-
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.
InXile's Torment successor gets a name
- Thread starter Lancehead
- Start date
Brother None
Member
I wouldn't expect it to equal WL2. Nor does it need to. The important thing is to get a core budget in place so they're not dependent purely on theoretical WL2 sales numbers, and can just use those numbers to expand.
Pre-production starts when the last game wraps up its concept art and writing stages. Writers and concept artists don't have that much more to do than work on the next title. Sure, they're all still coming back to WL2 for additions and revisions, but mostly their work is wrapping up. That's not really a "choice" or "mistake", it's the natural workflow created by the way these projects' pre-production and full production cycles work.
Pre-production starts when the last game wraps up its concept art and writing stages. Writers and concept artists don't have that much more to do than work on the next title. Sure, they're all still coming back to WL2 for additions and revisions, but mostly their work is wrapping up. That's not really a "choice" or "mistake", it's the natural workflow created by the way these projects' pre-production and full production cycles work.
1 million tops in the current KS climate.
What climate? We're coming off Star Citizen and Elite which both managed to crowd source multiple millions.
many other projects have struggled and failed and Elite had two months to reach the goal. Barely made it.
Brother None
Member
Honestly, though, a bunch of them were just not that good. GODUS and Wildman both had weak-ass pitches, and had to scrabble desperately to make anything (Wildman probably won't make it). Thorvalla's was even worst.
There's not that much of an advantage to running a Kickstarter two months since most of the money comes in the first few and last few days.
Elite raised 2.5 million USD, so it's not the best example of Kickstarter struggling. I don't really believe in "Kickstarter fatigue", but I do believe - as do Kevin and Brian - that pitches have to be better, more accurate and more informative than the first few games pitched.
I don't think there is any sort of representative "climate" for stuff like this. Projects fail or perform at a slower pace based on demand and appeal. There's also the matter of media coverage and word of mouth. X not doing well doesn't mean Y won't do well. It all depends on what X and Y are.
Why would he have to fire the team? He'd just have to schedule production in such a way that he can transition people from one project to the next. This is what producers do, it's literally his job.
There's a difference between REQUIRING a Kickstarter, and just going to KS first because it's free money.
He hasn't pitched it to publishers. He has NO FUCKING IDEA if they're interested. And neither do you. He just wants your money because he doesn't have to pay you back like he would a publisher.
I'm not. I've backed something like 15 projects on KS. But there's a big distinction to me between someone turning to fans and asking them to do what investors cannot, and someone just asking for free money because it's more profitable for them.
It's like why you'll help someone who's down on his luck and got fired, but you won't help someone who just doesn't want to work because he's lazy.
It's likely about a million dollars, give or take, which is certainly enough to do some development until Wasteland 2 comes out.
Why? That is exactly the purpose of small business loans, to satisfy cash needs now secured by future cash flow. There is nothing unethical about it. Now, inXile might not be able to get such a loan because it might be considered too risky (they have no steady stream of income that can cover all expenses which is what banks like to see), but there is nothing unethical about it.
I'm not saying he should fund out of his personal finances. But inXile has money, and they have connections, and they can get investor funds, and make the transition between one development and and another. He's been doing it for decades.
Kickstarter is not a pre-order system. The average backer gives quite a lot over the minimum, and in return gets some extra rewards that are worth not nearly what they paid. And they know that. And they give anyway. But it is a GIFT. Not a pre-order.
I'm a freelance writer. I don't make a lot of money. I gave $100 to Project Fedora's Kickstarter, which is more than I've ever spent on a game. Yeah, I get a boxed copy of a $15 game and a T-shirt at the end, but do you really think that's why I gave $100? Or was it because I've waited through 15 years of false starts hoping that game gets made, and I knew the developers needed it?
Really? So aggressively scheduling in a way that assumes a second successful seven-figure Kickstarter will happen isn't gambling his employees future? What a weird thing to say...
Not only is going to KS first a huge gamble, it's also fucking dumb. Because if you're not successful, you will completely screw over your ability to secure financing other ways. Meanwhile, if you do it the other way around, and fail to get VC financing, it actually strengthens your KS argument. KS should always be the last resort, for practical reasons, not just ethical.
