Support NeoGAF

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Anyone with half a brain would stay the fuck away from investing serious cash into DF.

Let alone $14 million or whatever Tim wanted.

 

[DMiz]

I do think Early Access has done a lot to hamper the 'success' that projects were having on KickStarter, the most major thing being that Early Access gives you a deliverable - something you can play with and, regardless whether or not the project is completed, you can tinker with and play as much as you want.

The product may not necessarily be worth the amount of money that you paid for it - and that's entirely subjective, to some degree - but it's better than in KickStarter, especially in the high profile failures that we've witnessed, where there has been no deliverable whatsoever and whoever has invested money and has seen none of it returned in any capacity.

 

[MichaelFassbender]

Son, let me tell you about Wasteland 2.

I got that one too, man. Just didn't grab me as much as the other ones when in beta. Maybe I'll get around to playing the full thing one of these days, I don't know.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I will kickstart the sequel to Pillar of Eternity and Torment 2: Tides of Numenara in a heart beat.

 

[SURGEdude]

I don't wanna come off as holier than thou but I've been impressed with my kickstarters so far. Only one turned out so-so or worse (Starlight). I think being careful on what to back is key. Fyi here are my pledges:

Ouya (Great retro box)
Carmageddon: Reincarnation (a little over demanding spec-wise but fun)
Nekro (awesome awesome)
Starlight (Swing and a miss but unique for Vita and updates are improving it slowly)
Shadowrun Returns (So much fun and replay)
Pebble smartwatch (use everyday, super useful)
Wasteland 2 (Fallout style fun!)
Double Fine Adventure (So far so good)

Upcoming:
Pathologic (remake of a great title)
Matchstick (FirefoxOS based Chromecast-like HDMI stick).

I would say for me at least I've had better luck with my kickstarters than I do when I'm just buying stuff off Amazon. That said I would be pissed as hell if I ever got totally screwed.

 

[Arulan]

I will kickstart the sequel to Pillar of Eternity and Torment 2: Tides of Numenara in a heart beat.

Well at least Obsidian has commented that they want to use Kickstarter to fund new IPs. Hopefully those games will be successful enough to fund a sequel without the need for crowd-funding. That said, if they turn out to be amazing and they Kickstart the sequels I'd almost certainly support it.

 

[Fragamemnon]

The thing about EA is that logistically it's so much easier than dealing with KS and backers if your game is actually at a point where you have a playable alpha. Getting feedback on your game? Easy. Pushing builds out to your players? Easy. Getting keys sorted out and distributed? Easy. Everything is just so much easier with Early Access, and you can find good success there if your product hits the right nerve with people.

KS has a role too, for games that aren't at the point where there is an alpha, and you open one up to see if there is an audience for an idea you're putting together. A lot of the CRPGs didn't have any tech behind them when their KS projects were launched, but they did have the ideas right and the tech and games have followed suit.

Both entities do co-exist but I expect that promising smaller projects from less experienced developers will still go through Greenlight and Early Access (a good example of this process is Darkwood) and bigger concept ideas from established players will have their day on KS where appropriate.

 

[hemtae]

I got that one too, man. Just didn't grab me as much as the other ones when in beta. Maybe I'll get around to playing the full thing one of these days, I don't know.

When did you play it in beta? It's vastly better than when it was first released.

 

[Arkam]

Kickstarted was waay too quickly abused (intentionally AND unintentionally) by people who had no idea what they were promising. Saw pitch after pitch from 'dev teams' that had never worked together before and never shipped a game asking for money to make a game with AAA scope.

And people are surpised when they dont end up finishing. I mean its one thing for a talented group of experienced devs to add 'porting to WiiU' as a stretch goal. For amateurs that's a HUGE task to take on, yet we saw it often.

 

[More_Badass]

It would be nice if more devs had this attitude

It is important to us that backers be able to play and enjoy the game as soon as possible, not only because you all deserve to be able to get the product you're paying for as soon as possible but also so that the final interface, effects, and animations are available for feedback prior to the final release.

---

I don't wanna come off as holier than thou but I've been impressed with my kickstarters so far. Only one turned out so-so or worse (Starlight). I think being careful on what to back is key.

