Support NeoGAF

[Gowans]

MOLYNEUX AND FUCKING KICKSTARTER

They will kill it.

Be in no doubt. These established industry veterans, who could achieve their goals through traditional paths, will kill Kickstarter with their greed.

“Greed” might seem harsh. But here we see Peter Molyneux, as established a figure as you can find in the games industry, asking his audience to take on all the risk associated with his new product. Here is a man who has over-promised and under-delivered for over a decade, asking people like me and you to pay up front for his latest venture.

Do you believe for even one second that Molyneux couldn’t find that financial backing elsewhere? I don’t.

Kickstarter has shown us many cases where creative people who can’t find the funding to realise their unique vision have been saved by like-minded people who want to see those projects happen. That’s a good thing. I’m not talking about those people. Small teams, great ideas, outsiders. That’s all good.

But these capitalist animals, Molyneux and Braben to name but two, are transforming Kickstarter into a shopping website for products that don’t yet exist. They package their products with ridiculous “bonuses” that the gaming audience are paying small fortunes to secure. This is the same game audience that, just a few years ago, was laughing Bethesda out of the room for charging a small amount of cash for horse armour. And we at least knew something about that game.

We are being exploited.

Molyneux and Braben have both used the same marketing trick too. Braben goes back to the space games we always wanted him to return to. Molyneux returns to the god games. They’re both saying “HEY GUYS, WE’RE GIVING YOU WHAT YOU WANTED! NOW LET’S DO THIS THING TOGETHER!” It’s a trick. Or maybe Molyneux would call it “an experiment”. What happened to good old fashioned investment, guys? You know, where we gave you some money and shared in the risk and maybe actually fucking GAINED from it somewhere down the line? What happened to THAT experiment?

What is going on is cynical, and it’s ugly. These established game designers have recognised that people have started to use Kickstarter as a thing that helps them to define who they are and what they love. When someone backs a project, it’s not entirely about the specific project. If you back a point and click adventure game, you’re telling the world that you love that genre. You’re saying that it matters to you. That makes you easy to exploit. It’s the easiest thing in the world for a cold fuck in a suit to exploit someone with heart.

It’s great to have people who like your stuff. It’s great to have support. What’s even better is you appreciating that THEY’RE the ones that YOU should be trying to pay back for that support. If people enjoy what you do and have made you in any way relevant in our culture, then YOU owe THEM something.

HEY YOU LOVE ME PAY FOR ME TO RECORD MY ALBUM!

HEY YOU LOVED ME YEARS AGO PAY FOR ME TO RE-DO MY OLD IDEAS!

HEY I’M KINDA SORTA FAMOUS PAY FOR ME TO DO SOME SHIT MAYBE I DUNNO WHATEVER!

You think I haven’t ever considered running a Kickstarter? You think I haven’t thought to myself - “Hey, I could Kickstarter this games blog, raise money to film stuff, raise money for better equipment, raise money so that I can spend more time on it all, raise money to indulge my own ego!”

But then you stop and ask yourself if you can do it on your own.

And if you can? Even if it’s a struggle? And you STILL start a Kickstarter?

Then FUCK YOU, Molyneux. And all who came before you.

And, depressingly, all those yet to inevitably fucking come.

Source: http://effingarcade.tumblr.com/post/36277287313/molyneux-and-fucking-kickstarter


Total Biscuit on this and the artcile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXfkeTQTZUg

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I sort of agree. I did not mind Doublefine's, because I don't think they could make the game they wanted to make with the publisher looking over their shoulder. And it's a one-off, anyway.

Molyneux's, though? I raised an eyebrow immediately to that. He could walk in to any publisher, say what his plans are, and they'd cut him off before he finished and give him the money. Or he could finance it himself, if he wanted.

Peter Molyneux's felt like it crossed a line that didn't need to be crossed.

 

[Jarmel]

Then don't support it. Problem solved.

 

[Criminal Upper]

100% agree. I always thought Molyneux begging through kickstarter reeked of laziness on his part.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Then don't support it. Problem solved.

Is he banned from posting his opinions on it in the interim?

 

[Gowans]

Same goes for the Dizzy devs one that launched yesterday. In their video it came across as if they didn't want to risk anything themselves.

