Support NeoGAF

[jschreier]

I don't see much value in running a list of successful Kickstarters, which we'd typically just treat like normal games. I'm handling the Kotaku review of Pillars of Eternity, for example. And we've given all sorts of normal coverage to games like FTL, Broken Age, etc. There's really no need to highlight them separately.

One of the big reasons we're doing this series on Kickstarters that don't deliver is because very few people ever talk about those -- especially the ones that didn't raise *that* much money before they disappeared. Even Stump's database only covers projects above a certain threshold. I think it's important to shine a light even on game projects that took only a few thousand dollars of other people's money and never delivered.

 

[Bashtee]

This isn't just about Kickstarter projects, this is software development in general. Bigger software companies usually use their past projects to estimate the work that needs to be done on the new one and what it might cost - and even then they tend to guess wrong. So now you have a couple of indies who try to make their dream come true, with what experience exactly? Stretch goals might kill the initial planning or get cut out, as they were too ambitious, adding fuel to the fire of underestimating the cost and work to finish and ship the product. Kickstarter just publicly shows that software development is no joke and far from easy.

Charles Cecil from Revolution used a half million pounds to get the production started and was able to make a better guess on how much the whole project might cost. And I'm sure - he still underestimated the costs.

RPS interview with Charles Cecil btw.: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/30/charles-cecil-on-broken-sword-kickstarter-and-3d-models/

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I don't see much value in running a list of successful Kickstarters, which we'd typically just treat like normal games. I'm handling the Kotaku review of Pillars of Eternity, for example. And we've given all sorts of normal coverage to games like FTL, Broken Age, etc. There's really no need to highlight them separately.

One of the big reasons we're doing this series on Kickstarters that don't deliver is because very few people ever talk about those -- especially the ones that didn't raise *that* much money before they disappeared. Even Stump's database only covers projects above a certain threshold. I think it's important to shine a light even on game projects that took only a few thousand dollars of other people's money and never delivered.

There's nothing wrong with a warning of sorts to show people how badly Kickstarter projects can turn out, but it seems to me a bit like scaremongering if you don't balance an article like this by pointing out that the vast majority of KS projects are delivered. I mean, what about some of the smaller success stories like Full Bore, Lifeless Planet or The Fall, or what about interviewing developers of funded and delivered games like this to find out how much of a sales success they're been and whether they now independently have enough money to make their next game, will be seeking the aid of a publisher or intend to return to Kickstarter? Or how about running an article on games that most people don't realise got their funding on Kickstarter, like Race the Sun, Organ Trail, Paranautical Activity, Awesomenauts, Spacechem, etc?

 

[More_Badass]

There's nothing wrong with a warning of sorts to show people how badly Kickstarter projects can turn out, but it seems to me a bit like scaremongering if you don't balance an article like this by pointing out that the vast majority of KS projects are delivered. I mean, what about some of the smaller success stories like Full Bore, Lifeless Planet or The Fall, or what about interviewing developers of funded and delivered games like this to find out how much of a sales success they're been and whether they now independently have enough money to make their next game, will be seeking the aid of a publisher or intend to return to Kickstarter? Or how about running an article on games that most people don't realise got their funding on Kickstarter, like Race the Sun, Organ Trail, Paranautical Activity, Awesomenauts, Spacechem, etc?

Technically it was for a SpaceChem Deluxe Edition, not the game itself

And don't forgot Volgarr The Viking, Spintires, Among The Sleep, Consortium, and See No Evil. Didn't realize those were Kickstarted

 

[TheSlySoul]

So yeah, KS has pretty much soured me. I'll wait until games are out before putting down money.

I only backed Aviary Attorney and it seems to be progressing fine.
I don't back many KS projects because of the horror stories.

 

[Primeau31]

H-Hour isn't stopped but it is a fucking Con.

They stated this.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1687497632/h-hour-worlds-elite-0/posts/510373


Creator David Sears on June 15, 2013
Thanks you guys. We were happy to make this tier happen. Just a small show of faith from the community and we will make sure that the PS4 version of the game happens. All it will take is 500 SOCOM fans saying "yeah, I want that experience again" and H-Hour can deliver it.

