Game News Divinity: Original Sin has sold 160,000 copies, already approaching profitability

[Raghar]

Only if you can get enough skill books. Otherwise you'd be using 3 schools with significant AP penalty.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Should be fun enough.

 

[mindx2]

Two things are going to be really important, but difficult to quantify at this stage:

1. How many of the kickstarter backers will translate into purchasers for a non-KS sequel? Sales haven't been spectacular for these KS games, but most of those sales are pure gravy. If they can maintain the profitability, they can do more games of the same style - but that means KS backers would need to become purchasers for the non-KS sequel (for KS to really affect the game industry in the long term, these genres need to show that once KS gives them a start, plus ownership of their IP, they can kick on without needing their costs to be covered in advance).

1. Why go non-KS? Ok, I see "some" benefits. But the benefits of remaining independant of publishers/"investors" with KS (or at least vastly reducing the quantity of outside financing) seem to be much bigger.
2. Why do they "need to show that once KS gives them a start, plus ownership of their IP, they can kick on without needing their costs to be covered in advance"? IMO, they only need to prove that they can deliver the promised games within a certain realistical budget.

I'm also curious as to why successful KS games shouldn't go back to KS? Larian has proven itself to the KS community by delivering a very solid game within the confines of what they promised on KS. I would imagine they would want to follow the same model where they kick in most of the game budget themselves (profits from D:OS) and then have KS fund the stretch goals (polishing the game). As others have stated in the past, it's "free money" that carries very little risk for Larian except them somehow failing to reach their funding goal but this seems unlikely since they have already established themselves as a competent KS game developer. Larian seems to believe they benefited greatly from KS (and EA) feedback with them only expressing headaches with physical rewards (which can be easily remedied by using some distribution company as InXile & Obsidian are doing). I see KS embracing successful and established game makers and allowing them to get even more funding then they perhaps received the first time around.

 

[Sitra Achara]

Actually, I've been wondering what's the incentive to go KS when EA is available.
EA has less fulfillment burden, more money, more eyes on the game. Basically better RoI, unless KS does have a measurable advantage in feedback quality / engagement. (an interesting comparison in itself)

 

[Rake]

Actually, I've been wondering what's the incentive to go KS when EA is available.
EA has less fulfillment burden, more money, more eyes on the game. Basically better RoI, unless KS does have a measurable advantage in feedback quality / engagement. (an interesting comparison in itself)

Because for Earl. Access you need to make the game untill alpha on your own funds, while on kickstarter the game is paid for from the start.
Plus, no other way, be it EA or self-fund will allow you to make 4M$ from 70.000 customers/sales.

 

[Infinitron]

Plus, no other way, be it EA or self-fund will allow you to make 4M$ from 70.000 customers/sales.

Actually, these days Early Access store pages on Steam sometimes offer Kickstarter-like "tiers" that you can buy into if you want to give a developer more money for his game.

No idea how well those do though. With a good publicity campaign you could probably make some good money from Early Access that way, but paradoxically it may be easier to get people to pay big bucks when they're paying for "nothing" since they're more invested in getting the project off the ground.

 

[Rake]

Propably doing both Fargo style pays most of all

 

[buzz]

The reason I'm relatively afraid is because we had that first round of fuckhueg kickstarter campaigns raising more and more money, then interest suddenly dropped to the point that games with actual demos got something along 1 mil at best. By the time Larian decides for another campaign, maybe even more fatigue and scam fear will set in.

 

[Shannow]

Spoiler

Two things are going to be really important, but difficult to quantify at this stage:

1. How many of the kickstarter backers will translate into purchasers for a non-KS sequel? Sales haven't been spectacular for these KS games, but most of those sales are pure gravy. If they can maintain the profitability, they can do more games of the same style - but that means KS backers would need to become purchasers for the non-KS sequel (for KS to really affect the game industry in the long term, these genres need to show that once KS gives them a start, plus ownership of their IP, they can kick on without needing their costs to be covered in advance).

1. Why go non-KS? Ok, I see "some" benefits. But the benefits of remaining independant of publishers/"investors" with KS (or at least vastly reducing the quantity of outside financing) seem to be much bigger.
2. Why do they "need to show that once KS gives them a start, plus ownership of their IP, they can kick on without needing their costs to be covered in advance"? IMO, they only need to prove that they can deliver the promised games within a certain realistical budget.

I'm also curious as to why successful KS games shouldn't go back to KS? Larian has proven itself to the KS community by delivering a very solid game within the confines of what they promised on KS. I would imagine they would want to follow the same model where they kick in most of the game budget themselves (profits from D:OS) and then have KS fund the stretch goals (polishing the game). As others have stated in the past, it's "free money" that carries very little risk for Larian except them somehow failing to reach their funding goal but this seems unlikely since they have already established themselves as a competent KS game developer. Larian seems to believe they benefited greatly from KS (and EA) feedback with them only expressing headaches with physical rewards (which can be easily remedied by using some distribution company as InXile & Obsidian are doing). I see KS embracing successful and established game makers and allowing them to get even more funding then they perhaps received the first time around.

