Support NeoGAF

[Aquamarine]

It's why I'm weary of the idea of ONLY going to Kickstarter to fund all projects. It seems like for some of the established developers it's better used as a desperation move: the game they want to make isn't being greenlit yet is a type of game with an audience that's clearly there, just not at the size bigger publishers want. So get that one game funded, hopefully profit off of it, and grow from there.

Basically I think it should be treated like jumpstarting a car: you're getting it powered on until you can get a new battery in, but you're not DEPENDING on other cars forever to get yours working.

In other words... you KICKSTART the development studio into action?

I'm not defending any of these individual projects honestly. If I backed Double Fine and the whole project tanked, I certainly wouldn't call it "glorious."

I haven't funded a single one. Personally, I would rather buy a finished game. But I'm not out there elevating Double Fine to god status while telling Molyneux "fuck you" when they're both doing the same shit. I didn't feel like helping the FTL devs get $10,000 so I didn't. Most people have to scrap together that much to buy a decent car.

The point is, they're all equally suspect. There is no pure Kickstarter project. They don't check to see who "needs" it and who doesn't. It's up to the audience, and that's it. That's what the site is. If individual backers want to impose their own restrictions in the decision making process, that is entirely, completely up to them. They can back whatever they want for any reason.

If this is really about "struggle," then any Kickstarter that has any stretch goals or exceeds their goal at all is abusing Kickstarter. They're taking away money from other needy devs and using it for stuff they have admitted from the outset that they don't need to complete their goal. That's just how I see it anyway.

Agreed. You guys really shouldn't look at it in terms of "which developers are more deserving / less deserving of a kickstarter," because then it just gets unfair.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I think the problem is that kickstarter is not an unlimited pool of money. If people backs Molyneux game, something he could easily do with his own resources, a lot of them might not back up other games that really needs the money.

I get the idea about the limits of overall contribution possible at any given moment thanks to a finite base of potential backers, but bigger names draw more people in, offsetting and even growing the base of potential backers against the vacuum effect of larger pledges. In the end, there's nothing stopping backers from backing down or backing off of a project with their initial pledges to support other, more interesting projects.

 

[snap0212]

You're still thinking it's about funding. It's not about getting a publisher either.

It's about taking a different approach to development where they have more freedom.

No, it's absolutely not. He doesn't want the freedom, if he did, he would have paid for the game himself. Didn't he use a couple of millions of his own money to fund Black & White as well? This guy has millions that he could use and enjoy all the freedom he wants.

It might sound mean, but this guy's ideas have been a joke for the last decade or so. He always under-delivers, he's basically the guy to not trust on a promise.

 

[Frogacuda]

I do agree that Kickstarter is not a good way to shop for games, and it takes away consumers' rights to read reviews and know what they're getting before they plunk down money. I think people should only back projects that are in some way exceptional, and be stingy with their dollars otherwise.

But I think that's still largely the case. People aren't flinging millions at Molyneaux. He'll likely get enough money to do his thing this time, but it's still going to have to stand on its own and make money, because no one is going to give him KS money a second time.

I do worry about what will happen when, inevitably, there are high-profile failures on KS. Games that under-deliver, suffer long delays, or even get cancelled. That's going to force people to be a lot more cautious with their dollars, and could have chilling effects. But that's a completely different issue.

 

[beril]

I think you're correct that this is an attempt to offload risk, rather than a last resort to get funding, but I think there is some benefit to that. Frankly, game development is a shitty business to be in right now. The financial risks are huge, and they often don't pay off. If I had the money to develop a game, that's certainly not how I would invest it.

Kickstarter is a petition that means something; a way to determine if an audience is there, and to connect with that audience. It's easy to see why this would be appealing for reasons beyond cynical "greed." It actually lends clarity to something that is presently very obscure.

I also disagree with this notion that these "celebrity" Kickstarters are hurting anyone else on the platform. When these projects succeed, they bring more people in every single time, and they end up backing other projects. You can see it getting bigger and bigger. They're not "soaking up all the money," that's not how it works. Molyneaux and Braben are also not doing fantastically well. It seems like people are interested enough to give them the minimum they are asking for and not much more.

