Support NeoGAF

[Frogacuda]

there are still some fairly risky/niche games being made the traditional way, where the publishers are risking their own money.

But a lot of them are losing money.

The question is not whether or not these games get made, but more a question of the viability of the business. Particularly for developers, where they don't get much of the profit, it's a very unstable situation. Kickstarter is a "safe" way to get a game made, that also provides for growth potential.

 

[Frogacuda]

Kickstarter legally requires that funded games reach the goals they promise, or the donations are forfeit and they must return the money.

I don't think this is true. Kickstarter warns that failure to deliver will leave project creators open to lawsuits from backers, but Kickstarter themselves cannot reclaim that money.

 

[Barsinister]

I clicked on one of the links to a cancelled Kickstarter. Who would donate ten thousand dollars and not expect anything from the backend but a trip to Disneyland?

Kickstarters, in my opinion, should not exceed what one would pay for the game itself.

edited for clarity.

 

[patapuf]

After reading the article I kind of regret having donated to Project Eternity.

don't.

Doublefine and co actually increased the amount of funding toward games as a whole because suddenly a lot more people were introduced to kickstarter. One can argue if molyneux needs it, but Obsidian would never have been able to make PE without kickstarter.


http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/the-year-of-the-game

 

[snap0212]

But is it ABOUT "needing money?" Or is it a market for games that wouldn't have been created otherwise? Even if 22cans HAD the money to fund the game, that doesn't mean they would have USED the money to re-invent Populous.

Besides, you can't quantify which developers "need money" and which don't, so I don't see how personal finances really matter at the end of the day. If people think Molyneux's kickstarter is "corrupt," they won't fund it. Simple as that.

It’s about doing business, and they’re not making this game to please people, they’re making this game to sell it, to make money. However, they do not want to risk their own money and they also do not want to ask publishers, they want you to chip in. (Considering that the game is a reward, I’d guess it’s safe to say that they’ll charge money for it once it’s released)

So here we have people who want the upside of doing business (which is making money) but don’t want any of the downsides. It’s not like they can’t deal with the downsides (like many indies or known devs who had their projects rejected), it’s a matter of not wanting to and nothing else.

 

[Frogacuda]

I clicked on one of the links to a cancelled Kickstarter. Who would donate ten thousand dollars and not expect anything from the backend but a trip to Disneyland?

Kickstarters, in my opinion, should not exceed the price of the game itself.

Disagree. Project Fedora only succeeded because its batshit crazy audience ponied up an average of like $90 each, and I don't want to live in a world where that can't happen.

As long as people are informed, they understand the risks, and they aren't being lied to, they can do whatever they want with their money. I think that most people only back a small number of projects that are particularly important to them, based on their own individual criteria, and that they do so in a fairly informed way, and with a reasonable understanding of the risks involved.

I've backed maybe 7 or so projects, and if 5 of them come out decent, the whole sum will have been money well spent.

 

[mclem]

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.

The key with Kickstarter and crowdfunding is that the risk isn't all accumulated in one or two groups - it's not entirely the publisher's budget being risked, or the developer's savings. Instead a *large* number of people each take on a much *smaller* amount of risk; if the project bellyflops spectacularly, then at least those individuals are working within their financial means.


There's always been risk in making games, of course. The problem with the industry as it stands at the moment, though, is that the risk in question has got very high - hence the risk-averse publishers wanting cookie-cutter reliable sellers. The problem I have with the claim that passionate developers should just stump up the money themselves is that - in many cases, at least - that's still just *too much risk* for an indiviudal who isn't *ridiculously* wealthy to reasonably take on.

Is Molyneux ridiculously wealthy? Are the Oliver Twins? I don't know, I'll admit. Can they afford to potentially throw away a couple of hundred thousand and still be completely solvent? That's a lot of money to spend with no guarantee of it ending up as a viable asset.

Rab spoke of the classic days, without bearing in mind that in those good ol' days it was possible to produce Manic Miner in a bedroom in your spare time for - effectively - maybe a couple of thousand quid. Those days are gone. Jeff Minter can do his remakes at his prices because he doesn't really go massively beyond those production values, but then he's always been a gameplay-focussed guy and so people latch on to that.

