Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
August 1, 2014
arrowPress Releases
August 1, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


Ask Gamasutra: Should I do a Kickstarter campaign?
Ask Gamasutra: Should I do a Kickstarter campaign?
April 27, 2012 | By Staff

April 27, 2012 | By Staff
Comments
    31 comments
More:



Ask Gamasutra is a monthly column that takes issues from within the video game industry, and poses them as a question to the editorial staff.

In contributing to this article, none of the editors read each other's responses. This is not about collaboration, but about the unique perspective that each individual Gamasutra editor offers.

For our latest edition of Ask Gamasutra, we tackled a topic that seems to be here to stay: the rise of game campaigns on crowdfunding site Kickstarter.

Crowdfunding for games on Kickstarter has existed for years, but it wasn't until March this year that Double Fine and Tim Schafer launched a campaign that blew apart any preconceived notions about what's possible on the service with a record-breaking campaign that hit $3.3 million, way above the $400,000 goal.

Since then, we've seen Brian Fargo's $2.9 million campaign for Wasteland 2, and other game projects that got well-past their goals. Games are now a key part of Kickstarter's business. The organization said that in the month before Double Fine's campaign, the video game category averaged 629 pledges a week; after Double Fine's debut, that number jumped to 9,755 (excluding the pledges that went to Double Fine itself).

But with all of crowdfunding's promise, success is not automatic, and nothing is for certain. So the question this month for Gamasutra and Game Developer magazine editors is: I want to make a game, and I'm looking for funding. Under what circumstances should I put my game on Kickstarter? When shouldn't I?

Kris Graft
Editor-in-Chief

Twitter: @krisgraft

One basic criterion you should meet as a potential Kickstarter campaigner is to be mentally prepared. Be ready to expose yourself -- your passion, your workmanship, your talent -- in front of a bunch of people from whom you'll be asking money. I say this because judging from Kickstarter campaigners I know, or those who I follow, it's clearly a humbling experience, laying yourself bare in that way, whether your campaign is a success or a failure.

Besides that, ask yourself about the game and the pitch. Do people want this game -- is there a demand? Why would someone want to give me money for this? Are there enough people out there as passionate about this project as I am? Will the minimum goal give me the resources I need? Do I have enough of the game ready to show to make a strong impression in the pitch? Is my name "Tim Schafer" or "Brian Fargo"? If you can answer all of these questions positively, you might have a shot. If not, find out ways to remedy those issues or look for other means of funding.

It all sounds obvious, right? Well, take a look at some failed or failing campaigns to see just how obvious it really is.

Right now, there's this bootstrapper's fantasy surrounding Kickstarter. But everyone needs to keep in mind that, currently, all of the celebration around crowdfunding is not about a great new game that now exists because of the passion of many. The celebration and excitement revolves around a new way to get money.

That totally warrants celebration and excitement, but until we see a pile of great results in the form of incredible games, I'll be cautiously optimistic. Because if there's one thing that will pop the Kickstarter bubble and bring us all back to earth, it's a slew of Kickstarter-funded games that suck.

Leigh Alexander
Editor-at-Large

Twitter: @leighalexander

I often feel worried that the Kickstarter boom has inured people to the idea of supporting any old cool project just because the risk is low and everyone feels good about it. I remember deciding on a whim to Kickstart a project that would create mini glass sphere tanks with little individual jellyfish inside, because at that minute I kind of wanted such a thing. I was happy to throw money at developers I liked and just felt in general like rooting for, even if their game wasn't something that I'd ever want to play myself. I wouldn't use Kickstarter like that anymore, and I think increasingly few others would either.

That said, I think there's a really great opportunity for very specific projects to be matched to very specific allies. I see that every dev team, no matter how big or small, thinks their ream project is the coolest or most original idea ever, but I almost feel resentful when I see people trying to crowdfund another fantasy RTS or something like that. The reason publishers didn't give you money for that was because it wasn't original or competitive, so don't ask us! I think if you want to put your project on Kickstarter, you should ask yourself: Is this (like Double Fine Adventure!) something people have been longing for that market conditions prevent from easily flowering, or is it just that you need money and you hope you can convince others to support you?

If you're going to use Kickstarter you should know your specific audience and feel passionate about bringing them something specific that they can't get any other way. That's the real reward I feel from backing projects -- I couldn't care less about incentives.

