Is he doing actually doing a T2K remake? I hope this is true. I loved this game so much on the Jaguar.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rab Florence Piece on Industry Vets Killing Kickstarter
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
Is he doing actually doing a T2K remake? I hope this is true. I loved this game so much on the Jaguar.
Molyneux on why it's a kickstarter.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/22/interview-peter-molyneux-on-curiositys-failings-godus/
It does sound reasonable. He's not doing it just for the funds.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/22/interview-peter-molyneux-on-curiositys-failings-godus/
It does sound reasonable. He's not doing it just for the funds.
For Molyneux, to be fair he's studio (22cans) isn't exactly a small studio. It's made up of 22 people. Even if he's a multi millionaire, a 1 or 2 year dev cycle will eat up money quickly with that amount of people. Also maybe Molyneux didn't want to go to a publisher in order to have control over he's game rather than worrying publishers butting in.
This drivel is by same guy who who wrote that interesting Eurogamer piece that started all the hubbub recently? What a bunch of nonsense. It doesn't matter what kind of a veteran you are. Games like an isometric RPG or a god game will not get funding in the traditional publisher model. Kickstarter is a legitimate way to bri g these kind of games back to an audience who still want to play them.
Then you simply support one and not the other. I fail to understand this overt concern people have with what others spend money on. You've got an entire generation of gamers paying extra money for online gaming, which is far more laughable and actually damaging than anything from Kickstarter could hope to be. But people also clearly feel it's worth the cost, so the market has spoken, etc.
If project X gets funded, good for that dev, and hopefully the game turns out to be solid. Personally, while I appreciate Molyneux's enthusiasm and eccentricity, I wouldn't trust the guy as far as I could throw him at this point. I still wish him and his backers the best, and if we get a great god game out of it, then better for everyone.
The people funding the thing ultimately have the final say as far as what they're willing to do with their money. You think a project is overly barebones, uninteresting, has an uninspiring track record from the devs, or whatever else - then you don't support the damn thing and move on.
I totaly do not agree.
Veterans on kickstarter is only good thing. Since DF kickstarter amount of money pledged on other projects than big names increased a lot.
Probably he can. But publishers have strings attached. Meaning if he would go to publisher his IP won't be his anymore and that will mean studio won't be indie.
1. Stop generalizing people. Most of people on kickstarter know something about about projects and people involved.
2. Pledges are not sold coppies. It's amount of cash you will pledge. By including bonuses you can give them more cash. But you can as well be at 15$ on every kickstarter.
I don't get this post. Before kickstarter sites there were only publisher model and small fundrisings. There was no "old fashioned"
If they choose to create their games like old games it is their choice you can support it or not.
Again why do you care about it ? Why you love so much my money that you want to stop me pledging for kickstarters i love? It is backward.
I don't even have words to describe what is wrong with this statement and how this is connected with kickstarter.
Aaaaaand we are done. Rumbling of dude who is just jealous.
There will always be shady kickstarters. No doubt about that. But people using kickstarter or other sites are not stupid. They know exactly what is going on. Especially people who pledge more than 100$.
Telling other people what they should do with their money is wrong.
When there was SHAKER kickstarter people knew something was not right. And project failed.
Veterans on kickstarter is only good thing. Since DF kickstarter amount of money pledged on other projects than big names increased a lot.
Probably he can. But publishers have strings attached. Meaning if he would go to publisher his IP won't be his anymore and that will mean studio won't be indie.
1. Stop generalizing people. Most of people on kickstarter know something about about projects and people involved.
2. Pledges are not sold coppies. It's amount of cash you will pledge. By including bonuses you can give them more cash. But you can as well be at 15$ on every kickstarter.
I don't get this post. Before kickstarter sites there were only publisher model and small fundrisings. There was no "old fashioned"
If they choose to create their games like old games it is their choice you can support it or not.
Again why do you care about it ? Why you love so much my money that you want to stop me pledging for kickstarters i love? It is backward.
I don't even have words to describe what is wrong with this statement and how this is connected with kickstarter.
Aaaaaand we are done. Rumbling of dude who is just jealous.
There will always be shady kickstarters. No doubt about that. But people using kickstarter or other sites are not stupid. They know exactly what is going on. Especially people who pledge more than 100$.
Telling other people what they should do with their money is wrong.
