KickStarter Kickstarter Watch.

[felipepepe]

Also remenber that Kickstarter provides a level of safety and profit margins that no other industry can dream of... games will only be developed if the money is there, and backers don't get returns or share of profits, so every penny made afterwards is profit. And all that profit is just for the developers. If we do a VERY humble estimate that Wasteland will sell 500k copies at $20, we're talking about 10M clean into Fargo's pockets, enough for 3 more Wastelands... and we know it will probably sell a lot more...

 

[Cowboy Moment]

What do you mean we're not friends?! I thought me and CMcC had a special thing together.

In all seriousness though, I like to look at kickstarter in context of other changes to the PC gaming industry that have occured over the last few years. The rise of digital distribution, and with it, a diversification of product cathegories and prices, more specifically. It is now easier than ever for a developer to sell their game at whatever price point they deem fair, without getting in bed with a publisher, and some, like Larian, are bold enough to even try this with retail. The primary hurdle is actually getting enough funding together to make the game in the first place, especially if the project is more ambitious than an indie physics platformer.

And that's what I'd like Kickstarter to do. You know, kickstart this shit. Ideally I'd like to see the following:

1. Developer kickstarts game, succeeds.
2. Developer releases game, game is good, sells well relative to budget, free marketing from happy backers.
3. Developer now has money and creative freedom to do whatever they please.
4. Developer makes more good games, fans of niche genre rejoice.

I don't much like the idea of a developer constantly going back to KS for every project. I'm fine with something like Divinity: Original Sin, since that was basically an elaborate preorder scheme in order to expand a game well into development. But I don't think living on KS money alone is viable, nor does it feel ok to me.

 

[felipepepe]

I don't much like the idea of a developer constantly going back to KS for every project. I'm fine with something like Divinity: Original Sin, since that was basically an elaborate preorder scheme in order to expand a game well into development. But I don't think living on KS money alone is viable, nor does it feel ok to me.

I agree with you, but Fargo already said "If it works, why not continue?" and many backers are eager to do so... is something dangerous, that can lead to extremely "spoiled" developers...

 

[Metro]

The model itself isn't particularly groundbreaking. Many indie developers have been doing something virtually similar for years just without the use of a third-party website. Offer their game via pre-pre-pre-pre-order sale through their own website and often provide access to the alpha/beta, etc. Of course, Kickstarter adds a social media/publicity twist and also has its share of people selling nothing but an idea without any kind of up front work at all.

 

[Infinitron]

oh look it's another Kickstarter thread /jaesun

 

[Turjan]

I don't think it's any revelation to anyone that the balance of power in Kickstarter projects is even more lopsided towards the company and against the customer than in normal business relations. Good developers try to paint over this by allowing some customer participation, and this makes people feel better about their weak position. Whether you wanna take that gamble and even see an actual chance of taking influence on how the game of your dreams turns out is everybody's own call.

I have backed 4 Kickstarter projects so far, and I guess that's a gamble I can take. If I get no or shitty games in the end, I'll be disappointed, but that's something that can happen with "preorders". I'll wait and see. I know that I won't overdo it.

And I guess that's the last thing I will say in this thread.

 

[evdk]

The model itself isn't particularly groundbreaking. Many indie developers have been doing something virtually similar for years just without the use of a third-party website. Offer their game via pre-pre-pre-pre-order sale through their own website and often provide access to the alpha/beta, etc. Of course, Kickstarter adds a social media/publicity twist and also has its share of people selling nothing but an idea without any kind of up front work at all.

Most of the KS that were only selling ideas and succeeded were also selling some famous industry figure or some beloved franchise dredged from some kind of IP hell. That gives them a lot of leeway (like not having to produce anything up front). People tend to take these guys' reputation as some kind of insurance that the whole project is legit / won't run out of funds / etc., which is what is really funny here, because a lot of these people are notorious for not being able to budget anything.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

No games out yet

And that is pretty much that.

I imagine a dev meeting going something like:
- Listen, guys, usual selling a cat in a bag is fun and all, but there must be a way to make easier money off gullible fucks.
- Ooh, I know, let's promise to maybe, some day, give them a cat in a bag, but only if they give us their money first!
- Fucking brilliant, Jim!

Haha, fuck that shit. I'm skeptical.