Brandon Sheffield
Sr. Editor Gamasutra; EIC, Game Developer

Twitter: @necrosofty

Kickstarter is an interesting beast. If you're a developer with a big name, like Tim Schafer, or have a property people want to see return, like Wasteland, you are pretty much in the clear. You will be supported, people will get excited. But if people don't really know you, and if you are working on a new property, you need to show a lot of progress before you are going to get much success.

Banner Saga is a good example of the latter. Though the developers are seasoned, they're not "big names." The IP is new - but before launching, they had already created a tone, a gorgeous 2D art style, and, most importantly, a really good video that showed the team knew exactly where they were going, and how they'd get there. The reward tiers were also very intelligent, with something new and interesting at every level, many of which create buy-in from consumers (such as the ability to create a custom emblem in-game).

You should not go to Kickstarter with your game if you're missing any of that. Make sure that's all locked down first. It's also got to be something people want. The Class of Heroes 2 Kickstarter was ill-advised because it was not only backing a sequel to a low-rated game, it's a lot of money to release a special edition of a game that the company plans to release digitally anyway. That kills the hook!

A new Kickstarter from a bunch of ex-Atari guys just came out, asking for people to back Gubble 3D, a spiritual successor to Crystal Castles from the original creators. It's a neat idea, and its heart is in the right place. But it lacks the direction, rewards, and the sense of progress some of these other campaigns have. Think of your Kickstarter as a pitch. Find your hook, find out why people want it (and on what platform!), how much it will really cost, and you'll be there.

Patrick Miller
Editor, Game Developer magazine

Twitter: @pattheflip

Personally, the recent Kickstarter rush has left me both excited and worried. I'm excited to see what kind of games will get crowdfunded in the future, and I'm worried that we're going to see a lot of people who put money into pie-in-the-sky projects get burned and turn others off from donating. If you don't want your game to be the project that ruins it for everyone, don't start a Kickstarter pitch unless you have experience, moderation, and a damn good hook.

The damn good hook is pretty much what separates a cool Kickstarter project from a cool game ideaThe reason Double Fine Adventure, Wasteland 2, and Shadowrun Returns all took off was because a lot of us played adventure games, Wasteland, and Shadowrun back in the day and simply haven't been happy with how they were handled (or not handled) since.

Experience should be pretty obvious. I've seen some Kickstarters that basically looked like a high school kid wanted to pull in $20,000 for a game built in RPG Maker. Throwing around your team's names (and prior work) can do a lot to assure potential backers and make you look more professional.

Moderation is important because I actually don't want to be promised the moon when I'm thinking of backing your project. I want to be assured that your development team has a strict guiding vision for the game you're making, and that you're not going to indulge out-of-control feature creep in order to try and get more money. One thing you can do to make your Kickstarter seem more responsible is to keep your goals relatively reasonable from the very beginning; the Leisure Suit Larry Kickstarter, for example, isn't about making a new Leisure Suit Larry game, just remaking the original, which is a significantly easier undertaking.

Christian Nutt
Features Director

Twitter: @ferricide

Well, it seems like the easiest path to success on Kickstarter is to be an established name, creating a new entry in a neglected, fan-favorite genre or franchise, and with a fantastic pitch. Yeah, that's not exactly most of the people who will be reading this, but pulling that apart is instructive about what really drives people to contribute to these things.

The fact of the matter is that Kickstarters are flying right and left, and I often merely glance at them before closing the tab. I think it's because to contribute, the pitch has to mean something to me: I have to feel some sort of deep connection to either the game, the creators, or the subject matter to want to get involved. Often I smile and think, "Yes, but would I actually play it?" Too many Kickstarters seem like charities to me.

You definitely shouldn't put your game on Kickstarter before you have something compelling to show people: a pitch movie and great concepts. You also probably shouldn't ask for money until you're at the point where the contributions will carry you to completion on at least one platform, because otherwise it seems like people don't get any return on their investment in you.

Mike Rose
UK Editor

Twitter: @RaveofRavendale

Since Tim Schafer showed what having a name that everybody knows can do for a Kickstarter project, there's been a notable influx on developers taking to Kickstarter to fund their projects. Unfortunately, a good portion of these saw how much Schafer made and subsequently set their sights too high, with ridiculous funding targets for relatively unknown teams.