 

[Data West]

but people told me peter seems so nice and that i should support him because he'll kill himself if i dont

 

[lsslave]

First off - putting your own money on the line is never smart. Talk to Curt about that

Second off - Totalbiscuit did a fantastic take / rant on this today and his points are pretty strong, if any publisher wanted this game made it would be done by now

I understand "oooh kickstarter" but I won't just throw my money at a dev I don't know, this one though I would. That is how it goes. Sad that the Quest for Glory team didn't get theres done though (Edit: Just checked that one, HOLY SHIT THEY JUST MADE IT!!! )+

but people told me peter seems so nice and that i should support him because he'll kill himself if i dont

I like him because he is passionate in a way you don't often see. He might overpromise but at least he isn't behind Call of Duty whatevernumber we're on and the bankrupting of the once phenomenal Final Fantasy series and etc. ; he tries risks and aims too high

 

[DigitalRicket]

I do think that developers have a hard time finding funding for games that may not cater to audiences outside of their original niche groups -- for instance, "god games". By letting the audience get what they pay for, the developer doesn't need to worry about a project being completely dropped by a publisher half way through development because their financials told the higher ups it wasn't worth doing.

But I do see the merit in Rab's post.

 

[8bit]

I think Jeff Minter's comments are also worth noting :

Jeff Minter ‏@llamasoft_ox
I'll just stick an egg in this platformer I'm making and retire then.

Jeff Minter ‏@llamasoft_ox
I mean yeah, I'd love a couple of hundred grand to do my T2K remake. But I'd stand no chance as the already rich have taken it all.

Jeff Minter ‏@llamasoft_ox
Somehow I manage to do my games and the odd remake whilst being completely skint.

Jeff Minter ‏@llamasoft_ox
These people asking for Kickstarter money have ALREADY MADE POTS OF MONEY. That they could use to make games with.

Jeff Minter ‏@llamasoft_ox
Plainly I should have asked for 350 grand to do my Gridrunner remake. Fuck's sake.

Although he is more ticked off by the Dizzy revival.

 

[Data West]

I like him because he is passionate in a way you don't often see. He might overpromise but at least he isn't behind Call of Duty whatevernumber we're on and the bankrupting of the once phenomenal Final Fantasy series and etc. ; he tries risks and aims too high

Everyone keeps saying this. What game has Molyneux made in the last 10 years that is a risk? Name one.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Then don't support it. Problem solved.

Not really, because less cynical, and less knowledgable people will support it

 

[Campster]

First off - putting your own money on the line is never smart. Talk to Curt about that

Second off - Totalbiscuit did a fantastic take / rant on this today and his points are pretty strong, if any publisher wanted this game made it would be done by now

I understand "oooh kickstarter" but I won't just throw my money at a dev I don't know, this one though I would. That is how it goes. Sad that the Quest for Glory team didn't get theres done though (Edit: Just checked that one, HOLY SHIT THEY JUST MADE IT!!! )

Which is largely Florence's point. The second Kickstarter stops being "Hey give us money for this project that would otherwise never get made" and starts being "Give established developers with name recognition tons of money" you've lost what made Kickstarter worthwhile to begin with. It's a glorified preorder process; not an investment in the arts with subsequent payoff. Putting $10-$20 down on a game made by complete unknowns with a lot of passion is a very different thing from putting down $10-$20 down on a developer with a known track record and a team of artists and programmers ready to implement his vision once he's secured the financing.

 

[Takao]

Same goes for the Dizzy devs one that launched yesterday. In their video it came across as if they didn't want to risk anything themselves.

would you really want to bet the farm on a couple of eggs

 

[kirblar]

Which is largely Florence's point. The second Kickstarter stops being "Hey give us money for this project that would otherwise never get made" and starts being "Give established developers with name recognition tons of money" you've lost what made Kickstarter worthwhile to begin with. It's a glorified preorder process; not an investment in the arts with subsequent payoff. Putting $10-$20 down on a game made by complete unknowns with a lot of passion is a very different thing from putting down $10-$20 down on a developer with a known track record and a team of artists and programmers ready to implement his vision once he's secured the financing.

