KickStarter Kickstarter Watch.

[Vault Dweller]

^ 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.

Taking a chance would be paying for the game out of his own pocket and then trying to sell it. "Selling the dream" on KS to collect money upfront is the very opposite of that.

 

[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.

Taking a chance would be paying for the game out of his own pocket and then trying to sell it. "Selling the dream" on KS to collect money upfront is the very opposite of that.

I believe you are underestimating how much time, effort and money was put into "selling the dream". Just as much if not more than what developers spend pitching games to publishers, and even this simple act over a prolonged period of time can drive developers to the brink of extinction.

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.

While you have a good point here ("we're not expecting them to be friends, we're expecting them to sell us better behaviour"), I disagree with you. The expectation that you are buying behaviour is exactly what I'm attacking, we just call it two different things.

The behaviour you talk about is a YES/NO pledge-reason for very, very few players. And as always, profit drives what is done and what isn't. In other words: companies do not have to behave themselves as you suggest to succed at Kickstarter. What is important is the kind of games the offer.

As such, my point was and remains this: anyone who expects changes in behaviour are as deluded as people who think McDonald's (or the local burger shop for that matter) are nice people because they run a campaign on the environment. They're not. They're doing that because it makes you more willing to support them with profits.

As long as the change in behaviour is a minor consideration for backers on Kickstarter, it will continue being a minor concern for the companies selling their products on this platform. Sure, it's much more important for Kickstarter backsers than the average consumers, but the fact of the matter is that the product is still the alpha omega for a very large segment of the backers.

The "Why" of this is more complicated, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that 90% of backers expect or think that developers are on their best behaviour, and don't treat concepts like DLC, DRM, etc. as "real problems", at least not problems that make them stop backing. The remaining 9% are people like me or evdk for whom the clubbing of baby seals is acceptable as long as the niche sees product once again. That leaves a very small portion of people who are actually more interested in good behaviour from the developers than they are in the product, or at least interested enough to withdraw their pledge even if they like the pitch and the game.

For these reasons, Kickstarter remains focused on the product - not on the behaviour of the developer.

What may cause this to change is one or more popular developers assraping their customer base. This might make the 90 (slightly oblivious or at least non-critical) per cent wake up to the fact that they haven't been paying for behaviour this whole time, and it might cause behaviour to become an important part of the platform.

It just isn't right now. The majority of the backers are not demanding changes in behaviour when Aterdux postpones their game, Subterranean Games deliver an alpha instead of a beta, Logic Artists fuck up their communication, Harebrained Schemes suddenly demand Steam and expands their DLC plans, Obsidian starts moving forward with their own ideas of a game instead of a strict IE-like or Xenonauts gets infinitely delayed and its development shrouded in mist or so on and so forth for eternity. What matters is the game, and the criticism we've seen has mainly been of changes within it.

What will make this house-of-cards fall is the lack of a quality product in the end, not the behaviour of the developers. That is why you are a fool if you expect major changes in behaviour.

Of course, this is not to say that behaviour doesn't matter at all. Just that in the face of quality product, developers can still get away with DRM, DLC, delays, and other dirty tricks.

 

[mindx2]

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.

I agree. So called "customer service" for KS projects is so much more important than to traditional publishers. Publishers can rely on their PR departments to spend millions to hype up their game and pay off game reviewers to lessen any public relations fallout. Kickstarters don't have that luxury (ie. budget) and have to rely almost sole on word of mouth advertisement. Just look at the new SimCity game. It's a PR nightmare yet it continues to sell because of it's advertising bringing in those that don't follow the Interwebz DRAMA. Kickstarter success is based on Interwebz drama and hype as these people (the backers) are the only ones who follow it and try to bring in more "converts." Great customer service is essential for guys like Fargo and Schafer, especially if they intend to go back to the KS well.

edit: This is why it will be interesting to see how Shadowrun does after the "Microsoft DRM Mandate" bump in the Kickstarter road plays out.

 

[Vault Dweller]

^ 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.

Taking a chance would be paying for the game out of his own pocket and then trying to sell it. "Selling the dream" on KS to collect money upfront is the very opposite of that.

I believe you are underestimating how much time, effort and money was put into "selling the dream". Just as much if not more than what developers spend pitching games to publishers, and even this simply act over a prolonged period of time can drive developers to the brink of extinction.

I hope we all agree that Fargo isn't a poor man, so he risked nothing putting together that campaign. How much do you think it cost him? 5k? 10? It's nothing. He recognized an opportunity and quickly took advantage of it and played it perfectly, but let's not talk about taking chances, risking something, etc.

