-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rab Florence Piece on Industry Vets Killing Kickstarter
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
Looking at their project page, it seems like they're using Kickstarter to gauge interest in the game. They've decided that if they can't raise £450,000 it won't be worthwhile to develop, so they'll forget the project and work on something else.
I'm not seeing the moral problem.
I'm not seeing the moral problem.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Well if they didn't actually take the money then this would make some sense.
reptilescorpio
Member
Florence is talking about industry veterans.
Braben and Molyneux are the examples.
Not Kickstarter as a whole.
Braben and Molyneux are the examples.
Not Kickstarter as a whole.
do you think if the games come out and are good, that florence will apologise?
The Friendly Monster
Member
You are totally missing the point.
reptilescorpio
Member
The potential quality has nothing to with his complaint as detailed in the OP.
I see nothing wrong with game developers wanting to do business directly with their audience and cut out publishers completely from the equation. Sounds like a dream. It would be an even more appealing scenario if said developer has gone through negative experiences with publishers in the past to compare it to.
Now I can see arguing that they should be raising money on their own terms, RSI-style (though they also used KS) if the history and clout is there behind the idea. But crowd sourcing in general should not be off limits simply because you're a name in the industry.
Not to mention "celebrities" will likely bring in first time backers to Kickstarter, who in turn end up browsing the site and find new interesting projects from there. Personally I'd never have contributed to arduino satellites, vinyl coffee table books or handmade marshmallows without Tim Schafer. These guys help the ecosystem, not hurt it.
Edit: Also, Rab's nasty tone is unpleasant to read and hurts his argument. I like that he writes from the heart and finds these issues important, but for someone so sure in their beliefs he certainly makes plenty of assumptions about others.
Now I can see arguing that they should be raising money on their own terms, RSI-style (though they also used KS) if the history and clout is there behind the idea. But crowd sourcing in general should not be off limits simply because you're a name in the industry.
Not to mention "celebrities" will likely bring in first time backers to Kickstarter, who in turn end up browsing the site and find new interesting projects from there. Personally I'd never have contributed to arduino satellites, vinyl coffee table books or handmade marshmallows without Tim Schafer. These guys help the ecosystem, not hurt it.
Edit: Also, Rab's nasty tone is unpleasant to read and hurts his argument. I like that he writes from the heart and finds these issues important, but for someone so sure in their beliefs he certainly makes plenty of assumptions about others.
In this sensible situation of yours are they required to hand out all the backer rewards for free?
Why go to publishers to ask for money that has to be repaid, give a huge cut of profits to them and maybe IP rights when you can ask for free money on kickstarter?
Nothing really wrong with this, but i don't personally have any reason to give affluent people money for a project that they could finance themselves and likely make a decent profit out of it anyway.
Nothing really wrong with this, but i don't personally have any reason to give affluent people money for a project that they could finance themselves and likely make a decent profit out of it anyway.
The Friendly Monster
Member
I meant that your argument would hold water, not that it would be a sensible situation.
ok then great wise man, help me understand the point.
i honestly believe that no publisher would fully bankroll a god game or a space sim.
my point is that if the game comes out, and the backers enjoy a product they wouldnt have otherwise, then the devs have truly provided something good and worthwhile to the fans, and NOT exploited them as rab has accused.
SolidSnakex
Member
One thing I found interesting about Molyneux's Kickstarter is that the top tier offer is a trip to E3 and an interview with Peter for G4. But isn't G4 going to be dead at the end of the year? Specifically their gaming related shows.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
100% agree. These aging UK devs slipping into irrelevance have just caught eye of Kickstarter and thought "oh, riskfree money?! Why not!" while riding on the one big success story from decades ago that can tweak people's pathetic nostalgo-glands. Yes, that one guy is responsible for how good that whole package was! NOPE.
From the Oliver Twins aversion to any risk taking themselves, Molyneux's histrionics, and Braben getting up in front of a video camera and repeating "yeh, multiplayer, with your MATES" like a grandad thats just that week discovered videogames can have more than one player. Fuck off, the lotta ya.
