Takedown (Kickstarter Shooter)

[No One]

Plus I have like 0 interest in this.

Pretty much. I still really like the idea of Kickstarting games, but I'm only contributing to things I'd actually play. I saw "tactical combat simulation" and my eyes glazed over.

[Frogacuda]

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.

Yeah, maybe I should be clearer. I think that the amount of good projects coming out of it is going to affect how much and how often people give, but a couple bombs aren't going to turn people off of the whole thing if there are also good games coming out of it.

I agree about Double Fine Adventure and Wasteland, and I backed both. I'd be pretty surprised if Double Fine Adventure wasn't an amusing and well designed graphic adventure game, and I expect Wasteland 2 to be a somewhat flawed old-school affair that will hopefully at least make its target audience happy. There will be other projects that do well too though. Banner Saga has a lot of promise and there will be bigger and better projects in the months to come.

[epmode]

FTL looks rad and it's already had a successful demo: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...ter-than-light

[Hero]

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.

Because the internet, time and again, proves this to be the case with the most ardent, slavish supporters of developers.

[James]

Everyone investing in Kickstarter knows how it works, and that goes x-infinity for those investing $10,000. You can't white-knight these people. Neither the small-time $10 donators nor the $10k high rollers need it. Also, games are just a part of Kickstarter. There's a bagel shop in my area that's going to open based on a success, and I'm hoping the grain-thingy in Skowhegan manages to pull it off as well.

When you donate, you're not an investor. You can get a copy of the game, or a free bagel, or a copy of whatever is being produced at a rate that's cheaper than it'll retail for. Also, you helped something you thought was cool come to life. That's the deal, and if you don't like it, nobody's forcing the money from you. Personally, I'm more than happy to fund the projects that catch my interest.

Oh, and can someone explain the problem with this line-

$200,000 will bring TAKEDOWN to Alpha. Private investors are lined up, but unsure of the market for an old-school tac shooter. A successful Kickstarter campaign will convince them that this is a viable market. Along with their investment, pre-sales of the game (A $15 Kickstarter pledge is a significant discount on the final game price) will also contribute to completion of the project. Kickstarters will have access to a closed Alpha.

The game will cost more than $15 when it comes out. A $15 donation gets you a copy of the game. This is a significant discount over its planned final price. This is how almost every project on Kickstarter works. Where's the problem?

James

[Joust Williams]

I misread it. I originally read it as "The game is going to cost X but your donation will allow you to get it for less" and not "The donation sufficiently pays for the game and therefore is a discount". The former being a sunk cost that can help you get the game but not pay for it fully and the latter the entirety of the cost.

[dave is ok]

When you donate, you're not an investor. You can get a copy of the game, or a free bagel, or a copy of whatever is being produced at a rate that's cheaper than it'll retail for. Also, you helped something you thought was cool come to life. That's the deal, and if you don't like it, nobody's forcing the money from you.

So, like I said, privatized gains and socialized losses.

That's always a shitty system to me - no matter who is doing it.

[epmode]

It's not ideal. But if it's a choice between a game existing or not, I'll take it.

[Frogacuda]

So, like I said, privatized gains and socialized losses.

That's always a shitty system to me - no matter who is doing it.

Why? How is it any different from a patron commissioning a work from an artist?

You can't say "no matter who is doing it." It does matter who is doing it, because in this case people are only giving to people who they want to help. It's quite the point, in fact.

[dave is ok]

Why? How is it any different from a patron commissioning a work from an artist?.

Really? That isn't obvious to you?

I guess for the people paying the cost of the game - it's not too different at all. You're just preordering from the source instead of some retail chain and giving the actual creator some capital to play around with. But for the people who are funding the development of something with thousands of dollars, it's different than buying a painting from an artist - at least in my eyes. You're helping to fund a commercial product which will be sold on a scale much larger than a commissioned painting.