There is one word of caution, though, and it comes back to Dizzy: $350k for Dizzy genuinely does seem steep... at least, for what I'm imagining to be the scope of their project. There is something in the FAQ that mentions that their scope is rather greater than what I was imagining, but I'd like to see a little more evidence of that before I commit.

 

[Aquamarine]

I don't think this is true. Kickstarter warns that failure to deliver will leave project creators open to lawsuits from backers, but Kickstarter themselves cannot reclaim that money.

From their website:

Can Kickstarter refund the money if a project is unable to fulfill?

No. Kickstarter doesn't issue refunds as transactions are between backers and creators, and creators receive all funds (after fees) soon after their campaign ends. Creators have the ability to refund backers through Amazon Payments (for US projects) and Kickstarter (for UK projects).

It's a very nebulous accountability policy. "You may be sued by your backers if you don't deliver," isn't reassuring at all, considering that very few people (if any) would bother with the massive amounts of legal processes required to get their money back.

What's clear is that Kickstarter doesn't do a single thing if a project doesn't deliver. So your "investment" in the project is exclusively a donation that you shouldn't expect to see back.

 

[Zeliard]

I'm no huge fan of the publisher-developer model, and some of the deals that seem to have been reached by the two are mind-boggling when you read about them. We have to remember though that both publisher and developer are trying to deliver a compelling product and are operating at significant financial risk.

I wrote this post a few days back on the topic of Kickstarter - basically what I feel it brings to the table and why I'm a huge fan of it. And why it frankly saddens me to see so many people against it (some even vehemently), when as fans of games we should be welcoming it as a boon. I honestly think it's one of the best things to happen to the industry in a long time.

The Kickstarter model has nothing at all to do with guaranteeing the ultimate quality of the games. What it does is open up the possibility of making relatively unique games that people otherwise want but that would have a hard time being created otherwise. It's not some predetermined route to high product quality; it's an avenue that allows for a form of funding that can prove less problematic in making what could otherwise be "riskier" products, or in fact letting them even be made at all. Where Kickstarter's impact on quality comes in is in allowing devs to concern themselves solely with the game-making process, removing many of the hurdles they'd otherwise have to jump.

Kickstarter's very existence and its proven ability to generate funding already makes it a success. The quality of the final product is purely up to the abilities of the development team tasked with creating it, and that goes for both games and the many other non-game products that go through Kickstarter. Some of these games may end up middling, and others excellent, because that is simply the nature of video game creation (and any creation). Kickstarter isn't some automatic great product generator.

In most cases devs through Kickstarter also get vastly more money than they had originally asked for, which allows them to both add to the product as well as have even more breathing room during development. When you aren't hamstrung by a massive marketing budget and a publisher-driven need to meet certain "expectations" (i.e. lots of expensive voice acting), you can save a fairly substantial amount of money as virtually all of it is going directly to salaries for a relatively small dev team.

And no, the point isn't that publishers are inherently evil. The point is that they have their own interests (shareholders), and these often don't jibe with the development process and the final quality of games. Significant resources are poured into marketing and publishers frequently interfere in development in order to make sure the product ticks certain boxes (regardless of how the dev team feels about it). I don't begrudge the publishers for that because that is their entire purpose, at least with the major ones, but I will certainly be glad when models like Kickstarter come forth that allow developers to bypass publisher-related difficulties and freely make the games they want to make.

Ultimately, if a Kickstarter game bombs quality-wise, publishers and whatever outside elements can't be criticized for it. And if it ends up amazing, the devs did their work. Accordingly, like any creator, developers can ultimately take all of the praise and criticisms and all of the fallout that arises from how their product is received.

One thing I really don't understand is this notion some Kickstarter critics have that they want to "wait and see" how Kickstarter games turn out before making any judgements on the model. What you'd really be making is a qualitative judgement on those individual games and the talent behind them. The model itself is distinct from the final product. Kickstarter simply gives it an avenue through which to be made, and it has no bearing on anything once the pledge drive ends.

If Project Eternity turns out excellent, it simply shows that the team working on it is just that good at making that sort of game. If their Kickstarter game ends up notably better than their previous efforts, it could be because they were far more comfortable working without a publisher breathing down their necks, with full creative freedom, and with a type of game they're intimately familiar with and are ambitious about.

