Aesthetics aren't for everybody but game is legit. If you try it out I hope you have fun.
I already told you I was there from day one. There isn't anything you can tell me about how this has all played out that I don't already know. The only signs that their might be some audience problem all boil down to some anecdotal evidence and we all know the issue with using that right? My experiences with interacting with people who actually enjoyed and played the game tell me differently. Anecdotal evidence cancels out anecdotal evidence which is always the issue. I reject the notion that there is a significant number (obviously there is a non-zero number) of people who backed Skullgrils but wouldn't Indivisible due solely to character design. Furthermore, I can't at all parse from your posts what they should have done differently or what they did that was widely different from how most crowdfunding campaigns work for you to say "brought it on themselves". It also feels like you are saying things happened that didn't actually happen (What design decisions explicitly are you talking about? What instances did they seek fan approval that was an issue?). The situation isn't confusing to me, I'm just not sure what explicitly you're talking about/what you're suggesting they should've dome is the issue.
You keep telling me there is nothing that I can tell you that you don't already know and that you aren't trying to be rude. Yet you keep asking me to tell you ...something.
So here's something.
What I believe they did wrong and should stop doing if they ever want to progress past being broke and on the brink of collapse but still have their dreams. Excuse my grammar while I multitask for a second...
1) Putting up design concepts every step of the way for approve from the fans that they have, rather than working designs for a larger base that can sustain them.
Example: SG is a great game, but for a massive chunk of potential audience it looks like ass. That's a problem. And one that could have been resolved.
As a designer myself, I'm not a fan of letting the fanbase in on design in progress.
The yes's will far out weigh the no's because you've got the wrong eyeballs on the project.
What makes them happy is almost always narrow and limited and ain't going to help the project grow.
2) Opening a dialogue about design changes (red cross, panties, etc) to the fanbase gives them more leverage to whine about it than they need, and entirely too much room to be feeling some kind of way.
Of course any change needs to be explained or addressed. But leave it at that.
All of these small pockets of discontent in high traffic web areas that you'd rather reduce to anecdotal evidence eventually add up. Web searches can be the death of a project that has been under fire.
3) Even participating in discussions with the community about funding troubles & speculation about conflicts with prospective publishers that might or might not have issue with certain ethnic designs is dumb. It just doesn't fly.
Not if a team is actually looking to ever get any publisher support in the future. Certainly not when they're looking for a lifeline to keep the doors open.
4) Itemizing their development costs for the dlc to appease fan outrage and setting a bad precedent and baseline for themselves by cutting labor deals in the process.
It sets a minimum expectation for themselves, and a maximum in the minds of the end user.
Essentially stating how little the job can be done for and being so close to the fanbase, what they can expect from you. Worse still, what they can expect from others.
There are reasons why that's just not done. It's bad business for anyone when they need to go back to the well with rising costs and new projects.
People remember the troubles. People lose trust in them being competent.
Nobody new is giving money to a team that they remember getting bullied into releasing their financial situation to a bunch of angry keyboard jockeys.
It made them look like desperate junkies begging for cash for the next fix.
And the last thing a team needs in the middle of their first campaign is to have backs against the wall, and being strong-armed publicly by the masses into explaining costs.
5) It's also bad for everyone else in the same position that might be trying to attract the attention of that userbase coming in under these set preconceptions of cost and labor.
The only people that can get away with selling a product as the parts and labor that compose it are car dealers. They dictate the price, and have all the power to negotiate.
All of these things signify to me a reliance upon a limited but loyal pool to sustain them, and a comfort zone that is too small for growth.
They're first crowdfunded project was a nightmare, so of course they do it all over again with the same userbase. Makes total sense.
If they spent more time addressing the issues of why people aren't picking up the last good game, and less on the folks that already have, they might have had a shot with a new campaign.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see them succeed. Indivisible was fun to play, even if just for a little while. But they haven't done themselves any favors.
