Kickstopping? « VG247 Forum

VG247 Forum » The VG247 forum

Kickstopping?

(27 posts)

Started 3 months ago by DSB
Latest reply from villa_grande

DSB
Member

Suddenly all my Kickstarters are failing.

I've seen good Kickstarters fail before, but this is pretty overwhelming.

What gives?

When Kickstarter arrived I saw it as a golden opportunity. It gave disillusioned gamers a chance to put their money where their mouth was, literally. To me it still represents a rare chance to demand that gaming go somewhere other than the obvious cash-in.

Right now you have a studio like Gas Powered Games, which I thought was reasonably well loved by gamers, who are basically staking their existence on a Kickstarter, and they aren't getting half of what one of those legacy/nostalgia projects were raking in. Meanwhile Planetary Annihilation - which was clearly inspired by Taylor - is swimming in money.

Doesn't that put gamers in a pretty bad light? I genuinely don't want good studios to fail, and it does burn me when publishers close them down, so obviously I'm giving what I can to help those guys out - But that doesn't seem to go for the rest of gaming land.

It makes me wonder whether people are gonna complain the next time a studio fails. To me that would ring pretty hollow if they can't cough up 20 bucks to save a good one, when offered the chance.

I'm wondering where all the Kickstarters have gone. I think it's clear that there isn't as much money on offer right now as there was.

Have you been a Kickstarter before, and since thought better of it? How come?

Posted 3 months ago #
SplatteredHouse
Member

inspired by =/= copy. Apparently, Planetary Annihilation is seen as offering greater potential (return) than GPG's awkwardly explained caveman game.

To your last question, I have given Kickstarters money in the "money where my mouth is" cases. Games where I thought if this happened, I'd buy it/support it all the way. So, no, I haven't regretted my KS activity at all.

"To me that would ring pretty hollow if they can't cough up 20 bucks to save a good one, when offered the chance."

What relationship do you have to GPG, out of interest? xD
"save a good one"...I thought people were being asked to pledge to allow them to make a caveman ARPG game - now, you're suggesting that the fate of the studio is what that $20 should be considered as enabling. Then, where does the interest of the game, meet that of the studio - if the studio were to need it, is there any reason to believe that $20 wouldn't change purpose?

I was disappointed when a kickstarter that I hoped to see succeed, and supported fell short of its goal...I didn't, in response go as far as to hold the process itself as responsible; and I'm not going to here, especially because I think the avenue presents a lot of opportunity, and it's up to those project creators to harness it, something which GPG has not seemingly managed to do.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

It's not like you have to defend your choice, I was just curious as to why so many promising Kickstarters are failing, and where people are on that.

It's not just about Gas Powered Games. Dreadline was a promising pitch too, and Death Inc. isn't off to a flying start.

I don't have a relationship with GPG, and it's not like I'm blind to their failings. Demigod was an awful mess and Supreme Commander 2 was a terrible sequel. But in Kickstarter terms, that sort of record is easily overlooked. People supported Obsidian Entertainment, Brian Fargo or Peter Molyneux regardless of past fuck-ups.

Personally I have loved the Total Annihilation games, I thought Supreme Commander was the best RTS in years, and I don't see how Caveman isn't a good idea. It's basically an attempt at making a Warcraft 3-style RTS with even more focus on the hero.

I do think it's strange that people can watch it happen, when they're so quick to anger whenever it's publishers shutting down studios. They actually have a chance to prevent it happening here.

That's purely my own opinion though. Chris Taylor is actually telling people that he doesn't want their pity, and that if they think the pitch is bad, they shouldn't support it, and should be very vocal in telling them how and why.

Posted 3 months ago #
RandomTiger
Member

Personally I spent way too much on kickstarter last year and Im going to be much more choosy about what I back.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

Choosy how Random. What should a project do? I'm interested to see how everybody else thinks about Kickstarter.

I've definitely backed a lot myself, and I have withdrawn from two projects. Both were because I kinda rushed into it, and eventually had doubts about whether it was truly something I wanted. One was MAK, the other was GODUS.