When there was SHAKER kickstarter people knew something was not right. And project failed.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
I kind of agreed with that article. Then I remembered that I'm excited for Julian Gollops Chaos Reborn and realised I might be a hypocrite and be letting my dislike for Molyneux sway me. At the end of the day as long as no-ones being mislead I'm okay with it.
Shit...I would totally pledge my money for the sequel!!!
My understanding is that Microsoft was willing to fund his studio and give him carte blanche to make whatever he wanted so long as he made his games for the company's products (Windows Phone 8, Windows 8 and Xbox). Molyneux didn't pitch this game to anyone—he just went straight to Kickstarter for the press. It's slimy.
It was just a matter of time before big name devs and eventually publishers will abuse this shit, people keep talking about Kickstarter being for small games that dont get attention online, but while Maia is probably gonna fail due being ignored, stuff like Godus and the Ryan Patton's multiconsole extravaganza game are getting a disturbing amount of attention from big sites like IGN, 1UP, Polygon, even this hack got a shady interview to advertise his game on the BBC for what is essentially a bunch of renders, art and asteroids.
I understand some like Double Fine who has struggled in the past, I understand Bryan Fargo and his dislike for publishers (lets not forget the guy created Kick-it-Forward), I can even put up with the occasional has-been trying to capitalize on their past success, but a successful relevant guy with lots of hits, who has sold TWO studios for considerable amounts of money, who funded a six million dollar game on his own, who probably is conected enough to get backing and interviews everywhere, wants to release a project through crowd-funding? For showing essentially nothing yet?
I think 22 cans has it wrong, Curiosity and its 50k DLC arent the money experiment, this callous atempt to make maximize profits is. And it will succeed in a big way.
I understand some like Double Fine who has struggled in the past, I understand Bryan Fargo and his dislike for publishers (lets not forget the guy created Kick-it-Forward), I can even put up with the occasional has-been trying to capitalize on their past success, but a successful relevant guy with lots of hits, who has sold TWO studios for considerable amounts of money, who funded a six million dollar game on his own, who probably is conected enough to get backing and interviews everywhere, wants to release a project through crowd-funding? For showing essentially nothing yet?
I think 22 cans has it wrong, Curiosity and its 50k DLC arent the money experiment, this callous atempt to make maximize profits is. And it will succeed in a big way.
Your understanding is wrong. Molynelux worked for already for microsoft sold them Lionhead studio and then he was working on his projects. His final project was Mylo wich we know was canned by MS and after this move he decided to quit and created another studio.
Saying about carte blanche is some fantasy story.
small games were being ignored before well known devs were on kickstarter. There are actually more games being funded now than before - because of a bigger audience on kickstarter.
Not to say that there aren't shady kickstarters or that molyneux needs the money.
Beelzeboss
Member
Even if this is true I don't think it is slimy at all.
He would need to make the game simple enough to work with a 360 controller which would limit a lot of what he could do and his audience on PC would be forced to upgrade just to play his game.
Kickstarter just makes more sense for him.
This is also backward. When people pledge to some big name kickstarter they tend to pledge on other kickstarters especially new people.
Maia problem is that not many people are interested in that. Dungeon Keeper worked because of dark humor, art style, mechanics and being evil.
I just don't see that working in that kickstarter.
But i pledged to M.O.R.E kickstarter because it looked fun to me.
Also with 4 days maia will get funded. It lacks only 30k
Admittedly a Populous-type game DOES sound like something they'd be more than happy to get on XBLA at the least if they can adapt it to that well enough, plus Milo sounds like it wasn't just expensive but also something that likely wasn't actually going to work out very well in reality, not with modern technology (and definitely not the weakened final Kinect).
Not concerned until Activision steps in with a COD kickstarter, tbh.
These are still concepts and proposals that aren't likely to get funding from mainstream publishers, games that haven't been in favor for a long time, stuff that is niche and is remembered by a niche audience. I mean, I wouldn't give Molyneux a dime until the game was actually in my hand, but I don't begrudge him the chance to fund it via nontraditional means.
These are still concepts and proposals that aren't likely to get funding from mainstream publishers, games that haven't been in favor for a long time, stuff that is niche and is remembered by a niche audience. I mean, I wouldn't give Molyneux a dime until the game was actually in my hand, but I don't begrudge him the chance to fund it via nontraditional means.