From the Oliver Twins aversion to any risk taking themselves, Molyneux's histrionics, and Braben getting up in front of a video camera and repeating "yeh, multiplayer, with your MATES" like a grandad thats just that week discovered videogames can have more than one player. Fuck off, the lotta ya.
The Friendly Monster
Member
From Dust was publisher-funded and reviewed and sold well.
Molyneux and Braben both have huge networks of contacts and means of funding, they just happen to come with strings, unlike this free money being given out on Kickstarter.
Of course the games could end up being good, but asking your fans....the people you owe your livelihood to....to shoulder the financial risk of your project is to me morally questionable.
Molyneux could have easily walked into damn near any publisher's office and gotten a deal for 450K. Hell, he probably could have gotten more like twice that, especially if he'd also port it to XBLA and PSN.
And that is the point of the article. People who have enough clout within the industry to get these projects funded via the more traditional avenues going to Kickstarter instead to push the risk in the equation onto consumers while keeping even more of the reward.
Well, they would have been exploited in that they'll probably put the product on Steam, XBLA, PSN, iOS... make a buttload of money all the while the Kickstarters that funded their development don't get a cent of it. All without a guarantee that the product will actually come to fruition in the first place.
That's pretty much a textbook example of exploitation.
I AM interested. But as Peter has speculated, associating yourself with a kickstarter... with you track record. If it was only "ex-Lionhead" my money would be already there. But Peter... oh Peter. Can I really trust my money to a project you are attached to?
reptilescorpio
Member
Elite 4 has "been in production" since before this console generation too, while they have worked on a bunch of titles including Disneyland Adventures and Kinectimals.
I do recall recently buying a well recieved space sim on Steam last sale too!
I do recall recently buying a well recieved space sim on Steam last sale too!
I'm sure that a publisher like Paradox would love to give a couple of mil for molyneux to make a God game, or really any publisher. This is just a way to make more money for the studio by developing the game with 'no costs' and reaping all the profits.
Kickstarter in my mind is supposed to be for projects that could not happen without fan funding.
Kickstarter in my mind is supposed to be for projects that could not happen without fan funding.
Could you be more specific regarding what the problem with it is?
Visualante2
Member
Assuming the project is successful enough.
Looking at the videos 22 Cans posted on youtube, it seems the studio has about 20 employees at least. Molyneux might be wealthy, but I'm not sure if he's wealthy enough to sustain a company of that size on his own. Especially since they didn't generate any income so far -- after all, despite putting big bucks into Curiosity's servers, they still haven't added paid content...
Would a Populous-style game be picked up by another company? I honestly don't know. He seems to be carrying around a multiplayer version of Populous for quite some time, who knows if he ever pitched the project to some company. In any case, I think it's totally understandable that he would like to do it on his own without outside interference. If he's able to get enough fans support his ambition, then that's absolutely fine with me. If not, well, I guess he's got to search for a publisher after all.
Whether or not his recent games delivered or failed to deliver doesn't strike me as particular important. After all, people who aren't satisfied with Molyneux' track record or who don't trust him, can simply decide not to pledge. I think the Kickstarter audience is educated enough to know who Molyneux is and what kind of legacy he build up over the last decade.
By the way, I think that we wouldn't have seen this Kickstarter if Curiosity turned out more successful financially. They once said that they want to finance the upcoming experiments with the profits made from the preceeding experiments. I guess this wasn't quite possible, since Curiosity only burned through money so far instead of generating some...
The Friendly Monster
Member
Because they clearly aren't just "testing the water"...why the need for multiple tiers selling in-game updgrades? Why the paragraph which says why they are doing a Kickstarter and doesn't once mention the idea that they are testing the water?
CecilRousso
Member
We assume that it´s easy, but do we know?
ElectricBlue187
Member
There's a lot of hyperbolic language here but I agree with the concept. Kickstarter is good for funding projects that publishers won't take a risk on. When it gets flooded by Gears and CoD clones it's possible people will just abandon it wholesale
The Friendly Monster
Member
Why is anyone giving these people the benefit of the doubt when there is free money to be had on Kickstarter right now? You'd have to be stupid to not try and grab a piece of that pie provided you have the appropriate lack of morals.
reptilescorpio
Member
He was Creative Director of Microsoft Europe. His games sold well. The latest entry to the genre in 2011 sold well despite limited hype.