I have to agree. That's probably why I have such a optimistic opinion of Kickstarters. Other than Confederate Express, every game I've backed has shown considerable progress and gets regular dev updates. Hyper Light Drifter, Olympia Rising, Scraps, Heart N Slash, SuperHOT, Four Sided Fantasy, Witchmarsh get consistent dev reports. Rimworld and Catacomb Kids are playable and get new builds regularly. The dev of Rain World posts about the game and its progress on a daily basis

 

[s_mirage]

Kickstarted was waay too quickly abused (intentionally AND unintentionally) by people who had no idea what they were promising.

Agreed. Far too often I'd see projects that reminded me of plans my friends and I had when we were about 10: pie in the sky and completely unachievable. Except we weren't asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars

 

[Arulan]

I think this is relevant:

http://www.lar.net/2014/10/01/the-halo-effect/

Not so long ago, in fact, just a few weeks ago when I posted my last blog entry, I said that Kickstarter might not be the right route for our future projects. I argued that it’s a limited pool and that it would be wrong for us to fish in it if our games are earning sufficient money for us to invest in our future projects.

I immediately received a few strong reactions, both publicly but also privately about how I got it all wrong, and that in fact I should steer Larian back to Kickstarter. The reasoning is that successful crowdfunding projects send more people to the crowdfunding scene and that benefits the smaller projects. This is referred to as the “halo effect” and one particular bright person compared it to “a restaurant sitting alone or on a block with many others. They all do better with more traffic”.

I have to say that that got me thinking.

Just today there’s been a report from a consultancy firm called Ico partners that there’s less money going to fewer game projects on Kickstarter. They project that Kickstarter earnings in 2014 will be half of what they were in 2013, and blame “the lack of low-hanging fruit, a waning enthusiasm – partly driven by some high-profile failures – and the introduction of some serious and well publicized alternatives”, the latter referring to the rise of Steam Early Access.

According to the article quoting the Ico report, half of the money in 2013 was brought in by the big names and the question is raised whether it’s really a case of waning popularity or just a gap in the schedule because all those big names are now busy delivering on their promises. And if the latter is the case, the question remains if this indeed negatively affects the smaller projects because less people are attracted to the crowd funding platforms.

While this is in no way an announcement that we’re preparing a new Kickstarter campaign, I am genuinely wondering if we shouldn’t start reconsidering our position. There’s many advantages to starting a new game via Kickstarter. The main reason that we’re not doing a new campaign is that we don’t want to be seen as abusing the system.

Crowd funding is a wonderful invention and something that has changed the lives of many independent developers. It has rekindled innovation in an over-consolidated market where the traditional powers now have you pay extra to fight the coolest bosses. It should be cherished and protected at all costs and gamers would do well to prefer buying their games via crowd funding lest they find themselves playing games designed by whoever talks best at some marketing meeting.

So, if it indeed is the case that a return to crowd funding by past success stories helps boost the scene then I’m all pro. Only fools and dead men don’t change their minds.

I would very much appreciate hearing your thoughts about this, especially if you’re somebody who crowd funded before. Is it ok for a company who’s enjoyed a certain level of success thanks to a crowd funding to return to crowd funding? Is it something that should be encouraged so that more people discover crowd funding? Or is something that should be discouraged because the pool of crowd funding is limited?

Share your thoughts!

 

[Arulan]

.

 

[A-V-B]

I think this is relevant:

http://www.lar.net/2014/10/01/the-halo-effect/

Uh, absolutely to the quote in bold. If any of the companies I help fund release a great game, I'm gonna double my previous funding # for the next game. In fact, even if I HAVEN'T funded them and they've released a great Kickstarter game, I'm gonna be putting some money down. And I think that sort of encouragement is what will keep this part of the industry going. You gotta build.

 

[Arulan]

Uh, absolutely to the quote in bold. If any of the companies I help fund release a great game, I'm gonna double my previous funding # for the next game. And I think that sort of encouragement is what will keep this part of the industry going. You gotta build.

I thought the issue merited a thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=132694025#post132694025

I believe similarly. If Larian Studios for instance created a new Kickstarter for another RPG I wouldn't hesitate.

 

[A-V-B]

.

 

[Purkake4]

I can see it going in cycles, slowly weeding out bad developers and refunding ones that have made great stuff.