Actually being able to "fail" a kickstarter is a boon. At least for a dev like Larian. While I'm always harping about devs needing to make games they want to make as opposed to them making games some publisher with a market analysis pays them to make, I'm not so naive to think that devs don't need to feed their families. If there are no unexpected external factors and if no general KS fatigue even for higher profile projects sets in, an unsuccessful KS campaign will show devs that they're on a completely wrong track and save them time and money. Insteat of investing in a slam dunk dud, they can re-think their approach and come back with something that perhaps has a better chance of commercial success.

Actually, I've been wondering what's the incentive to go KS when EA is available.
EA has less fulfillment burden, more money, more eyes on the game. Basically better RoI, unless KS does have a measurable advantage in feedback quality / engagement. (an interesting comparison in itself)

You'd piss off the anti-STEAM crowd and you'd miss out on the non-STEAM crowd.
Also not sure about RoI. KS+Amazon takes 10% (IIRC). STEAM takes 30%. (Or is this different for EA?) Now it's a question of pricing but especially with the optional higher tiers I'd expect a much better RoI from KS.

 

[Darkzone]

Actually being able to "fail" a kickstarter is a boon. At least for a dev like Larian. While I'm always harping about devs needing to make games they want to make as opposed to them making games some publisher with a market analysis pays them to make, I'm not so naive to think that devs don't need to feed their families. If there are no unexpected external factors and if no general KS fatigue even for higher profile projects sets in, an unsuccessful KS campaign will show devs that they're on a completely wrong track and save them time and money. Insteat of investing in a slam dunk dud, they can re-think their approach and come back with something that perhaps has a better chance of commercial success.

You'd piss off the anti-STEAM crowd and you'd miss out on the non-STEAM crowd.
Also not sure about RoI. KS+Amazon takes 10% (IIRC). STEAM takes 30%. (Or is this different for EA?) Now it's a question of pricing but especially with the optional higher tiers I'd expect a much better RoI from KS.

Eso es. Also some of this statements content is proven by the sales at GOG, and the uproar about the steam binding, which was rolled back by Larian.

 

[Abelian]

With a good publicity campaign you could probably make some good money from Early Access that way, but paradoxically it may be easier to get people to pay big bucks when they're paying for "nothing" since they're more invested in getting the project off the ground.

Agree. Another thing to consider is that the more amorphous the initial concepts, the larger the potential audience could be. Why commit on on RT or TB, when you can leave it up in the air until the campaign succeeds. Of course, there is a limit to how vague a game will be to garner enough initial interest and not be be dismissed as a cash-grab(see Brenda Romero's Shaker project).

Spoiler

 

[tuluse]

Actually, I've been wondering what's the incentive to go KS when EA is available.
EA has less fulfillment burden, more money, more eyes on the game. Basically better RoI, unless KS does have a measurable advantage in feedback quality / engagement. (an interesting comparison in itself)

In addition to what everyone else has said, Kickstarter fees are 10% and Steam fees are 30%.

 

[tuluse]

In its first month? Link or it didn't happen.

And if you mean in its first year or in all the years that it's been out, then I'm sure D:OS can do that too.

Volly's been on this for while now CB. Since DD sold a million copies in 10 years, D:OS isn't a success until it matches it.

 

[Volourn]

"they went under because Interplay's publishing division sank."


Are you retartet? BIS *was* a publishing division. Who do you think published the BG games you fuck nut?

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

The best thing about this is that it shows that there is a market, even if it is a small one. Hopefully it will create a two-tiered system of development. Smaller budget, "old-school" games can be developed on a budget of a couple of million bucks which can be funded by fans/EA and can be sustainable due to no publisher, while Bethesda/Bioware/EA/etc. will keep making their games for 50+ million or whatever.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

So, any plans for a DLC?

 

[Jaesun]

That's the word we keep waiting to hear.... (an Expansion, NOT shit DLC garbage)

But it is probably too soon though.

 

[Black]

You wait to hear "DLC"?

 

[:Flash:]

So, any plans for a DLC?

Swen promised "No DLC shit".

 

[HiddenX]

How about a little fine addin that is free for Kickstarter backers?

 

[ERYFKRAD]

How about a little fine addin that is free for Kickstarter backers?

Ya mean like the sodding content that comes if you add in a kickstarter code? *gasp* Such exemplary genius!

 

[Irenaeus]

I don't see why not

 

[HiddenX]

How about a little fine addin that is free for Kickstarter backers?

Ya mean like the sodding content that comes if you add in a kickstarter code? *gasp* Such exemplary genius!

No - more a Night of the Raven style addin...

 

[Major_Blackhart]

What content did they add in for kickstarter backers?

 

[Roguey]

Swen promised "No DLC shit".

And yet http://store.steampowered.com/app/306320/...!