 

[Gurkog]

I only pre-ordered because up until the announcement of mandatory DRM for future content they promised a DRM free experience. Since they broke that promise they refunded my money, and everyone was happy. I would not have been upset if the refund was refused, but that's how it turned out this time. Although, I may pick it up during a Steam sale.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I actually think the reason people like Vault Dweller are so skeptical of Kickstarter is because so many people give off the impression that Kickstarter is some kind of way to eliminate all the problems of a capitalist, mass-appeal games industry. And it's really not. Though it might solve a couple of issues, most minor, it certianly brings a few of its own. The reason we should be optimistic about Kickstarter is simply because it's the only thing we have, where we had nothing before! If you care about oldschool RPGs of any variety - if you actually want these games and you want to play them, things are better now than before simply by virtue of these kinds of games actually being produced again. For me, this is an improvement over nothing almost no matter the business model. In other words, Vault Dweller is right when he doesn't buy into the hype, but he is wrong when he concludes that this must mean he should be pessimistic.

Correction: I'm neither skeptical about KS nor pessimistic. I've spent more than $1,500 supporting different projects and I'm very excited that these games are in development. I just don't like the system itself and the focus on hype, tiers, and stretch goals rather than on design and budgets.

 

[Gurkog]

I consider KS a casino where I have a chance of winning games instead of going broke winning wads of cash.

 

[evdk]

I consider KS a casino where I have a chance of winning games instead of going broke winning wads of cash.

Going broke's understood by default.

 

[slackerwizrd]

For example, in the Shadowrun thread, slackerwizrd quotes Gurkog as follows:

It would seem that HBS isn't keen on the idea either, but rather it was imposed onto them by the Shadowrun IP owner (i.e., Microsoft). It would have probably been better if they were more forthcoming at the start of the campaign, but I guess my cynical side believes that HBS kept it a secret because of the potential lost in revenue on the Kickstarter campaign.

and I must admit that it amuses me a bit that some people apparantly thought companies using Kickstarter quit being companies and started being everybody's best friend. Since when did someone looking to profit on you become your friend?

This will be my most central point: Kickstarter gives companies a way to turn a profit on a small to medium market that was inaccessible to them before. But this is a good thing for us, because we ARE a small to medium market and we want stuff targeted at us.

First of all, I've already done the 'pre-order'/'kickstarter-thing' for SR:R and several others, and even given the complaints some people have on SR:R, I'm still looking forward to the game.

As for my perceived pessimism, I was only stating how I couldn't help but to feel cynical about the secrecy between Microsoft and HBS on the IP. It would have been nice to know of the on-going negotiations, but honestly, it wouldn't have affected my decision on the purchase. Additionally, a rational person would probably understand that the negotiations weren't final. And the goods the delivered in the campaign are DRM-free as stated. AFAIK, nothing has changed.

Regardless of the problems with the DRM or other mechanics some people may have, overall, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Developers are getting money from you to develop a game they want to make and turn a profit on, not every Tom, Dick and Harry wants developed. It's illogical to think otherwise.

That said, Kickstarter right now - without us being able to weigh the benefits - is still worse for the consumer in many ways. It looks like we're gonna get the games we want - but we're getting them by sacrificing some of the perogatives we have on a normal market. The customer is betting a lot more than he used too, and the same is not true for the developer.

Very true. Even though sonsumers have been given many different tools (e.g., reviews, rating sites) to judge producers and their products, the end product is harder to judge just by reputation. This is exacerbated by games developed by smaller studios with no "hot" IP.

PS. I think Kickstarter's potential to diminish the role of the publisher is awesome. But whether it has the desired effect - especially with a pay-blindly-up-fron system in place - remains to be seen.

I totally agree with this - even more so for the small developers.

 

[slackerwizrd]

I consider KS a casino where I have a chance of winning fan-fucking-tastic games instead of going broke winning wads of cash.

Given the comparative, FTFY.

 

[Zed]

It doesn't matter what I think -- as long as developers are tricked into making overambitious games they can't back out from.

That said, I've grown a little more cynical over time.

 

[Dexter]

However the central point of my post is this: you're customer, they're company. You're looking for quality product, they're looking for profit. Never forget that.

Except you know, when they're not.
http://www.kickstarter.com/year/2012

I hardly think projects to open source music or better something in a community (like change all the bike lanes, "decorate" bus stops, set up a giant statue of Robocop or generally transform public spaces), a pizza museum, a photography exhibition throughout the middle east and similar are "customer" things.

KickStarter wasn't even intended for companies in the beginning, although it has its uses there too and they've even taken steps to prevent just being thought of as a "storefront".



What you are saying is likely very much true for a very large portion of the video game projects, since they usually require a lot more people, time and experience than a lot of other stuff. It is very true for InXile/Fargo, Obsidian, Double Fine and so on, but even there not every Indie has "incorporated" or thinks in the sense of "I company, you money".

