies I help fund release a great game, I'm gonna double my previous funding # for the next game. In fact, even if I HAVEN'T funded them and they've released a great Kickstarter game, I'm gonna be putting some money down. And I think that sort of encouragement is what will keep this part of the industry going. You gotta build.
Click to expand...

And a lot of this money, I think, is just going into making sure the game is made. It's not guaranteed at all they'll make a ton of money after release.

So if they can keep making games they love to make, and I love to play, I have no problems helping to keep them fed and staffed during dev time as long as it's reasonable.
 
Just because a game got successfully funded and released, doesn't mean the devs are now rich enough to fund a new game by themselves, nor that they'd get picked up by a publisher. So, I don't see why not.
 
I'd love to see more companies go through Kickstarter, no matter whether they're large, small, or have previously Kickstarted a game. Why? Because when you go through Kickstarter you sign a contract with the consumer of you game. Player expectations are set on day one and that creates an extent of accountability.

With publishers, ore even self funding, there's no requirement for developers to include players anywhere in the discussion. This isn't always a terrible thing, but I just find Kickstarter project to be better about it.

-Note: Yeah, a lot of Kickstarter projects fuck up, but almost all of the time they face harsh criticism because of it. Criticism they'd otherwise just ignore or spin.
 
Acorn said:
No, if you can self fund don't go begging for charity.
Click to expand...

Being successfully kickstarted does not mean necessarily mean you can self fund in the future. It really depends on what is being kickstarted. Example - Say I kickstart a game for a ridiculously low amount of money, like $10k. Say I wind up making an additional $20k of profit after the fact. What if I want to make a significantly larger game the next time around? What if the budget for my next game, assuming the scope, is $50k? I'd need to kickstart $30k to get it done.

This rings true especially if you move into hardware. Successfully launching a piece of hardware will require commitments of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Past success does not mean you are made of money going forward.
 
They should absolutely use the kickstarter again. Why not? There are many benefits and no drawbacks apart from some internet idiots complaining about it. The publicity, media interest, customer feedback are all too valuable. Some supplemental income is useful too. And they already proved they can deliver expertly.
 
A few of the successful projects I backed or was interested in ended up as regular products on retail shelves with the help of publishing partners. If you backed those for physical goods you usually ended up paying too much. As a non gaming example look at the Veronica Mars movie - to get it on Blu Ray it would have cost you at least $100. Sure, you get a shirt, the script, updates on production etc., but that doesn't beat buying the BD regularly on Amazon. I totally understand that the logistics of shipping stuff are a nightmare for small companies and that it raises costs and risks - but if you have a shot of ending up with a publishing partner anyway, like most big projects do, don't go the Kickstarter route.
 
El-Suave said:
like most big projects do
Click to expand...

Most of the big projects I funded didn't get publishing partners, and those that did get partners likely wouldn't have gotten one in the first place if they weren't kickstarted.

Finally, you shouldn't kickstart things for the reward. The reward is secondary to your donation (not an investment) and the understanding that you made this product exist in the first place. I.E. you shouldn't donate $100 because you expect $100 in neat stuff.
 
There's no doubt that a Kickstarter success story benefits the concept as a whole, the opposite is also true for failures like Clang. So with that in mind I'd say that it's ok if established developers return to Kickstarter as long as they make clear that the game will be completed anyway.
 
If Larian went the Kickstarter route again then I would have backed them again. They proved to me through their positive engagement with the community, and the end result that they can be trusted. Kickstarter is not a charity, it's essentially an early access system, and I don't have problems with funding a game that I'd to like play.

Uber on the other hand are bullshit artists and I won't be backing any further projects from them.
 
Krejlooc said:
Finally, you shouldn't kickstart things for the reward. The reward is secondary to your donation (not an investment) and the understanding that you made this product exist in the first place. I.E. you shouldn't donate $100 because you expect $100 in neat stuff.
Click to expand...