Creator David Sears on June 15, 2013
Basically all the PLAYSTATION WARRIOR means is that if 500 people pledge to it, we at SOF Studios commit to securing the extra funding we will need to make a PS4 version of the game plus we will make sure any digital perks you already pledged for work with your PS4 version of the game.
Any tier we add to the campaign below the tier at which you've already pledged just gives you more stuff. In this case, it gives you a choice between a PS4 or a PC version of the game when we ship.

then they upped the 500 to 1000 when they hit it, now they are backing off the PS4 version saying you'll only get it if it does well on steam. they used the popularity of the PS4 and its history with socom to get to their goal, but it'll probably never see the light of day on that console.

Also i think Kotaku should have done more research on this, it was easy to find that H-Hour is still intending to deliver at least the PC version, in March.

they are meeting with investors this week as we speak to do exactly what they stated - an attempt to secure funding for a PS4 version. they have been committed to working towards that goal since it was met.

 

[stargateheaven]

I wonder whatever happened with Soul Saga.

actually progressing.

after all the flack he got for "lying" and "the project isn't going anywhere" comments on gaf, it's a bit of a surprise.

An early version of the game just came out, and i'm not gonna lie.. looks fun!

 

[dancrane212]

Looking through my backer history I've actually had pretty great luck so far in so far no game has been cancelled.

I've started to do more with the $1 - get access to the update - tier now. I've only ever gone for a tier over $20 once (Hyper Light Drifter for the artbook) so it's not like I'm getting anything really special for most games by backing them. Most cases I save $5-$10 but still have to pay for the game long in advance. I figure I can hold onto that money while still getting periodic updates on the game with that $1 pledge and just buy at release if I like what I see.

 

[Adam Blue]

There's nothing wrong with a warning of sorts to show people how badly Kickstarter projects can turn out, but it seems to me a bit like scaremongering if you don't balance an article like this by pointing out that the vast majority of KS projects are delivered.

Like he's saying, these games are covered often, on a regular basis. Mainly because they get released, additional platform releases, etc. We pretty much talk about successful Kickstarters everyday in games media.

Kickstarter is just another method to fund a game, and it shouldn't be given any special treatment because it's "working" - though, those that scam or fail should be highlighted just like any game release. For every MCC and AC Unity, we dont need an article about how successful Skyward Sword was by being published by Nintendo.

For instance, while Volgarr was funded by Kickstarter, it's an awesome game just because it is. Kickstarter - or any crowd funding platform - makes no difference here. It got funded as it planned to for its business model.

 

[jschreier]

There's nothing wrong with a warning of sorts to show people how badly Kickstarter projects can turn out, but it seems to me a bit like scaremongering if you don't balance an article like this by pointing out that the vast majority of KS projects are delivered. I mean, what about some of the smaller success stories like Full Bore, Lifeless Planet or The Fall, or what about interviewing developers of funded and delivered games like this to find out how much of a sales success they're been and whether they now independently have enough money to make their next game, will be seeking the aid of a publisher or intend to return to Kickstarter? Or how about running an article on games that most people don't realise got their funding on Kickstarter, like Race the Sun, Organ Trail, Paranautical Activity, Awesomenauts, Spacechem, etc?

The vast majority of Kickstarters *should* deliver. All of them should. News is about what's unusual, not what's going according to plan. You don't see a lot of articles about all the people who didn't murder today.

 

[JC Sera]

The vast majority of Kickstarters *should* deliver. All of them should. News is about what's unusual, not what's going according to plan. You don't see a lot of articles about all the people who didn't murder today.

Actually its much more comparable to saying that all games big game companies announce should be delivered. Because that totally happens.

 

[Lunar15]

Please continue to write about this. This is the only way to have transparency in kickstarter mishaps, which are helpful when shit hits the fan and backers need to find support through a lawsuit or other means.

When you have a system that's sometimes used for handing people money for what amounts to a fancy idea, you need to keep those guys on their toes. Consumer knowledge is a must.

And for people saying that they should report on "good" kickstarters in order to keep kickstarter running, that's not the point: If we don't have people pointing out the failures and keeping people cautious, kickstarter won't be sustainable in the future.

 

[ZackieChan]

Please continue to write about this. This is the only way to have transparency in kickstarter mishaps, which are helpful when shit hits the fan and backers need to find support through a lawsuit or other means.

When you have a system that's sometimes used for handing people money for what amounts to a fancy idea, you need to keep those guys on their toes. Consumer knowledge is a must.

And for people saying that they should report on "good" kickstarters in order to keep kickstarter running, that's not the point: If we don't have people pointing out the failures and keeping people cautious, kickstarter won't be sustainable in the future.