It's definitely starting to happen more and more, and it's very uncomfortable to watch.

 

[Khezu]

Second off - Totalbiscuit did a fantastic take / rant on this today and his points are pretty strong, if any publisher wanted this game made it would be done by now

Could I get a link to this?

 

[DigitalRicket]

but people told me peter seems so nice and that i should support him because he'll kill himself if i dont

Oh, didn't you hear? Sensationalist journalism made Molyneux appear he was on the brink of suicide.

 

[AlimNassor]

Which is largely Florence's point. The second Kickstarter stops being "Hey give us money for this project that would otherwise never get made" and starts being "Give established developers with name recognition tons of money" you've lost what made Kickstarter worthwhile to begin with. It's a glorified preorder process; not an investment in the arts with subsequent payoff. Putting $10-$20 down on a game made by complete unknowns with a lot of passion is a very different thing from putting down $10-$20 down on a developer with a known track record and a team of artists and programmers ready to implement his vision once he's secured the financing.

But sometimes the developers have no other recourse. Kickstarter may be their only chance of their game seeing the light of day.

A PC exclusive Space Sim using Cry Engine? Publishers will take one look at it and say "pass".

Project Eternity? Obsidian is on it's last legs, and have no other option, they'd like to at least try kickstarter to survive.

 

[xeris]

Everyone keeps saying this. What game has Molyneux made in the last 10 years that is a risk? Name one.

The Movies

 

[Eusis]

I do think that developers have a hard time finding funding for games that may not cater to audiences outside of their original niche groups -- for instance, "god games". By letting the audience get what they pay for, the developer doesn't need to worry about a project being completely dropped by a publisher half way through development because their financials told the higher ups it wasn't worth doing.

But I do see the merit in Rab's post.

Yeah, I think that's the problem we're facing: some of these games are either too niche for most publishers to want to take on nowadays, are perceived as risky even with a large potential audience, or the audience really IS that small and niche. I do think to a significant degree though the industry's becoming too risk averse, I guess they backed themselves into a corner where the only viable path for most is to chase CoD numbers or die trying, almost literally. But, yeah, ideally we wouldn't see this as necessary for games the size of DoubleFine's, Obsidian's, or even Wasteland 2, we'd just be seeing it for stuff like FTL and Hero-U.

 

[Data West]

The Movies

I love The Movies, but it's nothing more than a tycoon game with the ability to record.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

if any publisher wanted this game made it would be done by now

What has that got to do with anything? This isn't about finding a publisher. Devs can make games available on PC and iOS themselves quite easily without going near a publisher.

This is about multi-millionaires creating Kickstarters because they don't like the idea of putting their hand in their own pocket. It's about all these devs who made one popular game some 20-odd years ago (and in a lot of cases fuck all since) and want to try and do the same again but without any of the risks that normally go with game development.

All of these Kickstarters are taking money away from what it was originally created for - indie devs and one man bands looking to create the project they've always wanted, with financial help from those interested.

 

[pieatorium]

But sometimes the developers have no other recourse. Kickstarter may be their only chance of their game seeing the light of day.

A PC exclusive Space Sim using Cry Engine? Publishers will take one look at it and say "pass".

Project Eternity? Obsidian is on it's last legs, and have no other option, they'd like to at least try kickstarter to survive.

You really think Molyneux couldn't get 500k from a publisher for a new populous style game?

 

[Zaptruder]

Dear established game developers.

The new yard stick is Chris Roberts and Star Citizen.

Show us something motherfuckers and we will repay you in record numbers.

Be a cynical fuck stick, and... well you get one chance at it before the bridge to crowd funding is burnt to a crisp.

 

[kirblar]

What has that got to do with anything? This isn't about finding a publisher. Devs can make games available on PC and iOS themselves quite easily without going near a publisher.

This is about multi-millionaires creating Kickstarters because they don't like the idea of putting their hand in their own pocket. It's about all these devs who made one popular game some 20-odd years ago (and in a lot of cases fuck all since) and want to try and do the same again but without any of the risks that normally go with game development.

All of these Kickstarters are taking money away from what it was originally created for - indie devs and one man bands looking to create the project they've always wanted, with financial help from those interested.