It is extremely likely a god genre project with his name attached would be approved for even twice the amount he is trying to Kickstart.
GazzaScotland
Member
I kind of agree. I've had some feelings about Kickstarter brewing the past while, it just seems it is full of industry vets, wanting cash to finish/make a game. Which is fine just I does somewhat make it harder for up and coming devs to get noticed and funded successfully because they're simply being squeezed out.
Kickstarter for games has turned into something of a pre-order scheme for a game you have no idea how it will turn out. Its not, lets give these guys a few bucks and see what they come out with, because invectively none of these games get funded.
Yes there would be more risk, but some graduate developer being funded £20k to live and work for a year who might just come up with an awesome game, but also might fail miserably is I don't know...a much better opportunity for Kickstarter? Giving new blood of the industry a chance instead of reliving nostalgia and funding vets one more shot at what they've done all their days.
Kickstarter for games has turned into something of a pre-order scheme for a game you have no idea how it will turn out. Its not, lets give these guys a few bucks and see what they come out with, because invectively none of these games get funded.
Yes there would be more risk, but some graduate developer being funded £20k to live and work for a year who might just come up with an awesome game, but also might fail miserably is I don't know...a much better opportunity for Kickstarter? Giving new blood of the industry a chance instead of reliving nostalgia and funding vets one more shot at what they've done all their days.
I mostly agree with him. Developers that have the funds, but are asking for handouts anyway really are taking the piss. I don't want a situation where we all have to pay for games 2 years before they come out and don't have a guarantee that we'll get it. A lot of publishers would be wanting to take advantage of a system like that.
Was SimCity 5 cancelled or something?
Was SimCity 5 cancelled or something?
The solution? Stop running. Kickstarter is a good place for those wanting to back up games in genres that they like. Just use your brain before funding. Put a little energy into what you are about to back, not just money. Our problems usually come from wanting to get away with as much energy/time/money investment as possible, with the best possible return to us. That is unnatural. It is parasitic.
If I want my favorite genre to flourish, then I will take my time to look after the developers who deliver content that I would like, even if they are spread through 3-4 different sites. I will not think for one second whether I should back up something from my favorites as opposed to the new Molyneux game, for example.
One cannot keep on running forever. Not from the "big" developers, not from the mainstream taste, not from anything else. Cause ultimately, there is no need to run from anything. Just promote what you love, back the developers that you like, and you are set. Kickstarter is not the problem here.
If I want my favorite genre to flourish, then I will take my time to look after the developers who deliver content that I would like, even if they are spread through 3-4 different sites. I will not think for one second whether I should back up something from my favorites as opposed to the new Molyneux game, for example.
One cannot keep on running forever. Not from the "big" developers, not from the mainstream taste, not from anything else. Cause ultimately, there is no need to run from anything. Just promote what you love, back the developers that you like, and you are set. Kickstarter is not the problem here.
Chairmanchuck
Member
God-Game.
Molyneux.
Sun.
Molly Friedrich.
Do I see a connection here?
_____________________
I think Rab raises some good points. I also think in the future more and more known developers or even publishers will just put some projects on Kickstarter, when they do not want to take any risk.
I am 100% sure that even a CoD-Mappack would be successfully funded in just 1 week.
Molyneux.
Sun.
Molly Friedrich.
Do I see a connection here?
_____________________
I think Rab raises some good points. I also think in the future more and more known developers or even publishers will just put some projects on Kickstarter, when they do not want to take any risk.
I am 100% sure that even a CoD-Mappack would be successfully funded in just 1 week.
Except they couldn't.
reptilescorpio
Member
Obsidian had extensive layoffs due to cancelled projects and Double Fine refocused on smaller, downloadable titles to hold off from firing employees.
If their Kickstarters failed it would have resulted in redundancies.
Obsidian have stated they couldn't get a publisher for the sort of RPG they want to make, and have stated they have pitched it lots of times. Same for DFA; no publisher was interested in a point and click adventure.