If Shadowrun Returns or Double Fine Adventure turn into a disappointment to some, then hey, they are games that came out that weren't very good. No shortage of those through the traditional publisher model; people pay $60 or even more for games they're disappointed in all the time. $15-30 (usually $15) is getting you the full game through Kickstarter when it comes to the biggest ones, and there's no reason to pledge above that unless a) you want to support the dev, b) there are pledge tier rewards you're particularly interested in, or as I imagine is mostly the case, c) both. And people can make those decisions on their own.

 

[snap0212]

The key with Kickstarter and crowdfunding is that the risk isn't all accumulated in one or two groups - it's not entirely the publisher's budget being risked, or the developer's savings. Instead a *large* number of people each take on a much *smaller* amount of risk; if the project bellyflops spectacularly, then at least those individuals are working within their financial means.

That's not really true. The creator has to pay back every single cent if they fail. Lower risk for the big guys, higher risk for smaller guys who may be trying really hard but just fail to deliver in the end.

 

[Zaptruder]

It's unlikely Kickstarter will implement any safeguards to guarantee quality or delivery as it will negatively impact their business too much.

There's no point getting upset about any this, just accept it for what it is.

This is an extremely cynical view and not entirely accurate view of things.

Kickstarter's incentive to implement safeguards to guarantee quality or delivery is to prevent the souring of the entire kickstarter concept and the continued growth of the site and its operations.

It can't do this by allowing any sort of trash through the door to dilute the pool of people that are actually capable of delivering.

Indeed, Kickstarter has already implemented some revisions to its policy to help safeguard against the uncertainties and backlash wrought by previously successful projects like the Pebble Watch and Ouya game console.


As for the comment that people are monied idiots (for) pledging on games unseen on kickstarter - a little more credit should be given.

That is - when a better campaign comes along, then the bar is raised. If you don't meet that bar, then simply be prepared to have the maximum possible raisable significantly reduced.

And of course, if you burn the bridge of kickstarter by failing to achieve your promises, then you can expect to be castigated from game development.

As far as a cash-out from your career, kickstarter is a pretty poor option. It's more than anything else, the single life line provided to get you into the game - be it as a first time developer or as a seasoned developer looking to get back to their roots.

If you disrespect the life line by half assing your campaign, you're going to get inferior results from it. Simple.

 

[beril]

That's not really true. The creator has to pay back every single cent if they fail. Lower risk for the big guys, higher risk for smaller guys who may be trying really hard but just fail to deliver in the end.

No, they don't have to pay back anything at all. Even if they did, what does fail mean for a kickstarter game exactly? They can always release something, no matter how crappy, buggy or unfinnished and no one can ask for their money back.

 

[Frogacuda]

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.

But it's not true. Projects like Castle Story, Banner Saga, Republique... these are original IPs from new developers that would have NEVER succeeded if not for the increased attention brought by bigger names.

Also, being risk averse about who is making your game is different than being risk averse because you're concerned about a game's commerciality. Backers are only worried about if the game will be completed and be good, whereas publishers are concerned only with how wide a product's appeal is. Those are very different concerns that impact products in very different ways.

 

[Aquamarine]

No, they don't have to pay back anything at all. Even if they did, what does fail mean for a kickstarter game exactly? They can always release something, no matter how crappy or buggy and no one can ask for their money back.

Indeed. What muddles the lawsuit process (if a game doesn't deliver) is that Kickstarter projects never guarantee a GREAT game. They just guarantee a game.

 

[CecilRousso]

Kickstarter projects are a gamble, and you of course shouldn´t gamble with money you´re not prepared to loose. A lot of people are gonna learn this the hard way.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

One thing I really don't understand is this notion some Kickstarter critics have that they want to "wait and see" how Kickstarter games turn out before making any judgements on the model. What you'd really be making is a qualitative judgement on those individual games and the talent behind them. The model itself is distinct from the final product. Kickstarter simply gives it an avenue through which to be made, and it has no bearing on anything once the pledge drive ends.

The "wait and see" comes from the fact that it is still an immature model. In terms of games quality I think that some Kickstartered games will be excellent, some awful and some will never come out. There's no reason to think otherwise. The risks of medium to large scale game development are well known by publishers and developers but not so much to consumers, and so directly.