I don't see why it is okay to lump successful Kickstarters in with every other released game, but failures must be separately called out. Why not mix in other, publisher-backed late or cancelled games with the Kickstarter failures if they're all the same?

If the developer relied on crowdfunding and succeeded, then the game is still different from a pub-backed game. They had to manage their budget without a potentially-endless funding source. When they are a first-time dev, it is even more of a success story.

I think I will blog about successes this week.

 

[Lunar15]

I don't see why it is okay to lump successful Kickstarters in with every other released game, but failures must be separately called out. Why not mix in other, publisher-backed late or cancelled games with the Kickstarter failures if they're all the same?

If the developer relied on crowdfunding and succeeded, then the game is still different from a pub-backed game. They had to manage their budget without a potentially-endless funding source. When they are a first-time dev, it is even more of a success story.

I think I will blog about successes this week.

Write about successes all you want. I've got no problem with covering that separately. My point is that there MUST be reporting on the failures and mishaps. That's one of the main reasons for journalism.

 

[ZackieChan]

Write about successes all you want. I've got no problem with covering that separately. My point is that there MUST be reporting on the failures and mishaps. That's one of the main reasons for journalism.

I agree with that point, just not the act of equating successes to "just another game."

 

[FoneBone]

The vast majority of Kickstarters *should* deliver. All of them should. News is about what's unusual, not what's going according to plan. You don't see a lot of articles about all the people who didn't murder today.

Nobody's arguing with that. What I and others have criticized - and I still haven't seen you respond to this - is your insistence on using these failures to promote general FUD re crowdfunding.

Jason, do you have any source to cite for this - that for every Kickstarter success, there are "numerous" failures? You've been sounding this FUD note for a while*, and I don't believe it's borne out by the facts - as Stump's lists indicate.

*case in point:

They never do. It's just taken as a given, and I don't know why.

The main thing is that these failures are not the fault of Kickstarter as a platform or crowdfunding as a funding method. Each one comes down to that specific creator being shady, inept or otherwise incapable of delivering on their promises.

So much this. Clearly, when crowdfunding is abused or misused, it needs to be called out. But it strikes me as borderline irresponsible for a journalist to be deriding Kickstarter as a whole for this, and encouraging readers to mistrust crowdfunding altogether.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

I really want to pay that SOCOM successor title. I miss that series.

 

[TheSlySoul]

The vast majority of Kickstarters *should* deliver. All of them should. News is about what's unusual, not what's going according to plan. You don't see a lot of articles about all the people who didn't murder today.

I think this is true. What happens I think is people get to dreaming without considering actual cost and time of doing it. Then the pressure becomes too much and then they quit.

It is why I can understand publishers a bit. They want projects that A) will be done efficiently and B) sell enough to earn back costs and maybe profit.

As such, my rule of thumb is I don't support projects unless it is by people who worked in the industry or the developer is actually showing lots of gameplay. This tends to work out for the most part (Shovel Knight, Wasteland 2, etc.)

 

[Durante]

The vast majority of Kickstarters *should* deliver. All of them should.

I disagree. If there was no risk in Kickstarter at all, we wouldn't need it.

I also disagree with it not being important to explicitly point out the huge success stories of crowdfunding. For one, it has basically rejuvenated an entire genre that was on the verge of death (which happens to be my favorite).

 

[Kyuur]

I like Kickstarter and understand the risks that come with it, but there really should be some sort of clause with digital products that upon delivery failure they are to release assets, source code, etc. At least give something to the people who backed you: maybe someone will have the motivation to take it and finish it. Of course this wouldn't help with projects that are complete scams, but it would make it far easier to tell which are in the aftermath!

 

[Rubikant]

Nirolak, your listing there for my KS investigation is way out of date. Here's the up-to-date link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lFW2sjShHriYRsyuVZx4Se8Qxjw38VJk4g-7cls8cpg/edit#gid=0

It's the progress status of every 75k+ Kickstarter up to June 2014.

Yay! Volgarr made it onto the "notable < 75k list"! Nice to be "notable" heh, but actually also kinda glad not to get the scrutiny the higher-funded projects get.

Truth be told, Kickstarter kinda terrifies me in that you can't put a cap on your funding, and being majorly over-funded can actually be a big problem. I know I sound crazy, why would more money be a problem? But its all about managing expectation.