Molyneux and braben, though - they both have lots of money themselves, I believe - and have they actually tried to get a publisher?
Maybe, but that might have involved loss of their IP, platform restrictions, content restrictions, and generally less freedom.
The problem is people who assume kickstarters only use is to gather funds.
Last line on the Kickstarter page is, "We can make it if we achieve the amount were asking for." I took that to mean they won't make the game if they don't achieve the amount.
Higher tiers are a money grab, same as with every Kickstarter. I don't have a problem with these guys trying it on like everybody else. The tiers up to £50 seem like decent value, at least.
Rob has a point, sort of, but I'm of the opinion that people can make their own minds up how to spend their money. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying "invest in this!". In fact, anyone that's likely to invest is probably doing so because they are aware of Molyneux's history as a game designer, and they therefore almost certainly know that he's not short of a bob or two. If you don't like what he's doing, keep your money in your wallet and don't invest, but to give Molyneux a "FUCK YOU!" over this is OTT IMO.
GazzaScotland
Member
One a side, one of the shadiest things I've seen so far on Kickstarter was the Obsidian one. They were already planning DLC that "wasn't funded by the kickstarter" but you could upgrade you're pledge to get it.
Selling/planning DLC a year and half before the game is out reeks of withholding content to just get even more money out of folks.
Selling/planning DLC a year and half before the game is out reeks of withholding content to just get even more money out of folks.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Yeah they're saying they need the money to develop it. Holding the fans at ransom. Testing the water would be just gauging public interest and letting people see the finished product before being asked to make a decision on buying it.
I clearly have a different measure of value than you then...
I really don't see how people can complain about Molyneux, but not Double Fine or Obsidian.
The people being "exploited" have to actively seek out these projects and toss money at them. It's not really that prominently displayed on game websites, and they have no advertising at all except word of mouth really. It's not as pervasive as DLC built into the game with prompts asking for money, or online passes, or any of the other anti-consumer practices we've seen. It's buried on a website, among thousands of other random projects and you have to really go out of your way to find it.
At some point some of the blame has to fall on the gaming audience itself. Exercise a little self-restraint, and common sense. Molyneux turned Kickstarter into a shopping mall for products that don't exist? I don't think so. That's what it's always been all along.
Complaining about one project, but not all projects is kind of hypocritical. If Capcom put up a Kickstarter for Mega Man Legends 3 would that be evil? What about SQEX and FF Type-0 on Vita? Both of these games are deemed too financially risky to pursue right now, but these publishers have millions.
The thing I object to is this notion that indies are always virtuous and big players in the industry are always evil. They're basically doing the same thing here, and it's up to the audience if they want to fund it or not. The notion that Kickstarter was ever pure is ridiculous. If you guys want to set up a system of video game pell grants, then do it, because that's not what Kickstarter really is. People submitting requests would have to submit their tax forms, income and savings for scrutiny to see if they qualify. Until then, all of this feels like hypocritical hot air.
It's almost like indies are just mad that their thing is popular and not exclusively theirs. Not long ago, Double Fine and Obsidian were praised on the front page of every gaming blog for their revolutionary vision in asking for crowdsource funding even though they're both studios that makes tons of games already.
How about any indie project that has an asking price between $5,000 - $10,000? Anyone with a part time job can make a couple thousand in a summer if they save a bit of money, especially if it's a small team of people. Are they abusing Kickstarter as well? It seems very hypocritical.
The people being "exploited" have to actively seek out these projects and toss money at them. It's not really that prominently displayed on game websites, and they have no advertising at all except word of mouth really. It's not as pervasive as DLC built into the game with prompts asking for money, or online passes, or any of the other anti-consumer practices we've seen. It's buried on a website, among thousands of other random projects and you have to really go out of your way to find it.
At some point some of the blame has to fall on the gaming audience itself. Exercise a little self-restraint, and common sense. Molyneux turned Kickstarter into a shopping mall for products that don't exist? I don't think so. That's what it's always been all along.
Complaining about one project, but not all projects is kind of hypocritical. If Capcom put up a Kickstarter for Mega Man Legends 3 would that be evil? What about SQEX and FF Type-0 on Vita? Both of these games are deemed too financially risky to pursue right now, but these publishers have millions.