When some of the big Kickstarters have disappointing outcomes, and some of them will, it's the public response to that which will tell us about the long-term viability of the platform.

 

[Novid]

Please kill Kickstarter. I'm sick of every fucking person I know becoming a beggar.

agreed 110%. this isnt true croudfunding in the slightest.

 

[snap0212]

No, they don't have to pay back anything at all.[...] Even if they did[...]

Yes, they have to. Read Kickstarter's Terms of Service:

• Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Failing = not fulfilling rewards.

 

[Frogacuda]

Kickstarter projects are a gamble, and you of course shouldn´t gamble with money you´re not prepared to loose. A lot of people are gonna learn this the hard way.

But a lot of people already know it too. I've backed about 7 games, and if at least 5 of them come out and are reasonably close to my expectations, I will have considered the experiment to be a great success. It's a hedged bet.

Of course, I mostly pledged smaller amounts (except for Project Fedora, to which I pledged more than all the others combined). So none of them will be a crushing loss.

 

[CecilRousso]

Yes, they have to. Read Kickstarter's Terms of Service:

• Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Failing = not fulfilling rewards.

Yeah it says so, but come on, where is the money for that gonna come from?

 

[Frogacuda]

Yes, they have to. Read Kickstarter's Terms of Service:

• Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Failing = not fulfilling rewards.

They're "required" by the terms of service, but there's no consequence, other than not being able to use Kickstarter in the future.

 

[snap0212]

They're "required" by the terms of service, but there's no consequence, other than not being able to use Kickstarter in the future.

I'm pretty sure that it's a contract between two parties and that you can take any legal action you want to enforce it. Especially in Europe.

edit: Checked the ToS again. It's a contract between backer and project creator.

Yeah it says so, but come on, where is the money for that gonna come from?

In this case it's come from someone's savings, I guess. Not that I really care. Just wanted to point out that kickstarter isn't a donation where you cannot expect anything in return.

 

[Aquamarine]

They're "required" by the terms of service, but there's no consequence, other than not being able to use Kickstarter in the future.

And "you may be sued by one of the people who backed your project," even though a lawsuit would be long, difficult, and expensive, because it's hard to prove that the game "didn't deliver" if they actually put something out.

 

[CecilRousso]

In this case it's come from someone's savings, I guess. Not that I really care. Just wanted to point out that kickstarter isn't a donation where you cannot expect anything in return.

No of course you should expect your reward, but when a kickstarter fails, and if it´s one of the bigger, you will most likely not see anything come back to you, except perhaps some kind of work in progress.

 

[BLunted]

Guess I missed the part of the article that explains how I am being forced to provide money for these projects against my will...oh wait, you mean i don't HAVE to pay? Guess that solves that problem.

Not saying the article is necessarily wrong, but I grow weary of placing all the blame on developers for everything that goes wrong this gen. It is the gamers who are truly responsible for all the crappy stuff Devs do to us. If people just had some back-bone and just said no when they tried to give us a raw deal, they would smarten up eventually.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Guess I missed the part of the article that explains how I am being forced to provide money for these projects against my will...oh wait, you mean i don't HAVE to pay? Guess that solves that problem.

Not saying the article is necessarily wrong, but I grow weary of placing all the blame on developers for everything that goes wrong this gen. It is the gamers who are truly responsible for all the crappy stuff Devs do to us. If people just had some back-bone and just said no when they tried to give us a raw deal, they would smarten up eventually.

By this logic, don't you not have to reply to the article's point if you disagree with it?

Do people only have the right to complain about something if they're compelled against their will to do it?

 

[snap0212]

Guess I missed the part of the article that explains how I am being forced to provide money for these projects against my will...oh wait, you mean i don't HAVE to pay? Guess that solves that problem.

Not saying the article is necessarily wrong, but I grow weary of placing all the blame on developers for everything that goes wrong this gen. It is the gamers who are truly responsible for all the crappy stuff Devs do to us. If people just had some back-bone and just said no when they tried to give us a raw deal, they would smarten up eventually.

That's be great, but knowing that a huge number of people who play games aren't necessarily smarter than a basket full of potatoes, and looking back, we can safely assume that things become standards even if a lot of people oppose them.