Brother None
Member
We are indeed not talking about a small loan compared to inXile's size, which as you mention is why such a loan is probably not even possible, but secondly Wasteland 2's "future cash flow" has no possible market research since we don't yet really know how these Kickstarted games sell. "Unethical" may be an overly "dramatic" choice of words of mine, but let's just call it rather unwise from a business perspective.
Kickstarter is a lot of things depending on how it's used. But Wasteland 2 raised $2,933,252 with 61,290 backers, 28,512 of who receive at least one extra copy. That's about 90K copies, and that's ignored the increase in copies on upper tiers. That's $32 a copy. The game will most likely retail for more than that. It's $47 without extra copies, but as a salesman you do have to factor in those extra copies. Even if you don't, it's not exactly free money compared to what you plan to retail it at anyway . That's probably part of where your different perspective from Fargo's comes from, because realistically, from a business sense, the way he's using Kickstarter does not create a very different mechanic than cheap pre-orders would. Sure, some grab it cheap, some grab it more expensive, but the *total* money equation is about the same. That doesn't seem like a "gift" if I simply look at copies handed out (underestimated) compared to money earned, and that's not factoring in Kickstarter & reward cost.
As Kevin Saunders has noted, after Amazon, Kickstarter and Paypal cuts and Kickstarter rewards, you're realistically left with about 2 million total budget of that 3 million. 22 or 32 bucks profit a copy, even in a pre-order system, is not a huge windfall. It's great to get it before the project even starts, but it's still sales at a relatively normal, expected profit margin. Not gifts. Individual pledges may be gifts. The total picture? Not so much. This differs per Kickstarter, but this is how inXile and most of the gaming Kickstarters ran thing.
That doesn't mean our logic as consumers isn't indeed different, obviously you're right there, but consumer and business logic don't always match up that well.
Hmm, you seem to be unaware that the entire games industry works this way, that it is simply the natural schedule created by game's production logic. Here's Tim Schafer and others talking about it. It's not something Fargo created, all studios deal with it. Obsidian has regularly had to lay off employees because of this issue. Publisher-backed studios can deal with it because they can do this natural rollover Fargo is looking for here. But often they don't and lay off people anyway. Way the industry works. Fargo doesn't want inXile to work that way for exact reasons described in that post.
He could have laid them off immediately, sure, no risk there. But going to Kickstarter again is no greater or lesser risk than the first time he did it, and I'm no more or less critical of it, myself.
You are still assuming that inXile a) has realistic options to secure financing in ways that don't break their back and b) has not explored these options. Do you have any proof for these assumptions or reason to make these assumptions?
Because he has no money to pay them.
How do you know this?
How do you know this?
The "responsible" conservative move would probably be to make another Choplifter or something on contract, while they wait for Wasteland money to come in, and then plan their next move based on the resources available to them.
If they've painted themselves into a corner where they're depending on more Kickstarter money already, then that seems like a grave error in judgement, to me.
Then it will be in the very small minority of KS games that that's true of. Most end up releasing for less than the minimum pledge, let alone the average. In any event, I think it's clear that people aren't giving just to get a copy of the game.
Why would you think I'm not aware of that? But there are ways to avoid it. A lot of companies create DLC as a way to transition teams to new projects, for example.
In any event, it has nothing to do with my point. You said borrowing money or getting publisher backing would be risky, but counting on a Kickstarter campaign that hasn't happened yet seems to me to be a much bigger risk, don't you think?
Beyond Fargo expressing his intention to just rely on Kickstarter over and over? No, I don't. But that seems like a pretty clear statement of intent.
Based on what public sales figures are available for Android, and figuring the iOS version sold at least as much. It's an unscientific guess, but am I way off base?
Coffee Dog
Banned
Oh god, why would people in this thread want it to be called torment 2? That's a horrible name. The name is fine as is, though it would be perfect if it was "Tides of Numenara: Torment".
To put it more succinctly:
Double Fine is in the same spot. They had a huge KS success, and they want to be able to independently finance and publish more games in the future. However, they've said that they would NEVER go back to KS to do it. They will continue to make games for publishers, and wait for the money from DFA to come in, and then roll that into future investments until they're able to be self-sufficient.
So why exactly can't inXile do that?
Double Fine is in the same spot. They had a huge KS success, and they want to be able to independently finance and publish more games in the future. However, they've said that they would NEVER go back to KS to do it. They will continue to make games for publishers, and wait for the money from DFA to come in, and then roll that into future investments until they're able to be self-sufficient.