Volgarr delivered pretty much exactly what we said it would be at a reasonable funding amount (since we paid for most of it ourselves). If it had been funded at some huge amount like $200k, people would have expected a lot more from it, and we didn't really have anything else we wanted to do with the game to justify that money.

Its true money doesn't buy happiness, and to go further, it can even cause great misery, such as getting massive scrutiny of your progress, or making something simple become majorly complex and consume all your time and happiness trying to justify that money.

Personally, I just want to make fun games for niche audiences and make enough to keep the roof over my head and food on the table (when combined with my wife's teacher salary). I don't need the extra stress of "making it big", I don't want to end up like the Flappy Bird guy or the Fez guy who seemed to snap under the pressure of all that attention! Extra spending money isn't worth that!

Point is that Kickstarter seems like a good thing for offering alternative funding and allowed many great games to be created that might otherwise have had no chance, but until they allow project creators to put a funding cap on, I'm scared to use it again as a source of funding. But I'm happy my game is considered "notable" anyway (actually its in bold too, what does that mean?) .

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Truth be told, Kickstarter kinda terrifies me in that you can't put a cap on your funding, and being majorly over-funded can actually be a big problem.

At least for us, saying "No stretch goals" up-front essentially put a cap on our funding. We did end up getting 32% more than our goal, but our rate of funding dropped drastically once we reached the initial goal.

 

[Rubikant]

At least for us, saying "No stretch goals" up-front essentially put a cap on our funding. We did end up getting 32% more than our goal, but our rate of funding dropped drastically once we reached the initial goal.

Yeah personally I think Stretch Goals are a terrible idea that really goes against the spirit of what KS was at the start. You'll note KS doesn't mention them ANYWHERE in their documentation for project creators (or at least they didn't when we did our kickstarter), they were something started by the community. That said, I've still seen some projects get a lot of extra funding even without stretch goals of note.

We dealt with the issue by offering only a single stretch goal at a point, we thought, would be high enough that it was unlikely to be reached (and it wasn't), and then did the stretch goal item anyway on our own dime so people weren't disappointed for not making it.

If we do another KS though (which, again, hoping we don't have to), I agree, no stretch goals, and we'll be up front about it. In fact, I'd like to take it one step further and say no high tier rewards either. Like we'd have the "you get the game" tier and variations like "you get 2 copies of the game" and "you get the game + soundtrack" and then pretty much leave it at that. People can donate extra money if they want (you'd be surprised how many people do donate a lot and don't ask for any rewards for it), but making the KS rewards was a pain I'd rather not repeat, and I don't like the idea of having to modify the game for the sake of pleasing backers by doing stuff like adding their faces into the game somewhere or what have you, or having exclusive game content only backers get since that makes it somewhat unfair to those that buy the game later that maybe just didn't hear about the Kickstarter in the first place.

I'd really like to see how well such a "pure" KS campaign could do, no stretch goals, no high tier rewards. Do you want this game to be made or not? All you get out of it is the game, donate how much you feel its worth to help see it get made. Would be interesting.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I can understand not wanting to have Stretch goals for the reasons you both described, but I don't think they're necessarily a bad idea so long as the expectations are clear and the ambitions are held in check.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

I'd really like to see how well such a "pure" KS campaign could do, no stretch goals, no high tier rewards. Do you want this game to be made or not? All you get out of it is the game, donate how much you feel its worth to help see it get made. Would be interesting.

We thought about doing this but ended up including some high tier rewards anyway 'cause we were afraid we wouldn't reach our goal otherwise.

I also think it's interesting to go the opposite route - have a Kickstarter for a game that's already getting made and make the KS entirely about stretch goals. The latest Shadowrun Kickstarter did this and it worked out quite well.

 

[More_Badass]

I can understand not wanting to have Stretch goals for the reasons you both described, but I don't think they're necessarily a bad idea so long as the expectations are clear and the ambitions are held in check.

My favorite campaign in regards to stretch goals was Rain World. They had one goal (@200% funded). Well not actually a single goal, but the promise to expand the game:

- Rain World on Linux!
- Migration to a more modern programming language! (with all the technical improvements that brings with it)
- Freedom from current limitations!
- Significant polish and an improved game experience for all
- A.I. enhancement, for smarter prey and even more cunning enemies!
- Expanded future possibilities!