*just look at the folks who actually buy cheats for 10€/$10 to unlock cars in need for speed, people who buy DLC that grants you extra gold in your singleplayer RPG, how every anti-consumer crap became standard because so many people are unable to gasp what was going on at the time. Fools who will pay for anything and everything are a big enough group to ruin the fun for everyone else.

All they see is "want, want, want" while not thinking about what message they send by always acting like that.

Not saying it's going to be like that (that we have to finance every game ourselves in the future) but that's why I'd say the "it doesn't affect me"-argument doesn't really work.

 

[Shaneus]

You didn't HAVE to read this thread and post in it, either.

Edit: Beat.

 

[BLunted]

By this logic, don't you not have to reply to the article's point if you disagree with it?

Do people only have the right to complain about something if they're compelled against their will to do it?

Don't get your panties in a wad.

Firstly, the OP just quoted an article, didn't actually see an opinion or a complaint there.
Secondly, I just posted my opinion. When we trade opinions, we have this thing called a discussion.

I apologize if I posted this in the wrong place, I was under the impression this was a discussion board, not a complaint board.


Back on topic, do I think it's sleazy what these Devs are trying to do? Sure. But they can only succeed if we let them. If everyone stonewalls these guys, we can then dance around the fire drinking more of Peter's delicious tears!

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Don't get your panties in a wad.

Firstly, the OP just quoted an article, didn't actually see an opinion or a complaint there.
Secondly, I just posted my opinion. When we trade opinions, we have this thing called a discussion.

I apologize if I posted this in the wrong place, I was under the impression this was a discussion board, not a complaint board.


Back on topic, do I think it's sleazy what these Devs are trying to do? Sure. But they can only succeed if we let them. If everyone stonewalls these guys, we can then dance around the fire drinking more of Peter's delicious tears!

Are you a different person than the BLunted that posted this?

Guess I missed the part of the article that explains how I am being forced to provide money for these projects against my will...oh wait, you mean i don't HAVE to pay? Guess that solves that problem.

If so, I apologize, you might want to get that cleared up with the mods and admins because that will just get confusing for you.

If not, then you somehow managed to write something totally contrary to the point you're attempting to make now and either thing you're outsmarting people or missed the point of your own post which is just, jesus, what?

Good job on the panties-in-a-twist comment, though. Clearly nothing presents a more sincere appeal to discussion than shit like that.

 

[Wuthering_Heights]

It is getting a little out of hand.

Couldn't agree more with the article as well.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

yessssa

 

[BLunted]

Are you a different person than the BLunted that posted this?



If so, I apologize, you might want to get that cleared up with the mods and admins because that will just get confusing for you.

If not, then you somehow managed to write something totally contrary to the point you're attempting to make now and either thing you're outsmarting people or missed the point of your own post which is just, jesus, what?

Good job on the panties-in-a-twist comment, though. Clearly nothing presents a more sincere appeal to discussion than shit like that.

Both comments made the point that you don't HAVE to give them anything. Not exactly sure how you didn't take that away, but I digress.

If people feel they got ripped off by kickstarter, then it's their own fault, unless there is gross violation of the terms of agreement between the dev and kickstarter, which would then become a legal matter.

The basic point I was making is dont buy if you dont want, or better yet, if you want to protest.

 

[Krilekk]

He is right. And totally wrong. What will kill Kickstarter are industry veterans without a team that just start a Kickstarter for a sequel to a game they worked on in the past. Molyneux and Braben take money for games that wouldn't otherwise get funded. Elite Frontier sold less than 500k copies years ago, no publisher wants to touch such a project. Same for a new Populous. The genre is dead for a reason.

 

[jetjevons]

Disagree. Project Fedora only succeeded because its batshit crazy audience ponied up an average of like $90 each, and I don't want to live in a world where that can't happen.

As long as people are informed, they understand the risks, and they aren't being lied to, they can do whatever they want with their money. I think that most people only back a small number of projects that are particularly important to them, based on their own individual criteria, and that they do so in a fairly informed way, and with a reasonable understanding of the risks involved.

I've backed maybe 7 or so projects, and if 5 of them come out decent, the whole sum will have been money well spent.