So why exactly can't inXile do that?
That's been explained several times in this thread. Yet you refuse to accept it, continue to theorise and hypothesise, and also refuse to accept reality.
Can Fargo make Torment with a publisher? Sure he could, if the publisher gets to keep the IP rights, and if they get to keep most of the profits, and if they could adequately "modernify" the game et cetera.
Maybe you're okay with all that if it means Fargo isn't going to "exploit" us all. But I'm not, I don't want such a game, and I'm sure most who are interested in the game don't.
I agree with the comment about the kickstarter climate. There is a vibe, and i feel its that off 'pause' after having some big successes just wrapping up. I think the current pause will give way to more big KS in some weeks time.
It all depends on the quality of the KS video or news though. If it looks as awesome as games like PE did then i think it has a shot at getting big numbers. I personally want the Dreamfall kickstarter to get big numbers but it may be tough.
It all depends on the quality of the KS video or news though. If it looks as awesome as games like PE did then i think it has a shot at getting big numbers. I personally want the Dreamfall kickstarter to get big numbers but it may be tough.
Jesus christ, did you read my post at all before you hit reply?
I'm saying, make something else. For pay. And use that money and the Wasteland money to make Torment. Maybe you don't make Torment RIGHT NOW if you don't have the money RIGHT NOW.
That's what Double Fine is doing, that's what any responsible business owner who doesn't want to gamble his company would do. Make Choplifter HD 2, or some Facebook RPG or some shit, who cares. There are opportunities out there, and then once they get their Wasteland money they can do whatever they want.
A Black Falcon
Member
Right. I would add a bit more to this, but yes, the most important reasons why have been said already: Frogacuda's idea that somehow getting money or a publisher would be possible are wrong, as has been explained; publishers are not interested in this kind of game unless they do as you say. I don't know why he refuses to accept this fact, the record of the last decade shows that it is plainly true, and that hasn't changed thanks to a couple of Kickstarters. He doesn't want to have to fire people because of the usual pause after the initial design work was done, so he's moving on to another game, and will need money for it, just like this other one. Frogacuda's conspiracy theories for where he could get the cash are off base. And yes, the options really are "fire them, or get money somehow".
But there is perhaps something else to it... remember, Brian Fargo used to own a publisher. He's not like Tim Schaefer, someone who always worked on a development team and maybe now has their own studio, but still has always worked with publishers. He WAS the publisher for a good 15-20 years. For the last decade he hasn't been, and has been at the mercy of publishers, but as you can see from the kinds of projects InXile has gotten during that period, versus what he wants to make (this kind of thing), it hasn't exactly been ideal to say the least. But now, a system appears which allows him to get funding for this kind of game again, without the "modernizing" that publishers demand, as he had to do in The Bard's Tale or Hunted, or that other game they had under development for some time but got cancelled. And you're saying that no, he should drop all that and go back to being under publishers' thumbs again, making more modernized action-RPGs that aren't what either he or hardcore PC RPG fans want to see him making (not that those games are bad, they're not at all, but there are plenty of those, and not too many of these to say the least...)? I don't want that! Why do you?
Yes, that post and before that.
But it's already been explained that the only way Fargo can maintain his company without firing anyone is by working with publishers and licensed IPs. InXile's owned IPs are not enough to sustain them without laying off some staff. This was explained by BN in his first post. As consumers it may not matter much to us if he lays off some staff, but you should be able to see his perspective.
scytheavatar
Member
The kickstarter system is there to give Fargo what fans want to give him, not for him to get what he wants. And there are quite a number of fans who took a risk at supporting Wasteland 2 just for the chance for Fargo to show the publishers that old school RPGs are viable, these guys have no intention to bankroll Inxile for the long term. Fargo's going to end up disappointed if he thinks that the Kickstarter bubble is not going to burst, at least for him.
And Prince Fargo is to good to do that for another game or two why exactly?
My point is not that he should lay off staff, it's that he should suck it up and do a game for a publisher until he has the money to do something else.
Which he's been doing for 10 years, but he can't suffer through one more to finally achieve financial independence? Cry me a river.