True, but it still makes me stay away from projects that are already super successful when I find them. When I back something these days it's a usually a smaller project that is struggling a bit. I'm happy to support those on a digital level.
 
Acorn said:
No, if you can self fund don't go begging for charity.

I think to whole things gross anyway but repeatedly going back for charity once you are sustainable is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Kickstarter isn't a charity. It's a platform for people to be able to receive funding they normally wouldn't be able to do themselves.

What's the problem if IndieDevA goes on Kickstarter, gets backing, sells a shitload and becomes successful, and does more crowd funding to fund more projects? As long as people are willing to do so, there is no problem.

Kickstarter is no different from any fundraiser, money raising campaign in a sense. And it certainly isn't only limited to poor or money less companies or organizations.
 
I will continue to Kickstart games that would not be created or released unless they got Kickstarted, regardless of if it's two guys in a basement, a big studio with AAA titles under it's belt or a company that does Kickstarters over and over.

I have Kickstarted more than 50 games and will continue to do so. I think Kickstarter is one of the better things to happen to gaming this decade. There are problems with it but the benefits and possible future of it outweigh those issues 12 to 1 for me.

Kickstart and keep Kickstarting.
 
El-Suave said:
A few of the successful projects I backed or was interested in ended up as regular products on retail shelves with the help of publishing partners. If you backed those for physical goods you usually ended up paying too much. As a non gaming example look at the Veronica Mars movie - to get it on Blu Ray it would have cost you at least $100. Sure, you get a shirt, the script, updates on production etc., but that doesn't beat buying the BD regularly on Amazon. I totally understand that the logistics of shipping stuff are a nightmare for small companies and that it raises costs and risks - but if you have a shot of ending up with a publishing partner anyway, like most big projects do, don't go the Kickstarter route.
Click to expand...
Having a publisher they can team up with who will handle the logistics of getting physical copies to backers as well as stores does not mean that that publisher would have been willing to give total artistic freedom for the developers to make the product that they end up making or even taken on the financial burden at all if there wasn't a Kickstarter. Someone getting the blu-ray cheaper is no different to someone waiting and getting a game you paid 20-40$ for during the Kickstarter campaign for 3$ from a Steam sale.

The only thing I'd really like to see (but not force) from successful-post-release Kickstarters is to them use some of that money to make at least some kind of prototype/first level that instead of totally blind Kickstarters like Project Eternity where they had nothing done of the game to show to players, other than a few pieces of art, would have a little bit of something to show. I might still pledge money even if there wasn't one, but it would be nice if they had something to show at the start of the Kickstarter campaign already
 
Well, in this specific case, Larian can can of course always have all my money.

In the more general case though, it's a hard question. I think both viewpoints have merit -- it really depends on how successful the previously released game was. If it should have clearly brought in enough of a profit to self-fund, there shouldn't be a need for another kickstarter. If not, but it was still a sytisfying release for backers, then sure, go ahead.
 
If they did good with the first game, then they're more than welcome to come back and get my money.

That said, after that like 49/51 split vote that meant there would be NO pause n' play combat in Torment really kinda upset me. Like... half your userbase wants it, guys. You're just going to make it not happen? What gives? :(
 
DocSeuss said:
If they did good with the first game, then they're more than welcome to come back and get my money.

That said, after that like 49/51 split vote that meant there would be NO pause n' play combat in Torment really kinda upset me. Like... half your userbase wants it, guys. You're just going to make it not happen? What gives? :(
Click to expand...

Yeah that upset me as well. Why not just include it as an option then and then both parties would be happy. Sorry for the OT.

Now back on topic. If Double Fine was going to go the Kickstarter route again ... I'd probably think pretty carefully about it. I mean DF does great work, but I'm not too confident about DF's project management and budgeting skills.
 
Love the openness of Larian in opening up this issue for discussion with the community. Their credibility is at an all time high for them, as they just shipped Divinity which came out awesome and undoubtedly was improved by both the Kickstarter and Early Access funds. The fact they are even considering forgoing crowdfunding again at this time shows a lot of restraint.