Sure but he won't have any right to it later. Thanks to kickstarter he can earn a lot of money and pursue his wildest dreams.
Last time when he had total control over production it was Black&White and this was amazing game full of innovation.
I know all of this, but as he was leaving, Microsoft still wanted a relationship with him and offered to basically fund his experiments for two years so long as it tied to their initiatives (Windows, Windows Phone, Xbox, IE10 if it were a browser game).
The risk I see for this sort of games stuff is that is saturates the whole crowdsourcing niche and potentially diminishes interest in smaller more daring endeavors.
Truth. But it also depend if those games will sell.
If PE will sell just few coppies and this game will be amazing in my opinion i don't see why i shouldn't back PE2.
As you said and you are. People are not stupid. If studio sell a lot of coppies and they will turn back to kickstarter they will get obliterated by people.
You must know something first.
Publisher funding = publisher IP and 90% of money income.
If molynelux want to create his wild games in feature he needs to use kickstarter.
I don't mind if people use Kickstarter, even Molyneux. He has as much right as anyone else to use it. If people are willing to pay then that's fine.
My issue with him, is he is asking money up front for his promises this time and he needs to be a bit more humble and maybe apologise for past mistakes instead of acting like a drama queen and blowing up.
My issue with him, is he is asking money up front for his promises this time and he needs to be a bit more humble and maybe apologise for past mistakes instead of acting like a drama queen and blowing up.
Brad Grenz
Member
Bullshit. Molyneux is a millionaire who sold a company to EA, then sold another company to MS. I can't imagine why I should be asked as a customer to assume the financial risk for his next game. That's the real problem with Kickstarter's gold rush mentality right now, you have all these people who claim to be passionate about their project, but only as long as they can get their audience to pay up front so there is no risk to themselves. Oh, and as an added benefit, if the project is a hit they don't have to share the profits with any investors! But for the people actually fronting the money, maybe you'll get the game in a year or two, and every once in a while the game might actually be good.
Rodney McKay
Member
That guy is either bitter as hell, or has some kinda of hippie philosophy toward game design.
"I was able to make games and I didn't have any money, man! Screw these money-grubbing fat cats that want funding for their games!"
Sorry man, but some people don't want to be "completely skint" while they make their games.
Did you saw his account ?
Oh i just saw that. Bitter and jealous.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
The small guys were doing even worse before the big guys jumped on the bandwagon.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
This is true, but does anyone else see the immense irony here? Kickstarter became famous as a way to work around risk-averse publishers. Now, it's a fact that only big-name devs get the real money, as most consumers are. . . risk averse. That's. . . almost poetic.
WorstUsernameEver
Member
I don't like making presumptuous assumptions about what people will fund. Maybe they will flock to industry vets and only them. Maybe they will back ALL project. Most likely every backers has their own criteria as for what to back and why.
The only important thing for me is that developers are transparent about the reasons they go for Kickstarter and the backers are fully informed about the risks and the difference between this and a pre-order (and Kickstarter has made a lot of improvements as a system in this).
I personally generally prefer to back people who have some experience with the industry (which doesn't just include Molyneux but also people like the Dead State team and the guys from The Banner Saga, which seems to be well on track with the development judging by my experience with the Factions multiplayer portion of the game), because I hope that will help them prioritize and scope things better.
As for Molyneux's project.. yeah, he probably could have gotten funding elsewhere. Is he transparent about it with the Kickstarter? Is he giving people the tools to make an informed decision? Because if he is, I don't see the problem. (I'm not going to fund it.)
EDIT: Also, as far as I'm aware, Double Fine has brought a lot of people that weren't interested in the platform on it, and I'd expect at least *some* of them donated to unproven indies. From my point of view, it seems that they actively helped those projects rather than sucked up all the money that could have gone into them.
The only important thing for me is that developers are transparent about the reasons they go for Kickstarter and the backers are fully informed about the risks and the difference between this and a pre-order (and Kickstarter has made a lot of improvements as a system in this).
I personally generally prefer to back people who have some experience with the industry (which doesn't just include Molyneux but also people like the Dead State team and the guys from The Banner Saga, which seems to be well on track with the development judging by my experience with the Factions multiplayer portion of the game), because I hope that will help them prioritize and scope things better.