I don't tink that you are in a position to tell Fargo that he should suck it up and do a game for a publisher. Fargo doesn't want to do it because he didn't like it, he explained in details during KS campaign why he didn't like it and provided some examples of why working with a publisher sucks for him. The man has a right to do whatever he considers right and meaningful. All you can do is nothing, I.e. don't give him money, that's all.
See, that's the thing, this entire generation has been about independent studios getting shafted because of the toxic publisher-studio relationship. Just look at Double Fine, Obsidian, Gas Powered Games and others. Having publisher backing doesn't lead to financial independence, mostly because these contracts are never made to favor the small guy and publishers will never sign a contract that puts them at a disadvantage.
Publishers are not a solution.
What? How does that achieve financial independence when publishers pocket almost all of the profits? After all, he's been "sucking it up" for a decade, yet he had to go to Kickstarter for money for WL2. Obsidian have been sucking it up for years, and they've been perilously close to shutting down.
Wasteland 2 profits. The publisher work is just to get them by in the meantime.
I just meant taking on a contract job to bridge the gap between Wasteland 2's release and when Wasteland 2's profits become enough to finance another game.
I'm saying, he doesn't have to make Torment as his very next game. He'll have the money to do it next year, so do something else until then and make it next year.
So your argument is based on an assumption for which there is no evidence. If WL2 doesn't prove profitable enough, he'd have to come back to Kickstarter, and the whole cycle starts again.
You'd rather Fargo risk that and then come back to Kickstarter (I assume you wouldn't have any problem with that Kickstarter) which still wouldn't guarantee financial independence, than do a Kickstarter now which means a higher probability of financial independence.
What's interesting is that now you've boiled it down to: Kickstarter should only be used if you absolutely can't survive otherwise. That's not, was never, the concept of Kickstarter.
Sure. But if Wasteland 2 is any good, I seriously doubt that will happen. They're implying selling this for $40+, which means their take home per copy is about $26 after Steam's cut (and a little more on GOG). That means if they sell something pathetic like 40,000 of these, they'll have a million dollars, which was more than than Wasteland 2's goal.
So yeah, maybe they don't sell 40,000 copies. Maybe the game blows, or there's really no market whatsoever. I don't see that happening, but you never know.
IF that happens THEN we can talk about if another Kickstarter is appropriate. But I think until then, it's jumping the gun. The strong likelyhood is that they will make a few million from Wasteland 2 if it is at all competent.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it is very likely that if they wait they can self finance, and that if you can self finance, you don't need kickstarter. InXile has this incredible asset. They own Wasteland 2 fully, thanks entirely to their backers. This asset can and should be used to finance their business.
Assuming the game does well, you're neglecting that WL2 won't be as front loaded as a typical mainstream game.
But even in the case of an optimal WL2 post-release situation I still don't see Fargo going to Kickstarter now as exploitative, just because there may just be an opportunity for him do otherwise. If we say the ultimate goal is to reach financial independence, going to Kickstarter now with Torment is a better option, not least because he's almost assuredly guaranteed money, but also because he will have two new IPs to use, doesn't have to work with a publisher, and all the perks from crowdsourcing.
But even in the case of an optimal WL2 post-release situation I still don't see Fargo going to Kickstarter now as exploitative, just because there may just be an opportunity for him do otherwise. If we say the ultimate goal is to reach financial independence, going to Kickstarter now with Torment is a better option, not least because he's almost assuredly guaranteed money, but also because he will have two new IPs to use, doesn't have to work with a publisher, and all the perks from crowdsourcing.
I think that everyone needs to realize that 1 million dollar is almost nothing when it comes to running a studio. It goes beyond the actual salary for employees. You need to pay for a building, light, water, food, computer, IT, support staff and plenty of other small things. It adds up really quickly.
Going to Kickstarter a second time is the "safe" thing to do(even if I think it might not be as succesful as the first time). They have no idea if Wasteland is going to bring enough money to fund Torment. What if it barely brings enough and they spend it all bringing the game out? What if Torment doesn't perform as well? The studio is back to square one with no funds available.
Going to Kickstarter a second time is the "safe" thing to do(even if I think it might not be as succesful as the first time). They have no idea if Wasteland is going to bring enough money to fund Torment. What if it barely brings enough and they spend it all bringing the game out? What if Torment doesn't perform as well? The studio is back to square one with no funds available.
Am I? I think -- front-loaded or not -- that the time frame it would take to develop another game, probably at least a year, should be plenty for most of W2's sales.