And it worked out really well

Then

Now

 

[charlequin]

The vast majority of Kickstarters *should* deliver. All of them should. News is about what's unusual, not what's going according to plan. You don't see a lot of articles about all the people who didn't murder today.

No, although there is an issue where typical media reporting of violent crime, presented without greater context, leads viewers to erroneous beliefs about its prevalence. I think you can make a case that just like it's bad if people see shootings on the news and think crime is going way up when it's going way down, it's bad if people see prominent KS failures and think they're the norm rather than the exception. In general, coverage of KS seems to be noticeably more negative than the facts really support.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

No, although there is an issue where typical media reporting of violent crime, presented without greater context, leads viewers to erroneous beliefs about its prevalence. I think you can make a case that just like it's bad if people see shootings on the news and think crime is going way up when it's going way down, it's bad if people see prominent KS failures and think they're the norm rather than the exception. In general, coverage of KS seems to be noticeably more negative than the facts really support.

Good point. I was thinking the same thing but couldn't quite express it clearly.

 

[Ziophaelin]

Volgarr got no coverage while in kickstarter or afterwards really... so thanks for that

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Kickstarter is great. Do your research, give wisely.

 

[Rubikant]

Volgarr got no coverage while in kickstarter or afterwards really... so thanks for that

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Huh? I don't get it, is this referencing something? Sometimes your humor goes right over my head dude...


But back on topic, I wish more people would treat Kickstarter for what it is - investment. You are investing in something, and all investment has risk. Sure, we'd all love it if every stock you purchased was guaranteed to deliver a dividend and go up in value, but that's not how investment works. If you are looking for a guarantee, stick to pre-ordering games on Amazon, that way even if the game fails to come out you'll get your money back.

Kickstarter is a way for risky ventures to come to light - if they were all safe bets for the investors, they wouldn't need crowd funding in the first place and Kickstarter would have no reason to exist. Despite how many failed KS's actually do try to give refunds, they are under no obligation to do so. That's part of KS's appeal to the creators - they want to do something that publishers would deem too risky to invest in, and they know there's a chance of failure and don't want to end up going bankrupt from a loan or something, so KS is a safe method for them to get funding for their risky projects. Its pretty much the same as how a venture capitalist works, except instead of a single entity willing to put a bunch of money at risk for a project that has a good chance of failing, its a whole bunch of people putting in a little bit of money each.

The only time the system fails to work as expected is when the project was a scam in the first place that had no intentions of creating what they were promising. As long as the creators weren't trying to pull a fast one and did attempt to create their project using the money gained, a failed KS does not in any way indicate the system isn't working as intended and the backers have no legal grounds to demand anything from them (a lawsuit should not be successful against the creators unless it is proven that they just pocketed the money with no intention of using it to create the product described).

Stop treating it like a pre-order service, treat it as an investment in games that are riskier than the types that publishers are willing to risk their investment money on, and you'll be a lot happier with the projects you back. The expectation that every KS you back should be required to deliver is ludicrous, and if you believe that, you are using the wrong service. I would recommend staying away from the stock market as well if you have that attitude.

 

[C-DubSP]

I really want to pay that SOCOM successor title. I miss that series.

And for that reason I think Kotaku used the game as click bait, knowing good and well how big of a cult following Socom had. I think they underestimated how close that cult following has been keeping tabs with the game, which is why they replies started to flooding in.

 

[More_Badass]

I really want to pay that SOCOM successor title. I miss that series.

Have you seen Door Kickers? It's more SWAT than SOCOM, but it has coordinates breaches, snake cams, different classes and gear, non lethal tactics, tactical squad gameplay, etc.

 

[GtwoK]

What about Cube World? I remember they had released the alpha for that a while back, and nobody ever heard from them again, right? Damn, that game had so much potential based on the alpha.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Truth be told, Kickstarter kinda terrifies me in that you can't put a cap on your funding, and being majorly over-funded can actually be a big problem. I know I sound crazy, why would more money be a problem? But its all about managing expectation.

I think what would help is ban pitch videos that do not show off any actual gameplay or concept.
Like this I find stupid: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-century-cooler-thats-actually
However, it is an actual product shown off what it would do and how it would work.
I think for games developers should be able to get enough funds to develop at least one level and show it off.
Many game developers do this exact thing, which is the right way to go. However, many of them are ideas and concepts that never get finished.