Yes gaming is a very risky business. But somehow a lot of indie developers still manage to create interesting games without asking customers for money up front, and let's give publishers some credit; there are still some fairly risky/niche games being made the traditional way, where the publishers are risking their own money.

Of course everyone would love to get the money up front with no risk and no need to give away any of the profits. It's financially much more benefitial than any other type of financing, so yes it's quite fair to say that developers using kickstarter are more greedy than those who're not.

 

[Ithil]

Love how this thread turned into a Peter hate thread. The problem is not only called Peter Molyneux. The problem is also called Tim Schafer, David Braben, Obsidian...

All of these developers could find a publisher without a problem.

Don't be ridiculous. What publisher in 2012 would give Double Fine the 3+ million they got from Kickstarter to create an old school point and click adventure, or what publisher would have given Obsidian (who have history of being fucked over by their publishers) the 4 million they got from Kickstarter to make an Infinity Engine style CRPG?

Come on.

 

[Alexios]

So was there any research done on how these have impacted the success of other kickstarters? That would be interesting to see but it would be very hard to do such research as 100 successful indie projects before these vets came in the picture and only 50 after could just mean those 100 indie projects were better liked than what came after them. Or vice versa, for people who want to argue that these vets make Kickstarter more known and appear more legit so in turn more money goes to other indies too. Anyway, I dislike the Molyneux one and won't back it either but don't really have a problem with others that I have seen like the Double Fine one. I think some are from people who aren't rich as fuck even if they're vets too. T2K dude would count as a vet, no?

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I'm not defending any of these individual projects honestly. If I backed Double Fine and the whole project tanked, I certainly wouldn't call it "glorious."

I haven't funded a single one. Personally, I would rather buy a finished game. But I'm not out there elevating Double Fine to god status while telling Molyneux "fuck you" when they're both doing the same shit. I didn't feel like helping the FTL devs get $10,000 so I didn't. Most people have to scrap together that much to buy a decent car.

The point is, they're all equally suspect. There is no pure Kickstarter project. They don't check to see who "needs" it and who doesn't. It's up to the audience, and that's it. That's what the site is. If individual backers want to impose their own restrictions in the decision making process, that is entirely, completely up to them. They can back whatever they want for any reason.

If this is really about "struggle," then any Kickstarter that has any stretch goals or exceeds their goal at all is abusing Kickstarter. That's just how I see it anyway.

Yeah I probably shouldn't have tried to draw a distinction between DF and 22cans. I just don't like that the fans are being presented all this as if there isn't a risk of it all going to shit. In reality that risk is huge.

 

[Jac_Solar]

The most important thing about the kickstarter, though, is that they aren't asking for a lot of money. There's a reason why there aren't many independant RTS games, especially not one like they are pitching. They are basically just asking for the wages for the employees for the duration of the development-period, right? So, I assume that Peter or someone will pay for software-licenses, hardware, office-space, and all the additional costs.

 

[Ithil]

I do agree that Kickstarter is not a good way to shop for games, and it takes away consumers' rights to read reviews and know what they're getting before they plunk down money. I think people should only back projects that are in some way exceptional, and be stingy with their dollars otherwise.

But I think that's still largely the case. People aren't flinging millions at Molyneaux. He'll likely get enough money to do his thing this time, but it's still going to have to stand on its own and make money, because no one is going to give him KS money a second time.

I do worry about what will happen when, inevitably, there are high-profile failures on KS. Games that under-deliver, suffer long delays, or even get cancelled. That's going to force people to be a lot more cautious with their dollars, and could have chilling effects. But that's a completely different issue.

Kickstarter legally requires that funded games reach the goals they promise, or the donations are forfeit and they must return the money. Never mind the fact that it would destroy their reputation permanently in the games industry if they failed to complete a crowd funded Kickstarter game.

It's in their best interest to finish the games.

 

[BearPawB]

Those tweets are clearly supposed to be funny and tongue in cheek. Not my particular brand of humor, but I get it.

Still, point taken. It isnt the kind of thing I want to read regularly. It is just too silly.