And again, it really doesn't really have to sell well, it just has to not bomb horribly.
My issue is not really with whether there's one kickstarter or two, it's with the idea that Kickstarter is just a pre-order system, or that it's the default way games should get made. It isn't designed to be that and if people treat it that way, they're going to kill it.
Kickstarter is supposed to be an opportunity for those exceptional projects that should have an opportunity but don't. When people who are perfectly capable of funding their games through other means go to KS just because they can do so without accountability or personal risk, without having to hit milestones, and without all the "interference" of publishers (much of which is not creative tampering, but just responsible business policy), it creates a very negative situation for consumers.
To some extent, any pledge to a KS is an exploitation, but if it gets something made that can't otherwise, then it's worth it. When that's not the case, then it's not worth it, it's an utter gamble for no reason.
Frogacuda you keep saying that they should get publisher work to fill in the gap like it's an easy thing to do in the current climate.
Maybe you missed Gas Powered Games laying off almost the entire staff because they had multiple projects pulled around the same time as they launched their kickstarter. Or how Obsidian had to lay off 30+ staff members because they lost a major contract and couldn't get another to replace it, just before they launched their kickstarter.
How about how THQ who invested in several smaller titles like Double Fines Stacking and Costume Quest just went bankrupt. Black Hole Entertainment bankrupt after Ubisoft delays to their game left them out of pocket. Monumental Games dead after 7 years in the industry.
Really the list is endless, getting publisher funding is not an easy task and can be ripped away at a moments notice. That's why so many independent developers of all sizes are turning to kickstarter and/or if they can afford it self publishing little projects Klei Entertainment's Don't Starve in the first place.
They are already funding pre-production of the game out of their own pocket and will reinvest Wasteland 2's profits into their games as well. While we would all love to be in a world where InExile could entirely self fund development on all their games that is just not realistic right now. Maybe when they have a few profitable projects under their belt they will, hell they already self funded Bard's Tale iOS and Choplifter HD but both those are tiny project compared to Wasteland 2 and Torment.
It's not like they are forcing anyone to back the project, people like you are free not to back it. And it's unlike that the kickstarter funds will even be enough to cover the entire project as well, I imagine it's more to get the ball rolling and they will invest their other income into the project and the one after that as well.
Maybe you missed Gas Powered Games laying off almost the entire staff because they had multiple projects pulled around the same time as they launched their kickstarter. Or how Obsidian had to lay off 30+ staff members because they lost a major contract and couldn't get another to replace it, just before they launched their kickstarter.
How about how THQ who invested in several smaller titles like Double Fines Stacking and Costume Quest just went bankrupt. Black Hole Entertainment bankrupt after Ubisoft delays to their game left them out of pocket. Monumental Games dead after 7 years in the industry.
Really the list is endless, getting publisher funding is not an easy task and can be ripped away at a moments notice. That's why so many independent developers of all sizes are turning to kickstarter and/or if they can afford it self publishing little projects Klei Entertainment's Don't Starve in the first place.
They are already funding pre-production of the game out of their own pocket and will reinvest Wasteland 2's profits into their games as well. While we would all love to be in a world where InExile could entirely self fund development on all their games that is just not realistic right now. Maybe when they have a few profitable projects under their belt they will, hell they already self funded Bard's Tale iOS and Choplifter HD but both those are tiny project compared to Wasteland 2 and Torment.
It's not like they are forcing anyone to back the project, people like you are free not to back it. And it's unlike that the kickstarter funds will even be enough to cover the entire project as well, I imagine it's more to get the ball rolling and they will invest their other income into the project and the one after that as well.
Easier than pulling off another seven-figure Kickstarter, anyway. And probably easier than before their Wasteland 2 campaign. Just as, I'm sure, Double Fine Adventure increased interest in The Cave, I'm sure inXile seems like a more valuable property to publishers now, than a year ago.
I think a lot of people saw Kickstarter as this "Death to publishers" moment, but for me, a big part of it is sending a message to publishers; saying "THIS is what I want." And that these successes might open new doors.
I'm a huge adventure game fan. I backed about 5 adventure game projects last year, but I don't want to have to back every adventure game that comes out. I want publishers to recognize these successes and start making them again. So I stopped backing them after those five. As long as games are still a business, I feel like investors should be investing.