GODUS seems like a huge step back in terms of mechanics, and MAK just didn't feel like it was really as coherent and thought out as Minecraft.

Posted 3 months ago #
SplatteredHouse
Member

If I become aware of something that looks interesting I may back it, but I usually wait for them to call out, rather than browse. Much like Greenlight, although in that case because Valve has improved the interface/management options I'd be more likely to spend greater time checking that list.

The point that there's no parser (other than gaming news posts, perhaps) keeps me away from there, mostly. Because everything is weighted on the popularity of the project (to reach the goal) it needs visibility - which many individuals alone, lack the ability to provide - to be able to transform that hope into reality.

Posted 3 months ago #
friendlydave
Member

I've not paid for a (video)game on kick starter. The wait time is to long for me. I have backed a ton of Board//card games though that I've received the final product.

Posted 3 months ago #
OlderGamer
Moderator

Maybe as Kickstarter type funding grows, it becomes easier to lose viability and expossure. Plus people will grew tired of it. It is no longer new and trendy after all.

Oversaturation is a major problem in the entertainment industries.

Personaly I don't use Kickstarter. I just have a problem funding a game I haven't tried. Even great devs can make a dud. Very few games would I fund before it came out.

I think Kickstarter got started because of the mainstream power brokers(Pubs/Platformholders) stranglehold grip on the games market. In terms of what they were willing to fund and publish. Many gamers wanted something different.

But look at it this way, two things actualy:

Along time racing franchises announces a new game, but the game will no longer have an in the car cockpit view. Internet forums explode. Seemingly countless fans claim they use said feature and will no buy the game if it is not included. However the devs own research indicates that less then 5% of the franchises previous buyers even used the in car view.

My point? A very vocal, yet minority, number of gamers can create a lot of fuss and noise over something that the masses don't care about. Now think about what has happened with Kickstarters. Sure they raise a fair amount of scratch. But the masses aren't supporting it. The masses are, instead, playing the very same games, that the crowd funding is tired of playing and wants an alternitive to.

Secondly:

If everyone has a new project they want funded, the novelty fades. And quickly. Like I said I would personaly fund maybe two of three games. And I would be sickeningly worried about the direction of development and the outcome. But in a great sea of projects asking for money, it becomes hard to stand out. I do not think crowd funding has much of a future. I think it will die like in a App market sized sea of sameness. If I can think of one project as having a uniqueness I am willing to listen. But if instead of one project we have three pages of, thirty pages of projects asking for money. It becomes hard to stay focused or care.

Like them or not, the ability to me be marketed and rise above the rest and gain exposure is a key element to selling games. It is why the big pubs like EA and Acti still have clout.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

Great input all round guys.

friendlydave: how do you feel about games in general. Are you generally satisfied with the selection on offer?

Awwww OG, I was expecting way more enthusiasm than that from you.

We're usually in the same boat complaining about how predictable the industry has gotten, and yet you won't fund something new because it might fail?

Isn't that the whole point though? We fund Kickstarters knowing full well that things might go wrong, because that risk is worth taking to get something truly special.

How can you expect publishers to take that risk when we won't? They put a lot more than 20 dollars into a game.

Posted 3 months ago #
viralshag
Member

I'm happy to put money down on a few things (actually Grim Dawn is the only one so far) but I'm not going to make a habit of paying for a promise over a product. That and I always thought it was bit of a fad gamers would grow bored of quickly.

No matter how much people complain and moan about the industry I think the majority of people are just generally bored of gaming or have lost a lot of interest.

Or, perhaps, and this is what I find funny - we're not so different from the publishers we love to hate. Maybe not everyone is happy to back and fund every "original" and "interesting" idea out there.

Posted 3 months ago #
RandomTiger
Member

Well the quality bar has been raised a lot since I started on it.
There's things I backed last year which I wouldn't bother with now.

My big drops were on Double Fine partly because I wanted kickstarter to succeed as a serious funding system for games, Oculus Rift because I wanted the kit and Star Citizen because Chris Roberts appears to be the best hope for making the exact game I want to play. All the small ones still added up though.