As for Molyneux's project.. yeah, he probably could have gotten funding elsewhere. Is he transparent about it with the Kickstarter? Is he giving people the tools to make an informed decision? Because if he is, I don't see the problem. (I'm not going to fund it.)
EDIT: Also, as far as I'm aware, Double Fine has brought a lot of people that weren't interested in the platform on it, and I'd expect at least *some* of them donated to unproven indies. From my point of view, it seems that they actively helped those projects rather than sucked up all the money that could have gone into them.
I think my conceptual problem is that Kickstarter should be a last resort, for games etc. that can't be funded through normal channels. If you're going through kickstarter because you can make more money since you own the IP or do not have to pay a percentage to a publisher, then that just feels wrong to me.
I was considering funding Godus, but Florence's article gave me second thoughts.
I was considering funding Godus, but Florence's article gave me second thoughts.
Let's be real here.
Double Fine bringing you a new adventure title
Chris Roberts bringing you a new space sim
Obsidian with a new traditional RPG.
Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, Broken Sword, Leisure Suit Larry.
7 out of the 10 most popular projects are exactly that. The big name(Either IP or people behind it take priority).
I'm taking a guess most Gaffer's first donation to a kickstart has been one of said projects, based on name foremost. It definitely has become a glorified pre-order process with get all these limited extras, with the most popular entries involving bigger names.
I think the reason why this one stings is that its a very outspoken person who left his job, rather than one who got kicked to the side. He was creative head of MS Euroland with the same bullshit with each release. This time, I promise you, its different. So while you feel pity for Obsidian, you have none for him. I think he is completely right about using Kickstart as an alternative to publishers. He gets his creative freedom and control over the IP. Something that most publishers are going to fight him over. Could he have got it? Most likely, but would have been more difficult to get it over the same terms as he is now.
Yeahhhh I don't think so, when I think of the relationship between devs and pubs I can't but help that more established devs go down this route to find funding for their games.
Pachterballs
Banned
He might have a point except Kickstarter is for whoever wants to pitch a KS campaign. If it gets funded, no one should judge or care. Otherwise, wait for it to come out after its been funded and then buy the game.
toddhunter
Member
Other people just need to start a kick starter to kick start their kick starter so they can compete for attention with the big names.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
MasterOfPastures
Banned
This dude sounds hella salty, like a guy angry at football jocks from another highschool that gate-crashed his prom, and is now feeling that he won't even get a pity fuck because all of his fancies are crowding around the popular ones. All the while not noticing the huge number of people they brought in with them!
Game pitching and publisher funding has become a mechanized, statistical probability machine that follows the steps of trends and hits set by the great game makers and occasionally, the rare creative outlier that takes the scene by surprise.
Kickstarter is bringing back what people want, which by the results so far, is what was wanted. It'll even out later, and the big game makers will probably dip their toes back into the crowdfunding waters to try weirder stuff.
My beef with KS is when unproven, unknown developers make kickstarters for crazy high amounts without any transparency on funding at all, or worse, state how frugal they will be. Most of the time, it just feels like they are trying to pay their student loans as fast as possible. Over one hundred grand for a game made by three people with 6 months development time? What?!
But then again, fuck-all what I think. If you love it, fund it.
Game pitching and publisher funding has become a mechanized, statistical probability machine that follows the steps of trends and hits set by the great game makers and occasionally, the rare creative outlier that takes the scene by surprise.
Kickstarter is bringing back what people want, which by the results so far, is what was wanted. It'll even out later, and the big game makers will probably dip their toes back into the crowdfunding waters to try weirder stuff.
My beef with KS is when unproven, unknown developers make kickstarters for crazy high amounts without any transparency on funding at all, or worse, state how frugal they will be. Most of the time, it just feels like they are trying to pay their student loans as fast as possible. Over one hundred grand for a game made by three people with 6 months development time? What?!
But then again, fuck-all what I think. If you love it, fund it.
Im not saying that Molyneux is directly responsible to Maia's performance, im not saying that people should support this instead of that (even tho I want to), but its embarrasing to see a project that is already playable at some capacity with great feedback failing compared to one with some art and promises of literally "change the nature of gaming" doing way better. But the thing with Kickstarter is that I dont have the right to blame a guy capitalizing on this trend, gamers willing to give their support to it. Its not as simple as saying that its Peter's fault, but its also not as simple as saying people disliking this are jelaous and salty.
