Takedown (Kickstarter Shooter)

[Joust Williams]

If the actual game releases at more than the donation (and your donation entitles you to the game), then that is a small reward. I don't know of any that do, though, and the quote epmode pointed out makes this project worse. An investment worth the discount on a game that might suck? Yeah ok

[Frogacuda]

So basically, you're a venture capitalist with the risk (as small as it may be) but none of the reward.

What do you mean none of the reward? I'm sure SOME of them will come out good, and some of them will come out bad. If I back four projects and two come out good, I did alright for myself, no? I get two good games that cater to my tastes that would have never existed otherwise.

If the actual game releases at more than the donation (and your donation entitles you to the game), then that is a small reward.

Well if the game is good, then it coming out at all is a reward because it wouldn't have gotten if not for people donating. As long as Kickstarter projects establish themselves as distinct from privately financed games then their mere existence is a reward.

Especially since the working method here has been to funnel all funds into development, so pledges directly make the product better. Double Fine adventure probably wouldn't have been very good if it was a $200,000 game as originally planned, but now it'll probably be a much stronger product.

[Joust Williams]

That assumes the alternative to Kickstarter is No-starter and that your donation is required.

[Frogacuda]

That assumes the alternative to Kickstarter is No-starter and that your donation is required.

Correct. And these are the projects that are going to successful on kickstarter. That's why Wasteland and Double Fine emphasized publisher rejection in their pitches. If you can't establish that, people aren't really going to want to give.

No one wants to kickstart a new Call of Duty. They'll just buy the new Call of Duty if it's good. There's no point. Kickstarter's appeal is that it broadens the spectrum a bit and allows for financially riskier projects.

[dave is ok]

What do you mean none of the reward? I'm sure some of them will come out good, and some of them will come out bad. If I back four projects and two come out good, I did alright for myself, no?

Well if the game is good, then it coming out at all is a reward because it wouldn't have if not for people donating. As long as Kickstarter projects establish themselves as distinct from privately financed games then their mere existence is a reward.

Suppose Double Fine Adventure comes out and makes 500 million dollars. One of those four people who funded 10,000 or more to make sure it exists doesn't see any of that. I know this is a very cynical way to look a website which aspires patronage on behalf of artistic creation but when you start privatizing gains while socializing losses it invites a lot of criticism. I guess that person should probably just be happy to have contributed to a game existing that might not have otherwise, but really they could argue that they should be compensated.

[epmode]

It's actually illegal to crowdsource legitimate investment in large projects so that's off the table.

[Frogacuda]

Suppose Double Fine Adventure comes out and makes 500 million dollars. One of those four people who funded 10,000 or more to make sure it exists doesn't see any of that. I know this is a very cynical way to look a website which aspires patronage on behalf of artistic creation but when you start privatizing gains while socializing losses it invites a lot of criticism. I guess that person should probably just be happy to have contributed to a game existing that might not have otherwise, but really they could argue that they should be compensated.

I'm pretty sure that the people who give $10,000 want very much for the product to make Double Fine a lot of money, and hope that such success could inspire them and others to continue to make similar products. No one is under the false impression that they are buying shares (although that's also an interesting proposal that is probably worth trying).

It's going to have a broader impact, because it's able to shine a light on the fact that companies aren't investing well. In chasing the biggest returns and trying to mitigate loss, they've oversaturated markets and made success much more difficult.

Let's just stick with Double Fine for an example. The adventure game thing is considered commercially toxic by publishers because no one has been super successful with it lately. But Brutal Legend got sold to not one but two major publishers. Brutal Legend cost $27 million to make and probably about $10 million to market. It sold 1.5 million which at $25 for the publisher per copy means they made back $37 million. So it was a wash. That game made no money.

Meanwhile if Double Fine Adventure sells the same as like... Machinarium did in its first year, something pretty modest like 300,000 copies (I'm sure it'll do more than that) it will have made $3 million, which is like a 100% ROI. People are going to see that and pay attention.

[Diff-chan]

I don't know why you think we're all a bunch of children who think every pitch is a foolproof plan and that our beliefs will be shattered the first time this is challenged.

Have you seen the Mass Effect 3 ending clown show? I think the gaming community as a whole is reaching unhinged territory. I think that when one of these games turns out shit it will get ugly (and hilarious).

[Frogacuda]

It'll get ugly for that developer, sure. I think when you do a Kickstarter, you're putting the goodwill you've earned from your audience up as collateral. And if you let people down, the backlash will be harder than it would for a privately financed misstep.

But I honestly don't think that's going to sour people on the idea of crowdsourcing as patronage. Those are two separate issues.

Where things might get ugly is when one of these gets cancelled outright. This is an especially high risk for upstart companies that don't have existing revenue streams. If Wasteland 2 or Double Fine Adventure go over-schedule/over-budget they can carry on, but if a new company does that, the lights go out or they work for free until it's done.

[Diff-chan]

But I honestly don't think that's going to sour people on the idea of crowdsourcing as patronage. Those are two separate issues.

I'm not so sure. I think a couple of mistakes will sour people on the whole concept. Stuff like Mount and Blade were funded by fans but they had a game to play in the meantime. Here, you're right - its all goodwill.

There is little doubt in my mind that DF will pull it off. They have been making these sorts of games since Brutal Legend and they are pros. I have a lot of doubts about InXile but I sure would like to see it turn out good. All these other people? Nah. I think I'll be reading a bunch of "how I screwed up my Kickstarter game and now everybody hates me" articles on Gamasutra in 2014.