I think its a good time to wait and see what quality of product I get for my pledges, unless they put Freespace 3 up there or something.

Posted 3 months ago #
SlayerGT
Member

I think folks are learning the hard way just how much money it takes to make something today.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

What do you mean SlayerGT?

RandomTiger: It's understandable that you'll be more inclined to back something that's lost and missed, but what turns you off about supporting new projects?

Posted 3 months ago #
SlayerGT
Member

@DSB

I think these kickstarters mean well..mostly. I just think these guys (and girls) are learning that it's much more expensive to make games than they realize. They probly kick ass at coding and coming up with neat ideas, but have no business sense. They think they need $850,000 when they probly need double realistically. Idk.

Posted 3 months ago #
RandomTiger
Member

DSP: Well Double Fine Adventure is new IP, Star Citizen is too and Oculus Rift is a new product.

But you are naturally drawn to known franchises and/or known teams, partly because they are more likely to get press. But also making games is difficult and unknown / inexperienced teams are more likely to be risky. I do want something for my cash at the end of the day and I have high standards, I'm used to playing the best AAA and indie there is.

I did make a point of backing Josh Parnell's Limit Theory to make up for backing Godus and Elite, as I thought he had a strong pitch.

I know what you mean though, I was hoping kickstarter would be more about funding risking groundbreaking games, turns out my behavior is very similar to what a publisher might do.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

That's interesting guys.

SlayerGT: I think that probably goes for a few projects, but then a lot of them are also diehards working very small teams. In some cases that money probably won't be spent on anything more than groceries, and they know they won't be making any money until the game comes out.

That has been true for games like World of Goo, Super Meat Boy and FTL, although I can't say whether Super Meat Boy got funded in advance by Microsoft.

The risk of someone coming up short is always going to be there, though.

RandomTiger: True that, but I definitely see Star Citizen as a continuation of Wing Commander, and I think Roberts considers it his opportunity to make the Freelancer-game he wanted.

It's kinda the same with Double Fine Adventure and the Obsidian RPG. They may be new IPs, but they're not truly new ground for any of those companies.

Maybe that is the limitation of Kickstarter though. If you don't hit that kind of sweet spot where everybody believes you and misses your games, then you don't get the money.

That's short of what I hoped it would be, personally I love the idea of a bazaar for crazy new concepts and possibilities, but expecting everybody to embrace that with real money is probably a bridge too far.

Posted 3 months ago #
Talkar
Member

I usually back a project when i think it is a game i would play when it is released. I then usually back it with the amount of money i think the game can be valued at.
But i'm very choosy about what projects i do back, i tend to go for projects that can show some form of credibility, as i don't really trust humans in general. So a form of credibility, be it a established franchise, a well respected developer or something like that. I don't really go for the game X by developer Y even though i know i should in many cases.
(Reasoning for not trusting humans: Last time i trusted someone, my brother, i nearly ended up homeless)

Posted 3 months ago #
RandomTiger
Member

DSP, I totally get you on the continuation point, doesn't mean they cant be groundbreaking though.

Can you give examples of kickstarter groundbreaking or crazy (in a good way) concepts?

I think what we are seeing so far is gamers effectively making corrections in the market which has been skewed by publishers and platform holders. Firstly genres that have been left out in the cold are receiving support, be it space sims, adventure games or whatever.

Secondly the obvious market desire for new console hardware. I haven't backed any of these as I am pretty dubious of their ability for real success and to provide what I want out of a console. I can easily buy them later should they get there.

Perhaps kickstarter 2013 be different, perhaps it will be the year of the story game.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/redthread/dreamfall-chapters-the-longest-journey
Dreamfall Chapters is a good starting point.

I kind of think what you are looking for in terms of breaking ground might not be possible from 99% of kickstarter offers, just as it is minimal in the regular industry.

What you are asking for is someone with an amazing idea, who has both the talent to create the product (on budget) and the ability to market the idea to the masses.