 

[mindx2]

^ 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.

Taking a chance would be paying for the game out of his own pocket and then trying to sell it. "Selling the dream" on KS to collect money upfront is the very opposite of that.

I believe you are underestimating how much time, effort and money was put into "selling the dream". Just as much if not more than what developers spend pitching games to publishers, and even this simply act over a prolonged period of time can drive developers to the brink of extinction.

I hope we all agree that Fargo isn't a poor man, so he risked nothing putting together that campaign. How much do you think it cost him? 5k? 10? It's nothing. He recognized an opportunity and quickly took advantage of it and played it perfectly, but let's not talk about taking chances, risking something, etc.

The only "risk" I see here for him is if these games don't live up to the hype (backer's dreams) and he won't be able to make these type of "old-school" cRPGs in the future. His PR-mojo is strong because he comes across as really wanting to make these type of games for the foreseeable future.

 

[evdk]

The only "risk" I see here for him is if these games don't live up to the hype (backer's dreams) and he won't be able to make these type of "old-school" cRPGs in the future. His PR-mojo is strong because he comes across as really wanting to make these type of games for the foreseeable future.

Which will just put him to where he started, with just a few hundred thousand in his bank account as a bonus.

 

[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.

Taking a chance would be paying for the game out of his own pocket and then trying to sell it. "Selling the dream" on KS to collect money upfront is the very opposite of that.

I believe you are underestimating how much time, effort and money was put into "selling the dream". Just as much if not more than what developers spend pitching games to publishers, and even this simply act over a prolonged period of time can drive developers to the brink of extinction.

I hope we all agree that Fargo isn't a poor man, so he risked nothing putting together that campaign. How much do you think it cost him? 5k? 10? It's nothing. He recognized an opportunity and quickly took advantage of it and played it perfectly, but let's not talk about taking chances, risking something, etc.

You're right. Fargo knew (didn't just make an educated guess) that he would get tons of money. He had no fear that this would be his only chance of doing what he's been trying to do for the last 10 years. He had no fear that the model would collaps on him and player expectations would be so high, his dream come true would brush his ability to ever work on these kinds of games ever.

All the things written and said by him and others in those early days where we had no idea what was going to happen was a dream. It was always a safe bet.

In Danish, it's called "bagklogskab." In American, I think it's something along the lines of "with the benefit of hindsight."

 

[Destroid]

There are a few differences I'd like to point out between faceless corporation X and the medium size developers on kickstarter asking for out money. Firstly, I don't think you can discount games as artistic works - the companies involved are not publicly traded and are not bound by law to thirst after profit at the expense of all other things. Unlike most companies, the owners of said companies are directly involved in production, I think it's reasonable to expect them to have pride in their work and want to make the best games they can, not simply the highest selling.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You're right. Fargo knew (didn't just make an educated guess) that he would get tons of money. He had no fear that this would be his only chance of doing what he's been trying to do for the last 10 years.

We talked about it, didn't we? If he really wanted to do it, he would have done it. He had the money and resources (company staffed with professional developers). He may not had millions, but does it really take millions to make a good RPG?

As for knowing, I'd say he either did or should have. Fargo is very good at selling and marketing. Probably the best in the industry. I doubt that looking at Schafer's KS he didn't think that he can do it too, as good or better. I mean, he knew he had the skills to do it right, he knew that he had a hot license that would make everyone excited. Why would he think that he'll do less than Schafer? Low confidence that Fargo doesn't suffer from?

He had no fear that the model would collaps on him and player expectations would be so high, his dream come true would brush his ability to ever work on these kinds of games ever.

Oh please. First, he spent the last 10 years making action RPGs and iphone games. Didn't seem like it crashed him, so the worst case scenario he goes back to what he was doing. Second, again, he's a very confident man. I doubt that he worries much about not meeting expectations. Read his interviews - everything he does is the best ever. Third, why the hell would the model collapse on him?

It just sounds like you're throwing in random fears to show that it was some kinda daring venture when it was nothing of the sort. I'm glad that he did it and I can't wait to play these games, and he does deserve the credit of doing it so well and inspiring others (like Obsidian), but I don't think that he risked much.

 

[Grunker]

It just sounds like you're throwing in random fears

I fail to see how I'm guessing more than you are here, so unless we clear this one out there's not much point to the discussion. This is you and me making our best educated guesses on the matter.

 

[Vault Dweller]

^ This is me going all JarlFrank on you.

 

[Grunker]

^ This is me going all JarlFrank on you.