There is a distinct difference between Aviary Attorney (showing off completed cutscenes) and Yogscast Adventures.

 

[More_Badass]

I think what would help is ban pitch videos that do not show off any actual gameplay or concept.
Like this I find stupid: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-century-cooler-thats-actually
However, it is an actual product shown off what it would do and how it would work.
I think for games developers should be able to get enough funds to develop at least one level and show it off.
Many game developers do this exact thing, which is the right way to go. However, many of them are ideas and concepts that never get finished.

There is a distinct difference between Aviary Attorney (showing off completed cutscenes) and Yogscast Adventures.

How the hell did that make 13 million dollars?

Edit: then again, potato salad made 55k...Kickstarter is crazy like that

 

[Rubikant]

I think what would help is ban pitch videos that do not show off any actual gameplay or concept.
Like this I find stupid: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-century-cooler-thats-actually
However, it is an actual product shown off what it would do and how it would work.
I think for games developers should be able to get enough funds to develop at least one level and show it off.
Many game developers do this exact thing, which is the right way to go. However, many of them are ideas and concepts that never get finished.

There is a distinct difference between Aviary Attorney (showing off completed cutscenes) and Yogscast Adventures.

Yeah I do think that pitch videos should do that (our own pitch video did show actual gameplay and even some of our level-building tools), however that requirement wouldn't really help with my fear. That being, as a project creator, the fear of using Kickstarter without a funding cap, meaning I could end up getting way more money than I actually needed or wanted for my project. Being massively over-funded means lots of pressure and expectations placed on me to make something worthy of getting like 500% funded when I really had no desire to put any more into the game than my original proposal outlined, and don't really care for getting massive media attention or possibly ending up in an article like this one if I fail to live up to the lofty expectations.

I know KS will probably never do it, since of course they get a cut of all donations made and thus LOVE super-over-funded projects, but it would make me feel better about using it again if I could specify that once my funding reached, say, 125%, that's it, no more pledges can be made. Maybe some other KS-like service has that option?

Speaking of other services, I've also been surprised to see some indie devs being funded by Patreon - that really gets me, since Patreon is a continual funding service rather than a per-project funding like KS, and how would you even determine which patrons actually get a copy of the game (wouldn't want to just have a bunch of people sign on at the last month before a game's release for $1 a pop and expect to get a free game out of it...)?

I can see it for people that put out frequent, small bits of content, like YouTube video makers, but a game developer? Where its probably a minimum 6 months to put out something, and usually more like 2-3 years before you see a return on your continuous month-by-month contribution? I'm very surprised that anyone is going for that... but speaking as a developer, it sure would be awesome to just get a constant stream of funding like that rather than a big chunk at a time, especially since game development is extremely hard to predict costs for (as many of these failed KS's show), so Patreon style would be ideal for us developers to not need to worry as much about running out of funding if things take longer than expected (or ending up being over-funded if things go smoother than expected - not that that ever happens). I'm just again surprised that anyone is willing to fund an indie developer in that way, but have been tempted to try it if we end up needing more funding in the future.

 

[JABEE]

Actually its much more comparable to saying that all games big game companies announce should be delivered. Because that totally happens.

Big game companies aren't panhandling for money. They are also obligated to refund preorders if the product they sold isn't delivered. They just cancel the orders.

People should keep track of these things just like people scrutinize charities and non-profits.

 

[HK-47]

How much funding is enough funding? Many Kickstarters have run into budget problems, even well run ones. If you arent offering stretch goals you are definitely putting a cap on your funding anyways and many projects only reach a few.

 

[TheSlySoul]

How the hell did that make 13 million dollars?

Edit: then again, potato salad made 55k...Kickstarter is crazy like that

To be fair, the guy did deliver on his promise.
Better than a good chunk of projects.

 

[DocSeuss]

I don't see much value in running a list of successful Kickstarters, which we'd typically just treat like normal games. I'm handling the Kotaku review of Pillars of Eternity, for example. And we've given all sorts of normal coverage to games like FTL, Broken Age, etc. There's really no need to highlight them separately.

One of the big reasons we're doing this series on Kickstarters that don't deliver is because very few people ever talk about those -- especially the ones that didn't raise *that* much money before they disappeared. Even Stump's database only covers projects above a certain threshold. I think it's important to shine a light even on game projects that took only a few thousand dollars of other people's money and never delivered.