I have no doubt he thinks he is hilarious....

"@robertflorence:
Just had my pubes threaded in Frasers. "

" ‏@robertflorence
If you're good looking and a swinger tweet me and I'll follow you"

"

Its just half of his tweets are trying to be some sort of twitter-famous sex joke maker, and the other half is "serious journalism"

 

[Ithil]

So was there any research done on how these have impacted the success of other kickstarters? That would be interesting to see but it would be very hard to do such research as 100 successful indie projects before these vets came in the picture and only 50 after could just mean those 100 indie projects were better liked than what came after them. Anyway, I dislike the Molyneux one and won't back it either but don't really have a problem with others that I have seen like the Double Fine one. I think some are from people who aren't rich as fuck even if they're vets too, and in almost the same situation as less known indies.

I'm fairly sure that after DFA, and all the big Kickstarters that followed, that the video game section of KS has increased exponentially in donations. Not just the big ones, far more of the small Kickstarters get funded now than before, there's just a lot more eyes on the site.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

There will come a time when enough fools parting with their money get burned that it will backfire, but hopefully the backdraft won't kill the KS movement; one of the reasons it's getting so much money is it arranges Classic Developers with the drive to do what they're divine at + Moneys + Fans desperate for those classic forms forsaken in this forsaken age. ie, what this is supposed to do.

 

[Lancehead]

Of course everyone would love to get the money up front with no risk and no need to give away any of the profits. It's financially much more benefitial than any other type of financing, so yes it's quite fair to say that developers using kickstarter are more greedy than those who're not.

Keeping profits that are the result one's own work is not "greed".

 

[Zeliard]

The most important thing about the kickstarter, though, is that they aren't asking for a lot of money. They are basically just asking for the wages for the employees for the duration of the development-period, right? So, I assume that Peter or someone will pay for software-licenses, hardware, office-space, and all the additional costs.

Money after taxes and payments to Amazon/Kickstarter tends to go almost entirely to salaries, with the rest largely going to the pledge tier rewards.

Ultimately, the game is funded so devs don't need to spend money on expensive, often-extraneous things to appeal to a greater audience (like heavy voice acting); the dev owns the IP and gets to keep the profit generated; and there's no publisher interfering in development. Truly a horrible state of affairs.

People are pointing to Molyneux as some sort of beginning of the end. I'll tell you exactly what's going to happen if his game gets funded. He and his team will work on it, and if it comes out and sucks, then Molyneux's reputation will take yet another hit. And Kickstarter will go on, despite the desperate wishes of certain unfortunates.

 

[mephixto]

I always thought that Molyneux had some good ideas but counldn't materialize on their games cause publisher restrictions, dev costs. Hope this time he put all that on this new game.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Yeah, tangible incentives like not keeping any of the profit from a game regardless of how much it sells, since the publisher owns the IP.

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

Having hardcore fans being told they are an integral part of development when they aren't while using their money to create the game, with little to no ramifications if and when promises are not fulfilled does not seem like a sustainable model to me. Time will tell.

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

I don't see how this can be enforced, again we will see.

 

[grimshawish]

Its just half of his tweets are trying to be some sort of twitter-famous sex joke maker, and the other half is "serious journalism"

Do you know who Rab is outside of gaming?
Hes a Comedian. Not the funniest in the world but hes not trying to be twitter-famous.

He wrote and starred in Brunistoun a reasonably successful BBC Scotland sketch show.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Kickstarter is a way to circumvent the stranglehold of a publisher. I heartily applaud this. Especially for genres that can't get a foot in the door because of lack of interest from funders.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I work under the premise that (for a big dev, even Obsidian who I hold a dear place in my heart for) you get ONE. If you kickstart a successful game, and the game even sells, that money all goes to you. That is your next game kickstarted, and you don't get to have the crowd pay for it again.

This doesn't necessarily work, though. If you've got a niche game and the funding is coming from the people in that niche, there might not be many sales past those people who are already presumably getting a copy for their funding.

I think the problem is that kickstarter is not an unlimited pool of money. If people backs Molyneux game, something he could easily do with his own resources, a lot of them might not back up other games that really needs the money.