I think ultimately crowd funding should be about projects that can't or won't get funded in traditional ways such as through game publishers. And some big Kickstarter successes doesn't change that there still are not big game publishers ready to fund hardcore cRPGs, even after the success of the crowdfunding campaigns of Divinity, Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity and Torment. Thus, I think them returning to Kickstarter for another similar project is fine, as the market reality has not changed.
 
Lord Panda said:
Yeah that upset me as well. Why not just include it as an option then and then both parties would be happy. Sorry for the OT.
Click to expand...
Balancing a game for both total turn-based and RTWP combat is practically impossible. One or the other would suffer, most likely both.
 
If Larian wants to develop Divinity: Original Sin, but can't afford the entire development and go the Kickstarter route like they did with the first Original Sin, I would pledge day 1. I really enjoyed the game. The same goes for Obsidian. I already supported inXile with two Kickstarter projects. I even pledged more for their second project.

While some Kickstarters will do well enough to generate decent porfit, this will not hold true to every project. If project #1 by a developer is good, I am willing to support project #2.
 
By all means, Kickstart away! Kickstarter's a viable alternative to conventional funding, not some kind of charity handout. It's more than just a last-ditch funding option, and treating it like something that should only be used in case of financial emergencies kind of misses the point.
 
As long as they have a history of making good on their promises, I don't see why not. I mean, having delivered and critically acclaimed projects is a bonus in my view. It shows reliability, and reliability is a major advantage in the highly volatile world of crowdfunding.
 
Why not fundraise to, you know, raise funds?

Yeah, it's not something you want to do all the time, but for projects that require more than you currently have, why the hell not?

Morrigan Stark said:
Just because a game got successfully funded and released, doesn't mean the devs are now rich enough to fund a new game by themselves, nor that they'd get picked up by a publisher. So, I don't see why not.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

This isn't just a video games issue, either.

My friend is starting his second comic Kickstarter soon.
 
When conditions are such that some game proposals can't get publisher support despite crowdfunding success, then Kickstarter and other sites are essential for making those projects a reality. Thanks to recent successes following release, Larian and other CRPG developers will be less in need of this production and distribution methods, but I won't object if they still use crowdfunding. Early Access has its own perils; I think developers using Kickstarter are transparent enough to backers (maybe a bit too transparent, i.e. Untold History of Japanese Game Development). Certain kinds of games have earned more attention due to successful crowdfunding projects, so it'd be smart for consistent teams to realize alternative game ideas through this.
 
I'm highly appreciative that Vincke posted his thoughts and posed that question. I think it's always ultimately up to each individual project and its proposition. I don't see the crowdfunding platforms as being open or closed to individual developer or producer, but rather, each project because that's ultimately what's being voted on there. I have zero problem, personally, if they want to go back to the well and would never see them as abusing the system so long as they maintain trust and fulfil their promises on a per-project basis. I don't believe that the total funding amount that can be sustained by any given crowdfunding platform can be fully or correctly estimated over the short or long term because the promise is highly dependent upon each project's goal and pitch. I also don't believe that there's a hard limit that necessarily takes from others because no one can know what will light any given backer's fire and desire to pledge, so it's always going to be up to the project to find that out and you can't get there if people are backing out. It's still a competition for ideas and there's still a need to convince people to trust your vision and ability to deliver, no matter who you are and what your history with crowdfunding. I say, bring more projects on and they will succeed or fail on their own, but no one will be better off if they get cold feet and stay away from the voting hand of the backers.
 
So.

1: Larian managed to put out Divinity: Original Sin, a game with an incredibly positive reception, delivering on everything they promised for their Kickstarter and shipping the final release of the game only six months after their original timeline (which by Kickstarter standards is exceptional.) By every standard, this is one of the most successfully-run video game KS campaigns to date, so if there's anyone who's earned some slack in terms of going back to the well, it's Larian.