The biggest displays of focus testing in gaming industry in the last few years are sadly coming from something that was counterpoint to that.
Was Kickstarter ever a real haven for small, indie devs? In terms of games development, hasn't Kickstart always been dominated by big names and has-beens from games past? It seems to work best for those with name recognition, but who've fallen out of favor with the major publishers.
Rab may be right, but he's not saying anything most of us didn't already know.
Rab may be right, but he's not saying anything most of us didn't already know.
Florence made a similar sentiment with this brilliant bit: "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..."
I don't know that "struggling" and adding potentially unnecessary stress is really conducive to a smooth and healthy development process. But hey, it gets you that all-important "indie cred." Making games is hard enough as it is without piling on more difficulties.
It's less about risk aversion than about those particular projects being hugely enticing and anticipated, and uncommon enough as to be non-existent. A new adventure game from Shafer and Gilbert? An isometric RPG from Avellone, Sawyer, Cain? A new Wasteland from Fargo himself? These are very particular projects that a lot of people are going to have an instant attachment to, and the amount of funding conveys that.
Countless lower-profile projects have met their funding goals as well. Kickstarter devs tend to ask for money commensurate with their project's visibility and ambition.
Maia probalem in my opinion is that they showed it working but they didn't show it is fun.
It is developers fault no one else !
Here is M.O.R.E kickstarter
What this says about Maia ?
a) Concept is not fun
b) It is poorly presented
M.O.R.E had 0 names behind project and they got 90 000$ Maia has name behind it gets lower pledges.
Game probably is fun but your pitch need to tell that. If it is comparable to dungon keeper tell in what way. How different game mechanics will make you happy.
Visualante2
Member
I just want to add that I attended a lecture on funding for documentaries and the TV industry is watching games Kickstarters very closely after the success of Indie Game: the Movie. They are sharks because of how the broadcast funding model works, but they noted that you usually can't get funded unless you're satisfying an already established fanbase, and that made me recall how the most successful Kickstarters are satisfying under-served audiences.
I like that we're having the debate. Most Kickstarters are rubbing me the wrong way, but I think Rab's probably going a bit far with his language.
I think Total Biscuit ignores the number of eyes and wallets floating around on Kickstarter. Double Fine brought the eyes and now the industry veterans are cleaning up the cash. Feast or famine. I'd love to see a real economist try to weigh in on what patterns are seen on KS.
I like that we're having the debate. Most Kickstarters are rubbing me the wrong way, but I think Rab's probably going a bit far with his language.
I think Total Biscuit ignores the number of eyes and wallets floating around on Kickstarter. Double Fine brought the eyes and now the industry veterans are cleaning up the cash. Feast or famine. I'd love to see a real economist try to weigh in on what patterns are seen on KS.
I dunno ask Eric Chahi.. wait wha-
I don't see how that solves the problem at all. And the only reason I can even begin to fathom that you think it would is if you don't see what is being warned against in the OP as being a problem.
Visualante2
Member
I wonder if Kickstarter advocates see it as an opportunity to stick it to the evil publishers who never did nothing for us anyway and that's why it is going so unchecked. What Rab is probably trying to get at with the predatory commentary is that these luminaries are tapping into an overall discontent with the published games model.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
So you were using kick starter before double fine?
DFs kick starter exposed me to the service and I've funded projects that have resurrected dead PC genres that would NEVER see the light of day. I've also funded other projects due to knowing kick starter existed. Like anything the service can be abused, but the projects I've funded are games I want, that I know the traditional market would not support until an alternative mechanism is in place.
People now can help influence and support devs that want to make the niche games, and those that don't can buy it after the fact or not at all. Doesn't seem so doom and gloom to me.
And there's no way ill support the 22 cans project. I would never trust Peter.
They weren't hung out to dry. They agreed to the terms. They could have always walked away if they didn't like those terms, they didn't have a gun to their head. Or they could have negotiated better.
If you don't like a contract, don't sign it. If you sign it, you have to abide by the terms. That's the bottom line.
Or should Bethesda have felt sorry for Obsidian and gave them the bonus out of pity? That's not how you do business, because what is the point of a contract in the first place if you're just going to go back on it?
Hung out to dry my ass.