And if Molyneux got funding elsewhere and people paid regularly for the game, they'd also not have that money to use elsewhere. It's just a matter of when.

 

[snap0212]

I don't see how this can be enforced, again we will see.

I'd guess it's simply a breach of contract.

 

[Lancehead]

Having hardcore fans being told they are an integral part of development when they aren't while using their money to create the game, with little to no ramifications if and when promises are not fulfilled does not seem like a sustainable model to me. Time will tell.

It won't be sustainable if promises are broken more often than fulfilled, which seems implicit in your argument, though, I don't know why you may think so. Also, consider that people will inevitably become more selective of what projects they decide to support, which logically tends towards more promises being fulfilled than broken.

 

[beril]

Keeping profits that are the result one's own work is not "greed".

It is if you're asking for money up front as well, without sharing any of the rewards

 

[Fistwell]

Why else would they leave the comfort zone of AAA publishing?

Keeping the IP? Larger cut on sales? Creative freedom? Less pressure to perform at retail?

 

[Haunted]

beril has a weird definition of "greed", we've determined as much in previous Kickstarter threads.

 

[Goldenroad]

I agree with this, but I feel it has to apply to Double Fine and Obsidian and every developer, not just the one's that Rab doesn't like. If you've had a game/games published previously then Kickstarter is really not for you. It is to get young indie's with no shot of having a game published a chance at their dreams, but when established developers come in and start stealing their lunch, I think it's kind of low.

 

[Lancehead]

It is if you're asking for money up front as well, without sharing any of the rewards

It would be if the pledges are an investment; no one donating treats it as an investment in a traditional sense. That's besides the fact that backers do get some rewards and discounted price for the game.

But if you're point is that it should be treated as an investment, and thus there should be a share of the profits, my question is, why should it be treated as such?

I agree with this, but I feel it has to apply to Double Fine and Obsidian and every developer, not just the one's that Rab doesn't like. If you've had a game/games published previously then Kickstarter is really not for you. It is to get young indie's with no shot of having a game published a chance at their dreams, but when established developers come in and start stealing their lunch, I think it's kind of low.

No it's not, it's there as a funding mechanism for creative projects.

 

[BearPawB]

Do you know who Rab is outside of gaming?
Hes a Comedian. Not the funniest in the world but hes not trying to be twitter-famous.

He wrote and starred in Brunistoun a reasonably successful BBC Scotland sketch show.

Then its too bad his tweets aren't funny in the slightest. He doesn't come off as a comedian, but some sort of crazed horny creeper.

Obviously, he can tweet whatever he wants, but he is PAINFUL to follow. And it makes me not able to take his thoughts on game stuff seriously when i despise everything else he puts out into the world. maybe I just dont "get it"

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Having hardcore fans being told they are an integral part of development when they aren't while using their money to create the game, with little to no ramifications if and when promises are not fulfilled does not seem like a sustainable model to me. Time will tell.

If it's not sustainable, that is the ramification.

 

[BillyBats]

No, it's absolutely not. He doesn't want the freedom, if he did, he would have paid for the game himself. Didn't he use a couple of millions of his own money to fund Black & White as well? This guy has millions that he could use and enjoy all the freedom he wants.

It might sound mean, but this guy's ideas have been a joke for the last decade or so. He always under-delivers, he's basically the guy to not trust on a promise.

So what exactly is the cut off point for someone's personal income on whether or not they can use kickstarter? 50k? 100K? Do we know the finances of the DF guys? Perhaps their parents are very rich, should we demand w2's? Is kickstarter ONLY for the indie crowd? I would rather put my money behind a guy who has years of experience creating games that I've enjoyed rather than some guy who's broke and doesn't have as much experience.