If something is going to be groundbreaking it means that will be a lot of unknowns during development and the product will need more R&D and more iterations to get it right, this in turn means they will need a bigger budget.

Many of the budgets you see on kickstarter are small relative to the work required to make the product. This is what SlayerGT was talking about I think. Double Fine have failed to stick to their budget on the adventure game and think about how little they asked for in the first place. I know their scope increased as more money came in but the point is still valid.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

Great post, I agree with a lot of that.

It kinda ties into what I was taking about in the comment section recently, comparing videogames to movies:

http://www.vg247.com/2013/02/08/david-cage-tells-games-industry-to-grow-up-at-dice-summit-watch-the-video/#comment-444743

In movies, you have a direct line between major blockbusters, "midprice" productions, "budget" productions, and straight up indies with all kinds of ways to fund themselves and the studios supporting them.

What that essentially means is that you have an industry that not is not just capable of exploring itself, and moving itself forward artistically, but is collectively enriched by the fact that while it can make a Transformers movie that is all pandering and no surprises, it can also make a 5 million dollar movie that will have a huge impact on the medium itself for a time to come, even if it doesn't get seen by very many people.

I think that's an example of a creative industry that knows it has to stay dynamic - and knows it has to pay to stay dynamic - to stay relevant. If movies and the way we make them isn't constantly seeking new territory and redefining itself, then people will stop coming to see them. The indie can be much more valuable to the collective industry, than Transformers ever will be.

We don't have that in videogames, sadly. We have Kickstarter trying to approach that talent and those opportunities, and that's not enough.

Someone should really be funding the kinds of talent and ambition that can make videogames more than they are.

Beating something, and shooting it, while exploring the same old motives to do it, is simply not all you can do with a videogame. I think we're really cheating ourselves by allowing publishers to accept it as the ultimate wisdom. It hurts the medium.

In terms of my idea of a new game on Kickstarter: FTL. On the face of it, it's a space combat game that has you managing the crew, but thanks to clever design and different layers of strategy, it creates these emergent stories.

You can make up your own story about that one crewmember who was fighting for his life with an enemy boarding team, all the while the enemy ship blasted the O2 generator. He survived the battle, but he didn't make it to the O2 generator in time, and died trying to fix it.

I think that's a brilliant case of a smaller game doing more than most bigger ones, and it isn't even scripted to do it.

Posted 3 months ago #
absolutezero
Member

Very little of the video games that appear on Kickstarter interest me. Just like someone else has mentioned the traditional tabletop games seem to be grasping the concept far better and the results they produce are reliable.

I mean look at this http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dicehateme/compounded-better-gaming-through-chemistry?ref=category

Theres almost next to nothing like this on the video game side. Its all just so... safe. Which is really not what it should have been.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

I see your point, but I think that's a result of videogames doubling down on a very narrow focus for over a decade now.

I think a lot of people would be really scared to try something truly radical, even the indies.

How do you even make a game about the activity of spying, or running for example? Who is actually teaching that? In Assassins Creed you press one button, and in Mirror's Edge you try to press the right button near a red bit, but nobody's really exploring how to make it better than that.

They're too busy doing recoils, or dying Dantes hair, or researching hyper-orgasmo-texturing.

It's just intellectual inbreeding, producing weaker and weaker offspring. You have a bit of management here and a few flight sims still holding on for dear life, but nobody's really trying to blow your mind.

I do think that Kickstarter would at least be a push in the right direction. Maybe funding a slightly zany game would lead to an even zanier one. It's not going to happen in a day, or in a year, but I think publishers on the opposite side offer all but a guarantee that it's not going to at all.

Posted 3 months ago #
GwynbleiddiuM
Member

Very interesting discussion. One other thing that comes to my mind is there are a lot of funded projects and there are a lot of people who are waiting to see the result and output of those projects. Many might even backed a few projects in the beginning only to see where it goes, they made some safe bets based on what they can expect from the devs and the potentials of their projects.