It's important to know that KickStarter is mostly in it for the money, but it's also important to judge different products upon their own merits and what they are trying to do, not try and put them all into a large sack and label them.

Just like in any other sector, while some are likely to end up just being greedy assholes looking to exploit people for money, others think of it like "Pre-Order" events, yet others might indeed try to get the project of their dreams made or are just trying to better something out of ideological reasons.

 

[Grunker]

^ I'm obviously talking about video games in my post - any other Kickstarters may not fit with my text at all

 

[cvv]

KS, just like most businesses, is a quagmire of motivations and incentives with blurred lines and deep mysteries of human desires

Yeah, the flower lady doesn't sell you those roses because she's your friend that cares for your mom's birthday. She doesn't know your mom and doesn't give a fuck about you. She wants your money. But the fact she's selling flowers and not clothes or parfumes suggests flowers mean something special to her.

Likewise inXile wouldn't have risked Wasteland or Torment sequels as a standard publishing enterprise out of pure love. Money-wise it was just too uncertain. But the fact they decided to go with those projects at all instead of churning out cheap trinkets for mobile devices or turning into a rank and file contractor delivering game parts for big console MMOs or TPSs suggests they don't do it just to put bread and vodka on the table.

So as with all businesses, KS customers and producers are not friends. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily strangers either.

 

[Grunker]

I agree, and I think I made that point in the OP as well

 

[evdk]

Likewise inXile wouldn't have risked Wasteland or Torment sequels as a standard publishing enterprise out of pure love. Money-wise it was just too uncertain. But the fact they decided to go with those projects at all instead of churning out cheap trinkets for mobile devices or turning into a rank and file contractor delivering game parts for big console MMOs or TPSs suggests they don't do it just to put bread and vodka on the table.

Contrary to popular opinion, churning out any of these things like Model Ts is in no way a surefire way to make billions - the competition in the useless casual tablet game market for instance is just insane - either you are a runaway success on the level of Irrate Avians (and probably get sued by Finland, or worse accosted by the proverbial Baltic cleaning professionals) or you will hardly cover you running expenses.

Nobody likes working just for food and board - Fargo's decision to try to cater to the old school crowd was even less altruistic than what you suggest, as in this market segment he actually has next to no serious competition (or at least that was the case at the beginning of the KS craze) and he actually has the advantage of being able to bring famous game designers and franchises into the fold, whose name would mean little to soccer moms looking for their next casual Bejeweled fix, but which will drive cRPG fans mad with glee. The whole stylization into modern rebel fighting against the tyranny of EVIL PUBLISHERS has certainly some basis in reality, but I doubt to the extent of what he's showing in his interviews and videos. He's still a bloody millionare living in a opulent mansion in LA, FFS.

Don't get me wrong, his decision was still the best thing to happen to us in years, but it was 100% business 0% altuism decision (well, maybe 95/5) -you should look elsewhere for crazy madman betting all on the chance of incline (Belgium, maybe?).

 

[Grunker]

^ I think you're assuming way too much clairvoyance on the part of Fargo, or at least on Schafer. These guys had no reliable way to know how exactly the market looked when they started betting on Kickstarter. Now, of course, he's maximizing his interest and attempting to profit as much as possible from his unique position of king, so you're right in a sense. But in the beginning, hell no. These guys took a chance.

 

[evdk]

And I think that after Schafer and with Fargo's business acumen it was far less of a chance that you believe (although I personally wouldn't care if Fargo started the incline by clubbing baby seals to death as long as he delivered).

 

[Grunker]

And I think that after Schafer and with Fargo's business acumen it was far less of a chance that you believe (although I personally wouldn't care if Fargo started the incline by clubbing baby seals to death as long as he delivered).

Well, that was my main point as well

Although clubbing baby seals sounds preferable to preordering

 

[Metro]

Someone should club Schafer and teach him how to manage a budget.

 

[almondblight]

TL;DR: Kickstarter is still a business, we're still customers and developers are still companies. We should still be happy, because the products we're interested are actually "at risk" of being produced now, where before the chance of that was 0%. But don't forget that developer and player are not buddies - one is looking for profit, the other for product.

No one's saying otherwise. But it's foolish to think that the product is merely the game itself. If you go into a shops and the clerks are unhelpful or ignore you, "well, they're not your friends" is a pretty poor excuse. Companies differ on how much emphasis they want to put on customer service or in making their customers happy. But to act like the only thing any backer should care about is the finished game, especially when a project is being sold as being open and customer friendly, is to ignore a large part of the business.