The author of the article comes across like a jealous 99%er. "Capitalist animals" "Cold fuck in a suit." "Then YOU owe THEM something." At least he called them "established game designers." Yeah, we got it Rab, kickstarter is all for you sweetie. We don't need those successful game designers getting in the way of you making the next Ocarina of Time. For fuck's sake Rab, instead of shitting on PM perhaps you could have reached out to him, learned from him, worked as hard as him. Perhaps you could have, dare I say, looked up to him. The one thing I hate about people like Rab is the incredible envy. Adam Corolla explains guys like him perfectly, and much better than I ever could, in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJD8pZiRIzs

 

[Aquamarine]

I agree with this, but I feel it has to apply to Double Fine and Obsidian and every developer, not just the one's that Rab doesn't like. If you've had a game/games published previously then Kickstarter is really not for you. It is to get young indie's with no shot of having a game published a chance at their dreams, but when established developers come in and start stealing their lunch, I think it's kind of low.

I'd still take an established designer with a proven track record over someone completely untested and inexperienced any day of the week.

IF I AM GOING TO SHELL OUT MONEY for a product, it has to be a product that I know will be worth my time once it's finished. Developer experience helps reassure me of that.

Is it "low"? Of course not. Kickstarter is not a moral playground. It's a cutthroat market just like anything else. Everything is competing with everything else to get funded. If something doesn't get funded because Obsidian is trying to revive classic WRPGs, that's the nature of the donation-based market.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

If it's not sustainable, that is the ramification.

Yes absolutely. That wouldn't negate Braben and Molyneux's cash grabs though.

 

[8bit]

BTW have any of you actually looked at the about page on his tumblr, or specifically the actually about page?

(Somebody Please Shut Down) This Fucking Amusement Arcade is a blackly comic web series about video games and video gamers and age and love and sex and death and food and ghosts.

It launches in December.

This blog is the fictional personal blog featured in the show.

http://effingarcade.tumblr.com/actuallyabout

 

[The Friendly Monster]

The author of the article comes across like a jealous 99%er. "Capitalist animals" "Cold fuck in a suit." "Then YOU owe THEM something." At least he called them "established game designers." Yeah, we got it Rab, kickstarter is all for you sweetie. We don't need those successful game designers getting in the way of you making the next Ocarina of Time. For fuck's sake Rab, instead of shitting on PM perhaps you could have reached out to him, learned from him, worked as hard as him. Perhaps you could have, dare I say, looked up to him. The one thing I hate about people like Rab is the incredible envy. Adam Corolla explains guys like him perfectly, and much better than I ever could, in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJD8pZiRIzs

What? Rab doesn't make games...and also says he wouldn't do a Kickstarter because he doesn't need to.

 

[FStop7]

Actually I can see Wasteland 2 (that's not made into a fps, but kept in the older style) and Project Eternity (infinity engine style), never being green-lit nowadays by modern publishers, so I disagree with this article somewhat.

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

 

[Haunted]

BTW have any of you actually looked at the about page on his tumblr, or specifically the actually about page?

http://effingarcade.tumblr.com/actuallyabout

layers upon layers

 

[Coolwhip]

The whole rant of the OP stands or falls on wether or not people choose to back these projects. And they do. So I don't see the problem.

 

[Ingueferroque]

This piece needed to be written. Kickstarter is no longer for indies.

The whole rant of the OP stands or falls on wether or not people choose to back these projects. And they do. So I don't see the problem.

Isn't the whole issue that the gaming community willing to back Kickstarter efforts is drawing from a limited pool, and these big-name, big-budget Kickstarter projects are making it much harder for the people who can't rely on name and brand recognition to get noticed?

 

[snap0212]

So what exactly is the cut off point for someone's personal income on whether or not they can use kickstarter? 50k? 100K? Do we know the finances of the DF guys? Perhaps their parents are very rich, should we demand w2's? Is kickstarter ONLY for the indie crowd? I would rather put my money behind a guy who has years of experience creating games that I've enjoyed rather than some guy who's broke and doesn't have as much experience.

I view Kickstarter as kind of like the last resort for people who have great ideas but no other means of actually creating something. Peter Molyneux is not one of these people. Firstly, he did not approach a publisher with his idea - he wasn’t turned down by them. He didn’t even try the regular way at all. He has lots of money and simply does not need Kickstarter in order to turn his idea into a finished product. That’s what matters, and that’s where the cut off point for me is.