They're also becoming non-project oriented. Most kickstarters previously resulted in a "tangible" product you could buy But now we see MMOs and other ongoing business enterprises that come across as one-way "Shark Tank" negotiations where the money flows one way.

 

[Zeliard]

If cynical projects come out, they'll likely fail at even getting funding and be heavily criticized just like the Tom Hall/Brenda Brathwaite "hey guys want an old school RPG?" attempt.

 

[JJD]

Don't know if I agree with Rab, but he always writes interesting articles.

 

[jman2050]

First off - putting your own money on the line is never smart. Talk to Curt about that

So the solution is to use someone else's money that they can never get back? At least securing funding from a publisher involves an investment on somebody's part...

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Actually I can see Wasteland 2 (that's not made into a fps, but kept in the older style) and Project Eternity (infinity engine style), never being green-lit nowadays by modern publishers, so I disagree with this article somewhat.

 

[lsslave]

Which is largely Florence's point. The second Kickstarter stops being "Hey give us money for this project that would otherwise never get made" and starts being "Give established developers with name recognition tons of money" you've lost what made Kickstarter worthwhile to begin with. It's a glorified preorder process; not an investment in the arts with subsequent payoff. Putting $10-$20 down on a game made by complete unknowns with a lot of passion is a very different thing from putting down $10-$20 down on a developer with a known track record and a team of artists and programmers ready to implement his vision once he's secured the financing.

I've browsed Kickstarter (every 2 weeks I go take a look) and almost (_ALMOST_ key word here) all of the indie games that might even interest me in premise look awful. RPGs that look worse than RPG maker games, Zeboyd can crank them out and charge a buck and I'm pretty sure most of these ARE just RPG maker games...

Platformers that I can see from their videos just don't work... if your pitch video shows mechanics that don't work when I Wanna Be The Guy is a free game (from hell) that has tight mechanics and is instantly fun whereas you're supposed to be selling something there is a problem. Also, for indies, show some fucking gameplay not just concept art; you're an indie you don't have pedigree to not show anything, and make it GOOD gameplay because if the video shows wonky gameplay or it looks boring as hell... jesus.

And Kickstarter is getting huge traction thanks to these "big" people involved, I bet their traffic is entirely different since DFA. I'm sure some of these new faces are supporting other projects, so there is also that as well.

So the solution is to use someone else's money that they can never get back? At least securing funding from a publisher involves an investment on somebody's part...

Kickstarter is a 20$ investment, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Campster]

But sometimes the developers have no other recourse. Kickstarter may be their only chance of their game seeing the light of day.

A PC exclusive Space Sim using Cry Engine? Publishers will take one look at it and say "pass".

Project Eternity? Obsidian is on it's last legs, and have no other option, they'd like to at least try kickstarter to survive.

Which is totally a valid counter argument to Florence's article.

The reality is that Kickstarter got its name from major/famous devs crowdfunding their projects (Double Fine, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, etc). While I'd love to see Kickstarter be a utopia for indie developers looking to get financing for their ideas, the reality has always been that big name people tend to get the big dollar amounts. Everyone else has to hope to just break even. And crowdfunding was always going to work this way, in the same way that Greenlight was always going to be crippled with specific subjects/genres.

I guess my point is: I see Florence's concern. Molyneux and Double Fine and company will effectively "kill" Kickstarter for a lot of indies, because who wants to donate cash money to some unknown when major developers with proven track records are also asking for donations? But at the same time, that's the nature of crowdfunding - the money goes where it will by mob rule, which tends to be neither fair nor willing to tolerate outsider works. And I don't know if you can blame Molyneux and company for that.

 

[Beelzeboss]

You really think Molyneux couldn't get 500k from a publisher for a new populous style game?

I'm not sure but getting the money isn't the only problem. I remember when the Wasteland 2 kickstarter made a video about funding and publishers wanted a lot of control over the game like making it simple and turning it into a FPS.

If he knows he won't be able to make the game he wants than by all means try Kickstarter. Double Fine and Obsidian had no problems getting on there.