The Cave has been in development since 2010 and they apparently had a lot of trouble pitching it to publishers. And they attribute both Telltale and kickstarter success in finaly getting SEGA on board for the the big development push and they got pressure to add more action elements.
A couple kickstarter "success" stories is not going to convince major publishers, the games will have to release and sell very well after that to even start to change publishers minds. As you have pointed out many backers often back projects with more money than it would cost to buy the games. So $3m in kickstarter money is not going to convince publishers to drop $5m on these projects.
Brian Fargo's desire to go to crowd funding in the first place was A: to get away from publishers meddling in game design and B: because their last game bombed horribly. He sees crowd funding as a way of his company bypassing publishers and it's unlikely he will willingly go back if he has another option. There is of course risk associated with taking that route, as there is with publishers that could pull funding at any time. Hopefully his and other kickstarters will be successful beyond their fundraising campaigns and convince publisher to support other projects, but I don't inExile will go to publishers cap in hand ready to let the suits have creative control again unless they absolutely have too.
Of course crowd funding relies entirely on consumer good will. So if they can only rely on it until they burn out that good will. Clearly going back to the well a second time so soon will burn some. And however Wasteland 2 turns out it's not going to please everyone so that will burn some more. So they can only hope that their kickstarter games are successful enough to fund their further games as crowd funding won't last forever. But for now I don't think trying to get their second major self published game off the ground before they have to lose staff so they are in a position to capitalise on any success they have is a bad move over all. At the end of the day people will vote with their wallets.
So that means it didn't get a sales boost because of DFA now that it's out? Are you following what I'm saying at all?
It's probably true that potential investors will be further persuaded if and when these games sell after the fact.
What I don't get is the extreme pessimism that a lot of pro-KS people have about this. They all act like the only people who are interested are backers. Why? Wouldn't you expect that it's actually a pretty small fraction of the audience that would plunk their money down on something sight-unseen, based solely on the name and reputation of the developer?
In fairness, they made a sequel to one of the best games of all time (well, the Sega remake at least), and utterly fucked it up. Choplifter HD deserved to bomb.
Anyway, what it comes down to is this: Backing a KS project is a gamble. It's a shitty way to buy games, and if you back enough projects, some of them will come out bad, and you probably wouldn't have bought them after release had you read reviews like you normally would.
That said, I've backed about 15 KS projects. Some of them will be bad. I don't know which ones, but I know statistically they won't all live up to my hopes. So why did I give? Because all of those games wouldn't exist without KS, and the impact of all those games as a whole is worth the total investment. Seeing the adventure game genre have its biggest year since 1993 is worth everything I spent, even if SpaceVenture (for a random example) turns out shitty.
But if you back a project that doesn't need it, then there's nothing in it for you as a consumer. It's an unnecessary risk. Now you may disagree that inXile has other options, and that's ok, but if they do, I really don't think it's fair to put that risk on their fans unnecessarily.
Kickstarter is fantastic for consumers, because it allows us to choose what products we want to exist.
MightyHedgehog
Member
The problem, Frogacuda, is that you have a very different definition of what Kickstarter is than the rest of us.
Well, I think it's fine to have a different personal expectation of a platform. What I think is pointless is arguing in circles over and over about trying to enforce a personal expectation onto other people. This thread is basically ruined for anyone who might want to talk about the actual purpose of the OP, but granted it's just a name tidbit so it's not like there was going to be much discussion either way. But if there were, it would be a huge derail.
In the end, it's a free market. If no one wants to fund a Kickstarter, it will fail. If it doesn't it means people want to fund it. They might want to fund it for various reasons, and trying to argue against it for the sake of arguing is silly.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Generally, I agree with that. However, the way I see it is that he's wrong about the purpose and goal of Kickstarter in the first place. Yes, it does give individuals and small groups of enterprising and financially-disadvantaged folks a shot to realize their idea thanks to those most interested in it. Though KS happens to facilitate that potential for uplift that 'saves' or 'kickstarts' the business entity behind the successful project, it's not the only goal or purpose of KS. KS isn't welfare or a last-ditch bit of help. KS gets creatives and craftspeople to make things happen by more direct democratization..to find an audience who wants a proposed product or service to be a reality. Acting as if someone going back to KS is taking advantage ignores the fact that KS makes very nice money on this whole operation. It's a marketplace business run by the KS folks and not all that different than eBay outside of the requirement that this is not a goods re-seller. Coming to KS in the first place should not be considered a last resort because it's not about begging for money, it's about finding a core audience who is serious enough to put down money.