I haven't debated enough with him to know what you're implying and now I'm afraid I ruined the joke because I'm making you explain it

 

[Vault Dweller]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/so-im-in-love.82774/

It's a 40-page "love conquers all" thread full of unexpected twists and surprising revelations.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

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...

Hmn, the only risk I can think of is that of it eventually turning into a circlejerk where they will only propose games that appeal to the groups who are more generous with their wallet, kinda like Bioware is slowly turning into a developer of furry dating simulators. Apart from that, I don't see what could go wrong - developers are already "spoiled" in that they'd know they have to please publishers with a stale list of sellable bullet points when they come up with a project.

 

[Grunker]

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...

Hmn, the only risk I can think of is that of it eventually turning into a circlejerk where they will only propose games that appeal to the groups who are more generous with their wallet, kinda like Bioware is slowly turning into a developer of furry dating simulators. Apart from that, I don't see what could go wrong

Bad games that don't hold up to the promises?

Abusive schemes because consumers care more about the product in itself?

Basically re-read this post:

^ 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.

Taking a chance would be paying for the game out of his own pocket and then trying to sell it. "Selling the dream" on KS to collect money upfront is the very opposite of that.

I believe you are underestimating how much time, effort and money was put into "selling the dream". Just as much if not more than what developers spend pitching games to publishers, and even this simple act over a prolonged period of time can drive developers to the brink of extinction.

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.

While you have a good point here ("we're not expecting them to be friends, we're expecting them to sell us better behaviour"), I disagree with you. The expectation that you are buying behaviour is exactly what I'm attacking, we just call it two different things.

The behaviour you talk about is a YES/NO pledge-reason for very, very few players. And as always, profit drives what is done and what isn't. In other words: companies do not have to behave themselves as you suggest to succed at Kickstarter. What is important is the kind of games the offer.

As such, my point was and remains this: anyone who expects changes in behaviour are as deluded as people who think McDonald's (or the local burger shop for that matter) are nice people because they run a campaign on the environment. They're not. They're doing that because it makes you more willing to support them with profits.

As long as the change in behaviour is a minor consideration for backers on Kickstarter, it will continue being a minor concern for the companies selling their products on this platform. Sure, it's much more important for Kickstarter backsers than the average consumers, but the fact of the matter is that the product is still the alpha omega for a very large segment of the backers.

The "Why" of this is more complicated, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that 90% of backers expect or think that developers are on their best behaviour, and don't treat concepts like DLC, DRM, etc. as "real problems", at least not problems that make them stop backing. The remaining 9% are people like me or evdk for whom the clubbing of baby seals is acceptable as long as the niche sees product once again. That leaves a very small portion of people who are actually more interested in good behaviour from the developers than they are in the product, or at least interested enough to withdraw their pledge even if they like the pitch and the game.

For these reasons, Kickstarter remains focused on the product - not on the behaviour of the developer.

What may cause this to change is one or more popular developers assraping their customer base. This might make the 90 (slightly oblivious or at least non-critical) per cent wake up to the fact that they haven't been paying for behaviour this whole time, and it might cause behaviour to become an important part of the platform.

It just isn't right now. The majority of the backers are not demanding changes in behaviour when Aterdux postpones their game, Subterranean Games deliver an alpha instead of a beta, Logic Artists fuck up their communication, Harebrained Schemes suddenly demand Steam and expands their DLC plans, Obsidian starts moving forward with their own ideas of a game instead of a strict IE-like or Xenonauts gets infinitely delayed and its development shrouded in mist or so on and so forth for eternity. What matters is the game, and the criticism we've seen has mainly been of changes within it.

What will make this house-of-cards fall is the lack of a quality product in the end, not the behaviour of the developers. That is why you are a fool if you expect major changes in behaviour.

Of course, this is not to say that behaviour doesn't matter at all. Just that in the face of quality product, developers can still get away with DRM, DLC, delays, and other dirty tricks.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Potentially awesome games turning out to be shitty has been part of the hobby since forever, same for consumers that care only about the game and nothing else (see: on-disc DLC is a thing). As always, it's up to you to decide who gets your money, I don't see how the Kickstarter situation is particularly dangerous. If you get assraped by a developer who promised X and delivered Z, well...remember that time you bought an AAA game and it turned out to be a steaming turd? It's kinda like that.

 

[Grunker]

Potentially awesome games turning out to be shitty has been part of the hobby since forever, same for consumers that care only about the game and nothing else (see: on-disc DLC is a thing). As always, it's up to you to decide who gets your money, I don't see how the Kickstarter situation is particularly dangerous. If you get assraped by a developer who promised X and delivered Z, well...remember that time you bought an AAA game and it turned out to be a steaming turd? It's kinda like that.