 

[EVOL 100%]

If cynical projects come out, they'll likely fail at even getting funding and be heavily criticized just like the Tom Hall/Brenda Brathwaite "hey guys want an old school RPG?" attempt.

Actually I can see Wasteland 2 (that's not made into a fps, but kept in the older style) and Project Eternity (infinity engine style), never being green-lit nowadays by modern publishers, so I disagree with this article somewhat.

Both of these.

Project Eternity getting funding even when we barely had any details is the exception to the rule. Not the norm.

 

[Ban Puncher]

I'm not opposed to helping out a struggling individual or a team make their project a reality with the help of fan's donating. I've gotten behind a few and regret nothing.


But fuck people who have a padded wallet yet still ask for handouts simply because they don't want to spend their own money on a potentially risky venture. Greedy, lazy cowards.

 

[Data West]

At least Project Eternity seems like a risk. It's a full fledged RPG with voice acting, classes, a large story, and all of those supposed details. It's too big to be an arcade title, and it's too niche to be a retail game.

I mean, From Dust just came out like last year, and that seems like a shining parallel to Godus.

 

[bernardobri]

So the solution is to use someone else's money that they can never get back? At least securing funding from a publisher involves an investment on somebody's part...

Assuming you refer to kickstarter pledgers in that comment, one of the key (legal) policies of the website is that, if you can't accomplish the rewards you set to, you have to return the money.

 

[Herla]

At this point Kickstarter is not just for raising money, it's an actual alternative to publishers that gives the consumer a (somewhat) direct connection to the developer. The sooner we realize this, the better.

Smaller projects don't get hurt by this line of thinking (hell, the site is probably more popular than ever, and that means more exposure for everyone), the problem is the whole "we wouldn't be able to make this without your help!" shtick that is getting annoying. A bit more honesty would be appreciated, I think.

 

[Eusis]

Actually I can see Wasteland 2 (that's not made into a fps, but kept in the older style) and Project Eternity (infinity engine style), never being green-lit nowadays by modern publishers, so I disagree with this article somewhat.

It's why I'm weary of the idea of ONLY going to Kickstarter to fund all projects. It seems like for some of the established developers it's better used as a desperation move: the game they want to make isn't being greenlit yet is a type of game with an audience that's clearly there, just not at the size bigger publishers want. So get that one game funded, hopefully profit off of it, and grow from there.

Basically I think it should be treated like jumpstarting a car: you're getting it powered on until you can get a new battery in, but you're not DEPENDING on other cars forever to get yours working.

 

[Zeliard]

Which is totally a valid counter argument to Florence's article.

The reality is that Kickstarter got its name from major/famous devs crowdfunding their projects (Double Fine, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, etc). While I'd love to see Kickstarter be a utopia for indie developers looking to get financing for their ideas, the reality has always been that big name people tend to get the big dollar amounts. Everyone else has to hope to just break even. And crowdfunding was always going to work this way, in the same way that Greenlight was always going to be crippled with specific subjects/genres.

I guess my point is: I see Florence's concern. Molyneux and Double Fine and company will effectively "kill" Kickstarter for a lot of indies, because who wants to donate cash money to some unknown when major developers with proven track records are also asking for donations? But at the same time, that's the nature of crowdfunding - the money goes where it will by mob rule, which tends to be neither fair nor willing to tolerate outsider works.

There is a lot of silly doomsaying and hand-wringing when it comes to Kickstarter, but the reality is that devs who misuse it will simply be hurting themselves in the long run. Is the Hall/Brathwaite bungle a failure on Kickstarter's part? No, it's a failure on the devs' part for not creating an attractive prospect, being somewhat patronizing, and being incredibly vague even by normal standards. And thus people said no, we're not going to fund you.

The crowdsourcing model will ultimately live on for gaming as it is proven to be an effective enough alternative source of funding for the types of games that go through it. Some devs have or will bungle certain pitches or even games, but that is simply the nature of game development.

 

[Lancehead]

I'm actually not against people like Molyneux using Kickstarter - it's there as a funding mechanism for creative projects, not necessarily for those who can't get funding anywhere else. I'd rather see people not fund seemingly-exploitative projects than try and prevent such projects existing on Kickstarter.