Entirely agree.

 

[t26]

I still haven't see kickstarter being use for localization, which would really give a boost for Japanese RPG.

 

[snap0212]

Molyneux [...] take money for games that wouldn't otherwise get funded.

Where did you get the otherwise not get funded idea from? He hasn't even tried to pitch his game to publishers.

 

[JDSN]

Oh yeah, also one of the tier having an inteview with G4 already implies some colaboration with the press, its just really shady.

What, you expect Molyenux or a publisher to fund a god game? The odds of that ever happening are zero.

Yes, its not like certain someone hasnt paid six million a decade ago to fund a god game.

Edit: Looks at what 2000 Molyneux was saying:

One of the things that's very different about Black & White," he begins to explain, "is that I funded it myself, out of my own pocket. I used to be able to say, 'Oh, if only I didn't have to rush this project for the publisher' and things like that, but this time, I had all the cards dealt to me." In total, Molyneux footed the US $6 million development costs out of his own bank account, primarily to ensure that he had ultimate control over the game. Besides the personal financial risk, Molyneux's biggest fear is one of personal disappointment. "I had straight aces in my hand this time. A great team, enough money to pay for the game myself, and complete freedom," he says, cupping his hands together and raising his eyebrows for a minute as if to suggest he's about to own up to something. "This time, the only thing that can f*** up this game is me and me alone," he says softly. He pauses. "There are no excuses this time. That's very scary...there have always been excuses before."

Shame that this guy is long gone, we have seen a decade of excuse after excuse everytime, and GODUS is not gonna be different. Embarrasing how the kickstarter pitch implies that they are putting everything on the line and the game wont be made if this doesnt reach its goal (it will), when they are playing it as safe as always.

 

[mclem]

If they're not willing to invest their own money, why should the fans?

Isn't that the fans' decision to make?

Shame that this guy is long gone, we have seen a decade of excuse after excuse everytime, and GODUS is not gonna be different. Embarrasing how the kickstarter pitch implies that they are putting everything on the line and the game wont be made if this doesnt reach its goal (it will), when they are playing it as safe as always.

May I present an alternative hypothesis:

The experience with Black and White brought to his attention that attempting to do that in the future was a really really bad idea. Anyone know how B&W2 was funded?

 

[funkystudent]

I dont have a problem with established dev's using kickstarter persay. Alot of established developers are just not in the spot to make the games they want to make. Double Fine being a good example. Even after the success of TailTale they still never got a adventure game off the ground and they never had a big hit that gave Tim and Co a huge pile of cash they could fool around with but with kickstarter they could.

Same goes for Project eternity I guess. Obsidian have been on deaths door since alpha protocol. They had a hit with New Vegas but got screwed by the publisher since there pay royalties where metacritic biased and not sales. They just dont have the money to do it on there own and publishers will want something like dragon age 2 that is actiony and visceral and sexy and dumb.


Peter Molyneux on the other hand probably has 10's of millions of pounds in the bank both from the sale of Lionhead and then probably got paid a high 6 figure number as a high level executive at Microsoft. Dude could drop half a million on this game like it was nothing.

Now I see why that might not be a smart move. I would guess he has pumped money into forming 22 cans already and that iOS block thing.


I guess its just Kickstarter becoming a viable business move for these kind of people instead of the original vision of it "kickstarting" projects that could not be funded otherwise.

Maybe one the the 22 experiments 22 cans is doing is trying to see how easily fools are parted with there money.

Its kind of dirty in a way but we have not seen someone like Capcom or EA try it which seems like the next and finale step in all of this.

 

[domlolz]

totalbiscuit sucks so much. please remove him from the op OP. thanks

 

[Lancehead]

Its kind of dirty in a way but we have not seen someone like Capcom or EA try it which seems like the next and finale step in all of this.

Obsidian's Feargus said some publishers tried to have them make a game through Kickstarter while the publisher keeps the profits and the IP rights.

 

[jakonovski]

I never fund Kickstarters anyway, but this rich people on Kickstarter thing just seems like cynical risk management.

edit: also, TotalBiscuit came off like the most naive person in the entire world.