I think it's because a lot of people highlight failed Kickstarters as reasons why they shouldn't Kickstart other games. This turns Kickstarter into another system whereby the only people who can really succeed are the famous and already powerful, and relative unknowns with great ideas will have a much harder time because people ran off with their money.

Highlighting Kickstarters that were successful--and more importantly, talking about how and why their campaigns delivered, how they succeeded, etc, is, I think, a worthy goal.

 

[HK-47]

I don't see much value in running a list of successful Kickstarters, which we'd typically just treat like normal games. I'm handling the Kotaku review of Pillars of Eternity, for example. And we've given all sorts of normal coverage to games like FTL, Broken Age, etc. There's really no need to highlight them separately.

One of the big reasons we're doing this series on Kickstarters that don't deliver is because very few people ever talk about those -- especially the ones that didn't raise *that* much money before they disappeared. Even Stump's database only covers projects above a certain threshold. I think it's important to shine a light even on game projects that took only a few thousand dollars of other people's money and never delivered.

So youll paint only half the painting and the negative half at that. Doesnt sound like a good look.

 

[FoneBone]

I hope Jason will actually respond to some of the criticism here.

 

[TheSlySoul]

I think it's because a lot of people highlight failed Kickstarters as reasons why they shouldn't Kickstart other games. This turns Kickstarter into another system whereby the only people who can really succeed are the famous and already powerful, and relative unknowns with great ideas will have a much harder time because people ran off with their money.

Highlighting Kickstarters that were successful--and more importantly, talking about how and why their campaigns delivered, how they succeeded, etc, is, I think, a worthy goal.

I think both should be done - highlight the good and bad so people know what to fund.
The South Park episode "Go Fund Yourself" still holds true. If they started enforcing rules like the TV Show Shark Tank does, then people who are competent can be highlighted more. No sales, but you have to have a prototype.

 

[charlequin]

How the hell did that make 13 million dollars?

It's a $200 product with a gimmicky but obvious appeal. It's certainly more useful than a smartwatch.

 

[HK-47]

It's a $200 product with a gimmicky but obvious appeal. It's certainly more useful than a smartwatch.

Clearly someone needs to make a smart cooler.

 

[Polk]

Clearly someone needs to make a smart cooler.

About that...

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

If a Kickstarter gets greenlight and then is later cancelled, I'm guessing ya don't get that money back?

 

[HK-47]

About that...

Smarter. I need to browse the internet and watch movies on my cooler.

 

[Polk]

If a Kickstarter gets greenlight and then is later cancelled, I'm guessing ya don't get that money back?

You don't get donations back.

 

[@MUWANdo]

Speaking of other services, I've also been surprised to see some indie devs being funded by Patreon - that really gets me, since Patreon is a continual funding service rather than a per-project funding like KS, and how would you even determine which patrons actually get a copy of the game (wouldn't want to just have a bunch of people sign on at the last month before a game's release for $1 a pop and expect to get a free game out of it...)?

I can see it for people that put out frequent, small bits of content, like YouTube video makers, but a game developer? Where its probably a minimum 6 months to put out something, and usually more like 2-3 years before you see a return on your continuous month-by-month contribution? I'm very surprised that anyone is going for that... but speaking as a developer, it sure would be awesome to just get a constant stream of funding like that rather than a big chunk at a time, especially since game development is extremely hard to predict costs for (as many of these failed KS's show), so Patreon style would be ideal for us developers to not need to worry as much about running out of funding if things take longer than expected (or ending up being over-funded if things go smoother than expected - not that that ever happens). I'm just again surprised that anyone is willing to fund an indie developer in that way, but have been tempted to try it if we end up needing more funding in the future.

Patreon has a per-creation funding option for creators who won't or don't expect to update frequently, so you don't have to worry about the "dripping tap" if you're someone who works on fewer longer-burn projects.

Either way, the relationship between patron and backer is not supposed to be seen as an "investment" in a specific sense; the only thing people are funding is the financial security of the creator, and it's up to patrons to decide for themselves whether a given creator is likely or able to produce content they're interested in. It's a much more emotional pitch, and as a consequence, it seems like the audience for Patreon is kinda incestuous--a lot of your patrons will probably be running their own Patreons, and there is a slight incentive for creators to pay forward some of their donations, so it all seems like a bit of a hugbox, at least from the outside.

I wouldn't call it charity, necessarily, but a lot of the same rhetoric applies.