2: The Halo Effect absolutely exists. We actually saw this with DFA -- other smaller projects immediately started doing better than they previously were, and continued as long as big projects with major coverage were happening. After D:OS, Larian could probably do a project with enough hype and brand recognition that they'd be providing this effect to others.

3: In general, people trying to apply their own invented ethical "rules" to Kickstarter only leads to problems. The nature of the agreement is pretty straightforward: people fund you in exchange for a project being completed and specific rewards being handed out. Trying to read in other requirements on top of this (like committing not to use money above the requested line for anything but the same project, or only getting to use KS once, or whatever) just leads to problems when everyone else isn't inventing the exact same requirements. Better not to worry about violating an imaginary constraint like this.
 
Sure. Why not. Especially since by then you get a real sample of how they handle their Kickstarter projects. I will easily back anything Larian puts on KS because of how awesome Divinity was, while Planetary Annihilation's situation makes me wary of Human Resources.
 
How about a middle ground... If you've got enough of a warchest from your first kickstarted game to fund your second, why not just make a smaller kickstarter just as a measure of showing interest. Make it smaller, and make it clear that that's what you're doing. Offer the final game and use it as a platform to preorder if there is enough interest and keep a few fun reward tiers because people like gaming swag and you're good to go.

Kickstarter is still a WONDERFUL means to judge interest in a game or concept. While a studio may be able to fund their next game, if that game turns out to be a complete failure it could ruin them... The kind of feed back kickstarter generates, even if it's negative, could save the company to make another game.
 
Acorn said:
No, if you can self fund don't go begging for charity.

I think to whole things gross anyway but repeatedly going back for charity once you are sustainable is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Has anyone done a study to see why the Internet brings out the crazy in people?

Maybe we can KS that?
 
Yes, they should. But if they have been succesful before, I would require more of them in terms of what they show from the next game. They need to show more of the plans, the art and gameplay prototypes/demos if we can rightly assume that they have the funds to do it. It would just be a mistake to go to kickstarter too early then.
 
partly driven by some high-profile failures
Click to expand...

What games are being referred to here? I feel like I keep up well when it comes to Kickstarter games and I can't think of any popular games that have failed. I know Double Fine has gotten some grief over needing more money, but half of the game is available (with the second half not too far away) and seems to have gone over well for the most part.
 
Dog Problems said:
What games are being referred to here? I feel like I keep up well when it comes to Kickstarter games and I can't think of any popular games that have failed. I know Double Fine has gotten some grief over needing more money, but half of the game is available (with the second half not too far away) and seems to have gone over well for the most part.
Click to expand...

The two really high profile failures are Yogventures, which was really doomed from the beginning, and Clang which communicated badly that they did a kickstarter mostly for an alpha, which was released, but failed to gain any interest in further investments. Broken Age is not a failure.
 
CecilRousso said:
The two really high profile failures are Yogventures, which was really doomed from the beginning, and Clang which communicated badly that they did a kickstarter mostly for an alpha, which was released, but failed to gain any interest in further investments. Broken Age is not a failure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't consider Broken Age a failure but after all of the crap they got I thought people would view it as a failure. I'm sure some do.

Anyway, I forgot all about what happened with Yogventures and had no idea Clang was that popular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Star Citizen crosses $1 billion in funding
News  2 3 4
166
2K
Avid Reading Horse replied
Dragon Age series producer says more games should be funded by product placement instead of live service
Opinion Game Dev  2
91
841
justiceiro replied
The CIA Funded Source Engine Games
Opinion Analysis Trailer 
7
512
IAmRei replied
Nexon launches game investment fund with the South Korean government. The partnership aims to accelerate the development of independent studios.
Business 
12
395
Felessan replied
Former Elder Scrolls Online dev says the MMO "basically funded other failing projects" as Microsoft guts the studio
Game Dev  2
71
280
No Banana replied
Top Bottom