 

[Nibel]

I think that Molyneux could have gotten the money elsewhere easily, but wouldn't he have to deal with the publisher's control over his studio's creativity? Like "make this level easier" or "remove these options"?

It's feels weird to see a veteran like Molyneux on Kickstarter, but I don't think that money is the issue here. Creative control is important, especially if you want to make a game like Populous. And Braben.. I highly doubt that he would have gotten any money for a space sim, a genre which is dead for years.

It's the same with the point-and-click adventure from Double Fine or the deep RPG from Obsidian: these games wouldn't get funded otherwise because they are too niche.

 

[lsslave]

It's why I'm weary of the idea of ONLY going to Kickstarter to fund all projects. It seems like for some of the established developers it's better used as a desperation move: the game they want to make isn't being greenlit yet is a type of game with an audience that's clearly there, just not at the size bigger publishers want. So get that one game funded, hopefully profit off of it, and grow from there.

Basically I think it should be treated like jumpstarting a car: you're getting it powered on until you can get a new battery in, but you're not DEPENDING on other cars forever to get yours working.

I work under the premise that (for a big dev, even Obsidian who I hold a dear place in my heart for) you get ONE. If you kickstart a successful game, and the game even sells, that money all goes to you. That is your next game kickstarted, and you don't get to have the crowd pay for it again.

If DFA-2 ; PE 2 ; Shadowrun 2 ; Wasteland 3 ; etc. show up on Kickstarter (assuming they don't bomb and all sell well) I'll have a "you greedy fucks" attitude.

 

[Sub_Level]

I agree with Total Biscuit on this issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXfkeTQTZUg&t=8m26s

Kickstarter is merely a means for developers to raise money for content without a publisher. It's a great way to make games with production value and risk proportionate to the amount of fan support they get.

 

[Sapphire Dreams]

At this point Kickstarter is not just for raising money, it's an actual alternative to publishers that gives the consumer a (somewhat) direct connection to the developer. The sooner we realize this, the better.

Smaller projects don't get hurt by this line of thinking (hell, the site is probably more popular than ever, and that means more exposure for everyone), the problem is the whole "we wouldn't be able to make this without your help!" shtick that is getting annoying. A bit more honesty would be appreciated, I think.

Exactly my thoughts on the whole kick-starter thing, I've only funded one project and I already regret it.

 

[cuyahoga]

if any publisher wanted this game made it would be done by now

22cans/Molyneux didn't pitch their new game—they went straight to Kickstarter.

 

[Lancehead]

Also, I don't like Florence's article. It's taking the case of Molyneux and Braben and projecting it on to "established devs asking money on a basis of past works". Obsidian did the same thing, the initial video was about all the older CRPGs they worked on. Were they being exploitative, was it a trick?

The premise of the article itself is flawed.

 

[s_mirage]

Assuming you refer to kickstarter pledgers in that comment, one of the key (legal) policies of the website is that, if you can't accomplish the rewards you set to, you have to return the money.

It'll be interesting to see if that holds up when we have the first major failure of a larger scale project. How can the money be returned if there is no money left to return?

 

[Yagharek]

Also, I don't like Florence's article. It's taking the case of Molyneux and Braben and projecting it on to "established devs asking money on a basis of past works". Obsidian did the same thing, the initial video was about all the older CRPGs they worked on. Were they being exploitative, was it a trick?

The premise of the article itself is flawed.

There's a difference between Obsidian who were hung out to dry by bethesda, and molyneaux who has left a wake of disappointment and broken promises.

 

[Lancehead]

There's a difference between Obsidian who were hung out to dry by bethesda, and molyneaux who has left a wake of disappointment and broken promises.

Which is sort of my point? That it's not about him being an established developer referring to his past works.

 

[Sub_Level]

Let me present the argument in this fashion for Zone of the Enders fans (as an example). You have three choices

A - Fans donate money through Kickstarter to help Kojima Productions to make a more modest-in-scope Zone of the Enders (A or AA so to speak)

B - Donate the same amount of money as A to a group of unproven non-industry vets to make a game that's spiritually similar to ZOE and other games like it

C - Wait for the random chance that Konami will decide one day to fund a ZOE3.

Personally I think A is the best choice.