Eh? This system is only works via pre-ordering. Pre-ordering is an inefficient market (consumer spending without full information always is, and though full information is not obtainable, buying-after-production sure as hell is more informed than pre-orders).

The danger here is a market even worse than the AAA one - with all the normal pitfalls of the regular market, but with less consumer information.

Note that I like Kickstarter - again, it's a whole lot better than nothing - I just don't think people should fool themselves into believing it's more than it is.

We've seen the effects of this: a select number of people blow up when developers release some harmless information, crying bloody murder and betrayal of everything.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well, I don't think Kickstarter is a gift from the heavans, and yes a system that runs on what's essentially preorders isn't my dream either as you may get gipped by people abusing your good faith, but that's always been a risk. I think the concept is good overall, primarily because publishers lose a bit of their massive power.

 

[Grunker]

Oh I agree, there's potential here.

 

[Blaine]

I suspect that Kickstarter's three strengths—namely visibility, ease of access for projects great and small, and a make-or-break funding goal set by the project leader(s)—will eventually turn into weaknesses.

The make-or-break funding is a double-edged sword. It sets a concrete goal with which to motivate backers, and forces would-be teams to take a realistic look at themselves and their project in order to determine their bottom line. However, setting their Kickstarter goal at the absolute bottom line may result in raising less money overall, because people's perception of a project's worth will be partially influenced by the dollar value of that initial goal—for purely psychological reasons. Veblen goods follow essentially the same principle, although in the case of Kickstarter goals, the effect is much more limited and subtle. At the same time, if a team raises the initial goal above their actual bottom line and then they miss their funding by, say, 20%, they've just fucked themselves over regardless of follow-up campaigns and so on.

The above challenges have a much more profound effect on smaller, more obscure projects than larger ones with a lot of hype, and that ties into the point I'm driving at: Tough breaks for small projects will contribute to their marginalization.

The effects of Kickstarter's visibility and ease of access are already plain to see. Millionaire actors (Zach Braff) and millionaire AAA developers (Molyneux) are already hopping on Kickstarter because hey, fuck the system, this is hip, free money, and no one can tell me what to do. They can already work within their respective industries without the need for Kickstarter, but they simply prefer not to. This sort of thing will only become more common as the months and years pass.

Another point about ease of access: It also allows terribly mismanaged and/or ill-conceived small projects to fail horribly, waste backers' money, and cause public trust of small projects to erode moving forward. We've already seen a number of small projects bomb terribly. Once again, this contributes to the marginalization of smaller projects. Larger projects with more invested and more on the line are less likely to fail outright.

TL;DR, in X years, there will be Doritos and Coke ads all over Kickstarter and only major corporate endeavors (and a few very successful indies, like Obsidian or some film crew) will be able to use it for funding. Sure, anyone will still be able to create projects (probably), but they'll have a tough time getting started or even being noticed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm not sure it'll actually be quite THAT bad, and it's probably years off if so, but I definitely see stratification and marginalization in the site's future.

 

[Dexter]

There are a few differences I'd like to point out between faceless corporation X and the medium size developers on kickstarter asking for out money. Firstly, I don't think you can discount games as artistic works - the companies involved are not publicly traded and are not bound by law to thirst after profit at the expense of all other things. Unlike most companies, the owners of said companies are directly involved in production, I think it's reasonable to expect them to have pride in their work and want to make the best games they can, not simply the highest selling.

Exactly this. I mean, there are a few obvious examples staring you in the face (like almost literally) right here. Take Vault Dweller for instance, do you think his "company" Iron Tower Studio doesn't give a shit about their game and has developed it for what is it now almost 9/10 years because they think that is the best way to make money?
(I would hope not or their intelligence would stand in question.)

And even though they didn't go through KickStarter out of the pride of likely a single individual, they have that Pre-Order scheme to help them develop the game: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2584.0.html
Why the fuck would he hang out around here arguing about RPGs if he didn't like what he was doing?

Do you think the company "Double Bear Productions" only cares about money and thinks of "Dead State" as the best way to make money and not as something they want to do?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/70755535/dead-state-the-zombie-survival-rpg/posts/243101
Also why would they do this?

Some of you have asked for special game items within the tiers, as that has been a part of several rewards for other games. We go a little into this in the FAQ, but to reiterate, our philosophy is that we think that if we create content for the game, everyone should benefit. Much like the shelter in the game, we’re hoping that all our backers can pitch in for the benefit of everyone’s Dead State experience. For example, if you’d usually bump up your support by $5 for a few vanity items, how about throwing in that $5 to get us to a stretch goal that will add over a dozen weapons to the game? Instead of DLC, we’re offering up a “pay what you can” to help buy the “Weapon Pack” for everyone – and really, that’s better than an in-game shirt or pair of sneakers, right?