Yes, exactly. That's definitely why I've pledged to what I have. But when you put things up that would exist anyway, it takes that away. That's precisely my point.
I don't think I do. I've just noticed that people keep going back to that "KS lets us choose what games get made" thing, and I think that if you remove that aspect by putting up games that COULD get made otherwise, it begs the question of "why would you give?"
I mean maybe there's an answer to that, but I haven't heard it in this thread. It seems to largely come down to pessimism about inXile's other opportunities.
Did you read my post? I mentioned that it was part of SEGA finally picking up the game after years of trying.
Of course backing a game on kickstarter is a gamble, no one is going to argue that it isn't. But the company having other income from a previous project to pad out the budget only helps to insure the kickstarter not make it any riskier. Most hardcore fans would back the project to help insure a better end product not just whether they see it at all. Many Kickstarter projects are about expanding the scope of projects as much as just seeing the game at all, if the game happening at all was the only concern streatch goals wouldn't exist and people would stop backing projects as soon as they reached their initial goals. They could probably do Torment without kickstarter but it would probably be a better game for having the kickstarter money and that is what fans will be investing in the hope for.
I don't think that the kickstarter audience encompasses the entire audience for these games at all. I do however believe that they need to show a hell of a lot more sales potential to get the attention of big publishers. While Wasteland 2 selling 250k units in the first year would be a huge financial success for InXile as they don't have to pay back a major chunk of the development budget. For a publisher funded game that would likely be considered a bad investment for that level of sales. To turn publishers heads these types of games will need multiple titles to find major success, and a few hardcore fans donating to fund the game does not guarantee that kind of success.
And I was referring to Hunted: The Demon's Forge, Choplifter was post Kickstarter wasn't it? But anyway apparently we are way off topic now so I digress.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Why do I care if there are other ways to get the game made? Either way, I'm in control of whether I want to give them money or not. With KS, I help decide whether something even exists or not and how. Fargo insists that publishers aren't interested and, if they are, they will exert influence not conducive to producing the game makers or players want. I'm inclined to take them at their word because funding outside of the enthusiast and consumer crowd comes from those interested in making profit on their investment above all other concerns. If you're not convinced or feel it's off, then you should follow your gut and not pledge. Simple.
So here's a question: If Toys for Bob (wholly owned and funded by Activision) put up a Kickstarter for Star Control 4, would you give (assuming you like the series)? Even though they have Activision money behind them and don't need your money?
I think most people would say "no." So there is a line somewhere. I hope you can appreciate that.
Depending on what the Star Control 4 they are pitching is, I might or might not. Sure they have Activision money behind them and they don't need my money, but that doesn't mean Activision is willing to fund and publish said game. If using Kickstarter is a way to gauge actual interest in the sense of people putting their money where their mouths are, I don't see the issue. What is being Kickstarted is Star Control 4, not Toys for Bob as a company.
Edit:
Here's a real world example of what you're talking about: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/production-ig/masaaki-yuasas-kick-heart?ref=live
Kick-Heart is a 10 minute short anime film which was Kickstarted by Production IG. Production IG is one of the bigger animation studios in Japan, who produce hits like Ghost in the Shell, Patlabor, and so on. They have no problems getting funding for big commercial projects, and some of those are pretty profitable. But when it comes to funding a short film by a critically acclaimed but totally niche/arthouse director, it can be incredibly difficult to get commercial funding. So they turned to Kickstarter and got 200k out of it.
Clearly this shows that enough people's answer to that is in fact "yes".
MightyHedgehog
Member
I understand, but InXile isn't Activision. They've served publishers like them, though. My answer is that, if it produces a better game that serves me as player and consumer, then yes, I would pledge even knowing that Acti-Blizz could fund it all themselves. My concern is about the product. I'll leave the welfare and business of the developer up to the developer.
I think that sets a dangerous precedent. If companies are unwilling to make games unless their paid for in advance, but still happy to pocket the profits of said game after the fact, that puts a huge burden on consumers that wasn't there before. It ceases to be a "democratization" at that point.