 

[funkystudent]

Obsidian's Feargus said some publishers tried to have them make a game through Kickstarter while the publisher keeps the profits and the IP rights.

Yeah I remember reading that. Pretty sucky but thats what publishers are like.

I would really like to have a name on the publisher who asked them to do that though. Would be interesting.


I guess the closest there is to that situation is that Johann Sebastian Joust / other random indie stuff PSN collection but thats a pub fund game so even if they have sony support and backing they still need to self fund it themselves like every other pub fund game which probably gets them that advance on the royalties from sony as part of the pub fund and the devs keep the IP rights because someone at sony is a nice person.

 

[SmZA]

What is it about Kickstarter that encourages all this fretful hand-wringing? It's ridiculous.

 

[Jack_AG]

I always prefer kickstarts for unknown, promising developers. I do not kickstart veterans currently working in the field.

Maybe its because i'm an indie dev and have yet to use kickstarter - but I see veterans in the business as already having ties in the industry to get their projects done. As a former musician, I still have friends in the industry to call upon if I wanted to try a new project - I wouldn't consider kickstarting a music production since I already have both feet through the proverbial door.

I see many veteran kickstarts pulling the light from up and coming developers - at the same time they can bring attention to the kickstart medium as a bonus to smaller, unknown teams.

There is a pro/con to veterans pulling kickstarts - more con than pro, imo. I feel that veterans shouldn't use the consumer, tho. Plenty of high-profile names i'm sure could be easily backed with a single phone call while smaller teams get buried simply because a higher profile uses a lower profile space and pulls.

In short - kickstarts are for the little guy to help them get noticed and backed. If you are a veteran - you already have both feet in so no reason to hog the spotlight since you already have easier access to it.

Its why we see new studios forming when 4 people leave a popular team and create a new one. They make a phone call and poof - they are making a game. The little guy doesn't have that option - which is who kickstarter is intended for.

Pro/con but i'd rather not have veterans invade the space of the little guy.

 

[mclem]

What is it about Kickstarter that encourages all this fretful hand-wringing? It's ridiculous.

It's new and unfamiliar, and it asks a little more awareness and involvement with the game creation process than perhaps people are comfortable with.

Actually, one thing I would ask, that's just struck me. Kickstarter has often been likened to the concept of patronage in years gone by. Where do people who inherently dislike Kickstarter fall on the "games as art" debate?

 

[Lancehead]

It's new and unfamiliar, and it asks a little more awareness and involvement with the game creation process than perhaps people are comfortable with.

Actually, one thing I would ask, that's just struck me. Kickstarter has often been likened to the concept of patronage in years gone by. Where do people who inherently dislike Kickstarter fall on the "games as art" debate?

I like Kickstarter, and the "games as art" debate is pretentious, and a bit of a farce.

 

[UrbanRats]

I agree with Total Biscuit on this.
I really don't care what's the source of a KS project, beyond its credibility to deliver on what's promised.
Before these semi big names came into play, i didn't even knew KS, and i don't feel like i have to pledge to the big names at all.
As a matter of fact, i have not pledged to any big name KS, so far (not interested in their projects) and was interested in pledging to Star Citizen, but since it's doing well enough, i'll just wait and see how it turns out.
On the other hand i did pledged to a couple of artbooks that do not sport any particular "big name".

It's a business proposition and nothing more, they have an offer and you decide whether you're interested or not, unless they do not deliver, it's not a scam and it's not a trick.

This is the same bullshit that went on when people were marturbating themselves over the legitimacy of TropesvsWomen KS: not interested? Don't pledge.
The rest sounds like a bunch of doomsday wankery.

And yes, maybe some of these people could've found a publisher, so? They wouldn't have had this level of control, freedom and transparency.

I swear people are never fucking happy.. "hey fuck the publishers, people don't want dumbed down games, let's crowd produce this together guys!" - "Fuck you, go find a publisher!"

 

[bon]

I don't like this double standard where the Double Fine kickstarter is fine and dandy, but when Molyneux does one he's a huge jerk who's ruining something pure and good with his capitalism. Schafer and Molyneux are both highly respected industry vets who should be able to get funding easily.

If you really think industry vets are ruining kickstarter, then have some guts and call out the guy who started it instead of hopping on the Molyneux hate wagon.