This is certainly a lot more true for Fargo, Obsidian and Double Fine, and I agree with Vince they would very likely not do this if they believed it made no monetary sense and didn't lead to lots of long-term benefits and press for their companies but my point was that you shouldn't put every single "KickStarter" or money raising campaign in the same basket and rather evaluate every single one on its own merits.

The "Why" of this is more complicated, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that 90% of backers expect or think that developers are on their best behaviour, and don't treat concepts like DLC, DRM, etc. as "real problems", at least not problems that make them stop backing. The remaining 9% are people like me or evdk for whom the clubbing of baby seals is acceptable as long as the niche sees product once again. That leaves a very small portion of people who are actually more interested in good behaviour from the developers than they are in the product, or at least interested enough to withdraw their pledge even if they like the pitch and the game.

For these reasons, Kickstarter remains focused on the product - not on the behaviour of the developer.

What may cause this to change is one or more popular developers assraping their customer base. This might make the 90 (slightly oblivious or at least non-critical) per cent wake up to the fact that they haven't been paying for behaviour this whole time, and it might cause behaviour to become an important part of the platform.

I'd just like to point out that you are pulling numbers out of your ass.
You don't know what amount of people pledge in the first place because they want a game on Linux or are sympathetic towards it or have a problem with DRM and DLC or are sympathetic towards games that don't offer DRM/DLC as to start pledging in the first place.

 

[Grunker]

I'd like to point out that you are pullling [stuff] out your ass

We all are

 

[MetalCraze]

Kickstarter is awesome!



Not a single original, complex cRPG, only sequels and rehashes based on simplified systems to overhyped games of yesteryear with a promise of DLCs. Thank you Evil Publishers for fucking off and leaving devs alone.

Clearly Evil Publishers were preventing Obsidian from doing turn-based RPG like they always wanted so when they got a chance they started doing RTwP + cooldown DAO clone

Evil EA fucked Stoic devs but they survived and turned Banner Saga into three games after Kickstarter for which backers must pay again and again. Also stats are for nerds.

Shadowrun devs promised their backers noDRM version in an awesome RPG but now they have no choice but DRM version also no inventory and unlimited ammo! Good thing they ditched all those Evil Publishers - they would've forced them to dumb down the game

Jagged Alliance ending up firmly in hands of trashmakers for "soccer dads" who can play the game only for 30 minutes. They will have full control of raping it. Of course Evil shitComposter will get their cut too.




KICKSTARTER SAVES GAMING

 

[Grunker]

Hey Skyway, which game would you like to see made?

 

[almondblight]

The behaviour you talk about is a YES/NO pledge-reason for very, very few players. And as always, profit drives what is done and what isn't. In other words: companies do not have to behave themselves as you suggest to succed at Kickstarter. What is important is the kind of games the offer.

But it's not simply a YES/NO pledge. The big draw from Kickstarter is that it's able to measure intensity - individuals upping their pledge to support the project (sometimes not even going into the next tier, like the Obsidian Order people), and also people spreading the word and acting as marketing agents. It also makes a big difference if developers go back to ask for more money - do you think Fargo would have gotten that kind of Numera money if he had pissed off backers?

As such, my point was and remains this: anyone who expects changes in behaviour are as deluded as people who think McDonald's (or the local burger shop for that matter) are nice people because they run a campaign on the environment. They're not. They're doing that because it makes you more willing to support them with profits.

Right. But you think that "service with a smile" works for McDonald's but not Kickstarter. Why?

The "Why" of this is more complicated, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that 90% of backers expect or think that developers are on their best behaviour, and don't treat concepts like DLC, DRM, etc. as "real problems", at least not problems that make them stop backing.

But developers seem to think that things like DRM have an influence on pledges. If they didn't, why would they emphasize them? If HBS thought that DRM-free versions made no difference in pledge amounts, they would have been better off saying "we'll look into DRM-free stuff, but no promises yet." Why do you think they taked about it? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

Of course, this is not to say that behaviour doesn't matter at all. Just that in the face of quality product, developers can still get away with DRM, DLC, delays, and other dirty tricks.

I think the calculation is rather simple. "Does doing X cost us more money than it saves us?" The only way for a customer to convince the developer that it will cost them more is to complain. Now, it could be that most of the time that doesn't affect developer behavior, but some times it will (or at least lead to the release of more information - see HBS), and it costs the customer almost nothing to do it. Why shouldn't they?