I think many of these people are waiting to see where all this will go, can they see the level of quality they anticipated or it turns out to be lower than expected.

Sadly, I can't participate in a kickstarter since I'm trapped in a place that current level of trade sanctions prevent me to obtain and use a universally accepted credit card. But, I'd have funded many of these projects, one in particular that I was real sad to see not meeting their kickstarter target was the Ground Branch, I felt terrible for not being able to pledge to that project, good thing they haven't gave up hope and they seem to be working on the game still.

Posted 3 months ago #
viralshag
Member

I think you're just looking for a new generation of game makers. Like you said, current devs on KS now want to make more of what we have seen and older devs want to re-make what's been forgotten.

Maybe the games we really want simply aren't capable at the moment due to technical limitations such as input or hardware. I think when we something more like the WiiU with a new idea or input it will open up the game space to new types of games.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

It's just not true that it isn't possible though. I've known guys who were studying computer science who were doing stuff like modelling the act of riding a bicycle in the first person. There is plenty of room to experiment, just not any ambition to do it.

If the industry could foster a multi-tier system, so it could actually have different expectations for different projects, and take a few losses without throwing their business away, then there might be room to take videogames further than a bog standard 20-30 million dollar production could, and I think those risks could turn out to benefit the entire artform going forward.

I think we're stuck making the same old games, for the same old people, instead of working to make videogames every bit as universal as music, movies or books.

I don't think I really know what kinds of games I want, that's kinda the whole point. I wish there were designers around to show me something new.

Posted 3 months ago #
absolutezero
Member

Just a couple of other points from tabletop perspective.

1. I just recently pledged towards launching a new card game (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hullbreach/hull-breach-corporate-wars?ref=category this specifically) and within about a couple of hours I had a message from the Developer asking if I had any questions about the game, where I had heard about it, what would I say they could do to get it more visibility etc etc.

I felt like my pledge actually meant something to them, the other games that I've pledged towards have also been created by the must humble and amazing people. Its a fantastic community.

2. The Community in question has embraced what can come out of Kickstarter. There are lots of videos and websites dedicated to news just like this one, most of them now have segments based around interesting projects you might have missed. Even now cool new things are being pointed out to those that might miss them.

Ok so of all the updates I have gotten from the video games I have supported alot of them are impersonal and focused on just getting whats new over to the backers, like its more of a chore than something they want to do. Even tiny small games like Knock Knock feel more like effort, theres very little interplay between the audience and the developers. I understand why thats just not possible with the huge mega funded games but even some of the smaller video games are lacking.

Then there is the complete lack of interest from most of the major game sites in pushing anything other than whats going to be fucking huge, old games developer is making a new game! Continuation of another old series made by people not involved in the first place!

Couple that with alot of our "communities" complete disdain and downright knee jerk reaction to alot of kickstarter project and its pretty obvious that nothing has really been embraced here.

Its depressing to see but I can't say I'm all that surprised.

Posted 3 months ago #
DSB
Member

I can't say I feel truly snubbed by anyone I've backed, but I agree with what you're saying. A lot of Kickstarters could do a lot more to help themselves, and engage with their customers.

The best I've seen has to be Fatshark and Krater (private fund, not a Kickstarter). Actually being in the beta with those guys on the forum felt like you mattered, criticism was always well recieved, and most posts were taken seriously. A lot of them led to actual changes within the game.

It didn't stop the game from coming up short, but I'm full of respect for those guys.

Then on the other hand you have a team like Indie Stone who obviously never grasped having to run a community, and royally fucked up as a result. They're very slow in moving builds, but that would hurt them a lot less if they knew how to communicate. As it is, they've pushed away a lot of their community, including me.

I don't think you can underestimate the value of communication in any business, it literally helps every aspect of what you're doing if the customers understand what you're doing. And yet so many companies big and small just have no clue how to connect.

PS. I also love this fucking guy:

http://nygamedev.blogspot.dk/2013/02/snowed-under.html

Posted 3 months ago #
villa_grande
Member

@SlayerGT I Agree with you..

Posted 3 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.