The thing I object to is this notion that indies are always virtuous and big players in the industry are always evil. They're basically doing the same thing here, and it's up to the audience if they want to fund it or not. The notion that Kickstarter was ever pure is ridiculous. If you guys want to set up a system of video game pell grants, then do it, because that's not what Kickstarter really is. People submitting requests would have to submit their tax forms, income and savings for scrutiny to see if they qualify. Until then, all of this feels like hypocritical hot air.
It's almost like indies are just mad that their thing is popular and not exclusively theirs. Not long ago, Double Fine and Obsidian were praised on the front page of every gaming blog for their revolutionary vision in asking for crowdsource funding even though they're both studios that makes tons of games already.
How about any indie project that has an asking price between $5,000 - $10,000? Anyone with a part time job can make a couple thousand in a summer if they save a bit of money, especially if it's a small team of people. Are they abusing Kickstarter as well? It seems very hypocritical.
CecilRousso
Member
But what he did was something completely different then this. Fable sold millions, will a multiplayer version of a strategy game from the 90's do that? Most likely not.
I´m not a games developer, but I have this picture of how publishers think (based on interviews and articles in the games media): They don´t care the slightest about the initial investment if they don´t think the game will sell LOTS.
Now he has said that they will try publishers if the kickstarter fail, so yes, he will probably succeed with it. But we shouldn´t assume that it´s a done deal, and if it happens, it will most likely not be the game 22 Cans has planned right now.
And I really don´t think that going down the usual route with publisher interference was why he quit Lionhead.
This.
Open Source
Banned
I think people underestimate
a) how hard it is to sign a deal with a publisher if you haven't made a blockbuster hit recently, especially if it's a game genre that's not currently hugely popular
b) how much control you relinquish when you sign such a deal
Perhaps publishers will be more receptive to these types of games - adventure, classic RPG, god games, etc. - as a result of the well-funded Kickstarter projects in those genres. But the more ways there are to fund your game, the better.
a) how hard it is to sign a deal with a publisher if you haven't made a blockbuster hit recently, especially if it's a game genre that's not currently hugely popular
b) how much control you relinquish when you sign such a deal
Perhaps publishers will be more receptive to these types of games - adventure, classic RPG, god games, etc. - as a result of the well-funded Kickstarter projects in those genres. But the more ways there are to fund your game, the better.
Publishers may offer money eventually, sure.. if the pitch is marketable, and you're willing to alter your vision, sign away the rights to your IP, and answer to suits and marketing teams in weekly meetings for every decision you make to be sure said publisher is getting maximum return of their investment.
Now this is not to say that successful partnerships cannot come out of traditional arrangements. But what is so wrong with having an opportunity to focus 100% of your teams' energy on making a great game specifically for the fans that supported it? It's easy to be cynical and assume crowd funding is a shortcut to "free money," but if anything fans are more demanding when it comes to quality and customer satisfaction than a profit driven publisher would be. If you had the choice, or even the chance at a choice, who would you rather do business with and be held accountable by?
The Friendly Monster
Member
Unfortunately Braben and Molyneux's projects have both been prominently featured on the BBC News site. Entirely their fault I know but I don't think your argument holds up.
Oh and Godus clearly has withheld content just for premium backers (pre-orders). Read the tiers. It's the same shit.
You missed the part about Rab deciding not to do a Kickstarter himself since he can find other means of funding.
Kickstarter seems like it was intended for non-established inventors and artists to get funding for new products. Molyneux asking fans to donate to a new game in a genre he's had massive success in on Kickstarter is like Bill Gates starting a Kickstarter to make a new word processor.
They can use their clout to get lots of attention and take away from creators who need Kickstarter to even have a hope of making something.
Technosteve
Banned
Established game developers, i see kickstarter as a preorder for a future finished game. Indie developers i have no clue if you can even make a game.
Open Source
Banned
There's also the argument that these high profile projects bring legitimacy and more people/dollars into the system as a whole, thus benefiting smaller projects as well. But that's just a guess - I haven't seen data that would back it up.