In the end, it comes down to this: Does their project actually need to be kickstarted? Does 22cans need money from their fans to produce this game? The answer to both questions is ‘no’.

 

[megalowho]

BTW have any of you actually looked at the about page on his tumblr, or specifically the actually about page?
http://effingarcade.tumblr.com/actuallyabout

Perhaps I don't get the joke then, especially when the posts are under his name and reference reviewing games. Nothing about his blog screams what that caveat implies, especially given Rab's established written voice.

Also, this groan inducing attempt at wordplay tells me that whatever he's up to, I'm probably not interested.

 

[Haunted]

Isn't the whole issue that the gaming community willing to back Kickstarter efforts is drawing from a limited pool, and these big-name, big-budget Kickstarter projects are making it much harder for the people who can't rely on name and brand recognition to get noticed?

Again, every stat and number we have says the exact opposite. Small projects have benefitted tremendously from the increased attention the DF Adventure has brought to Kickstarter.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Spoiler

i love that idiom

 

[Aquamarine]

I view Kickstarter as kind of like the last resort for people who have great ideas but no other means of actually creating something. Peter Molyneux is not one of these people. Firstly, he did not approach a publisher with his idea - he wasn’t turned down by them. He didn’t even try the regular way at all. He has lots of money and simply does not need Kickstarter in order to turn his idea into a finished product. That’s what matters, and that’s where the cut off point for me is.

In the end, it comes down to this: Does their project actually need to be kickstarted? Does 22cans need money from their fans to produce this game? The answer to both questions is ‘no’.

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

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

 

[daycru]

Cool concept in ruined by greedy millionaire shocker.

 

[mclem]

would you really want to bet the farm on a couple of eggs

Don't put all your baskets into one egg.

 

[beril]

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

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

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

They could just do a petition/market research instead and see if there's any interest in the type of game. Presumably if people are willing to kickstart it now, they'd be willing to buy the game once released without kickstarter, and moleneux would make his money back. Except this way, people have to make up their mind now, and can't back out if the game turns out to be shitty.

 

[Kai Dracon]

One part I can agree with is that Kickstarters are getting too distracted by "swag" because there is some exploitation going on there. People know that hardcore gamers and geeks eat up swag, trinkets, and cute but useless items. It's pure marketing to make people donate more than the basic investment out of greed, rather than good will.

Plus, the manufacturing, shipping, etc, of a lot of the rapidly escalating swag material looks to be getting a bit silly. Personally, if I were backing a kickstarter, I would appreciate that all of the money went towards development of the project and helping he developers set up for long term success, such as investing in equipment, etc.

IMO kickstarter swag should generally involve stuff related to the game itself, such as honorable mentions in the credits or somewhere in the game world. Try to keep everything focused on the game itself and adding content to the game.

 

[CecilRousso]

Cool concept in ruined by greedy millionaire shocker.

So, I guess you disagree with everyone in this thread that have posted arguments for why it isn´t?

 

[Dead Man Typing]

Again, every stat and number we have says the exact opposite. Small projects have benefitted tremendously from the increased attention the DF Adventure has brought to Kickstarter.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Spoiler

i love that idiom

I think is true right now, but I would also say that it was once true for Xbox Live Arcade in the beginning. Smaller projects from smaller developers were able to get exposure to a dedicated audience. Once they started gaining attention from a larger audience the big publishers started to show more interest and now XBLA is for new games from big publishers with very few titles from smaller devs. The smaller titles which are released are overshadowed by the big developers and brand names.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing or a good thing. It would depend on how big the bubble got before it burst, same as any other business model.

 

[Aquamarine]

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

They could just do a petition/market research instead and see if there's any interest in the type of game. Presumably if people are willing to kickstart it now, they'd be willing to buy the game once released without kickstarter, and moleneux would make his money back. Except this way, people have to make up their mind now, and can't back out if the game turns out to be shitty.

Video game development is an extremely risky venture. For a small studio like 22cans, one failed game can mean the entire studio goes under. Maybe they DID do market research and found a Populous reboot would be unprofitable? The point is, we don't know the specifics.

 

[water_wendi]

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

i dont because there is zero way the game would have been funded otherwise.