I think there are a wide range of circumstances under which Kickstarter can be utilized, but the real question is: are you sure you are in the right frame of mind to use the service in the first place? Are your expectations of what you could potentially achieve correct? Is your idea or current content for a game solid enough that people are going to care?

If you're a developer looking to fire off a Kickstarter, it's essential that you heavily research past Kickstarters first. Look at Kickstarters for projects similar to yours, look at their targets and their initial content, look at how well known or completely unknown these studios are, then compare all this with your own ambitions, and set yourself a realistic target based on how much it appears that people are willing to pay. If this target doesn't match what you believe you're going to need, then it may well be that Kickstarter isn't the avenue for you.

Eric Caoili
News Editor

Twitter: @tinycartridge

If you're a developer who's shipped interesting games in the past, whether as an indie or as part of a large studio, and if you have a unique idea that fulfills a niche but no publishers or investors are willing to back, I see little reason why you shouldn't resort to Kickstarter.

But if you haven't put out a game worth mentioning, or if you haven't shipped anything at all, I think you really need to spend time first to prove you can execute an idea, and won't waste the faith and donations that contributors have placed in your project.. And if your idea isn't more than a remix of genres, or isn't something you can define an audience for, it will be difficult for your Kickstarter to stand out from the dozens of other game projects competing for donations each week.

Even if you can't find a publisher or investor, before turning to Kickstarter, it's worth considering taking on contract jobs to self-fund the project if possible. Almost Human (Legend of Grimrock) took that route to fund its first game, and the team noted that it was able to use those jobs as opportunities to learn how to work together and develop their pipeline -- as a result, they were able to put out a commercially successful, polished product with a limited budget and just 10 months of development time.

Tom Curtis
News Editor

Twitter: @thomascurtis

If you look at the recent success stories on Kickstarter, it seems that the biggest and most successful projects are those with a bit of a pedigree. Double Fine Adventure, Wasteland 2, even startup indie games like The Banner Saga are all examples of hit projects created by experienced and respected developers. Given this pattern of success, it seems to me that Kickstarter works best for developers that have already proven themselves elsewhere.

Of course, that's not to say it's impossible for newcomers to make it on Kickstarter, but it's going to be much more difficult. If you put your game on Kickstarter and you don't have a legacy to build on, everything's going to depend on your initial pitch -- so you better make sure you're a good salesman. But even then, with no past work to examine, your potential backers can't really be sure that you'll be able to deliver on that promise. If you ask me, I'd say Kickstarter is a perfect fit for established developers looking to take their career in a new direction, but if you're just starting out, you might want to consider a different approach.

Frank Cifaldi
News Director

Twitter: @frankcifaldi

The generosity that Kickstarter backers have shown game projects lately makes me wonder if ANYTHING that seems to be real quality work is outside of its bounds. I can't say I was surprised by Double Fine, but I'd be lying if I said that I predicted Wasteland 2 would hit its $900,000 goal, let alone more than triple it.

That said, I've seen some really great people post some really misguided projects, so there's still some room for error here. If you were to ask my advice (and I suppose you are), I'd say, bring your "A" game. Bring that project that you feel passionate about, that dream game that you just know would be a success if you could just get it out the door.

The art of the pitch is just as important in a Kickstarter video, except your backers here are looking way more at your passion and drive than they are at your financial model. Believe in your product, and make me believe in your product, and for God's sake, offer a low-level digital download tier.

Chris Morris
Editor-at-Large

Twitter: @MorrisatLarge

For every Kickstarter I see that has an established name or fanbase behind it, there are a dozen or more who fall short. And with the successes we've seen, it's getting even harder to stand out from the crowd. It would seem to make sense, then, that Kickstarter shouldn't be the start of your campaign to launch a game, but rather the end of it.

If you've never made a game before, asking people to donate to it is an uphill -- often impossible -- battle. Track records, though, turn heads. Whether you were a key part of a team behind a well-known console or PC title or have a semi-successful iOS game under your belt, show your investors that you know how to produce.

Factor in also whether the money you raise on Kickstarter will be sufficient, even if you meet your goals (after taxes, nonpayments, etc.). Poor business management in this case can be just as fatal to your professional reputation as a bad game.


Related Jobs

Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States
[08.01.14]

Senior Online Programmer - Central Tech Online
Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States
[08.01.14]

Online Programmer - Central Tech Online
Raven Software / Activision
Raven Software / Activision — Santa Monica, California, United States
[08.01.14]

Technical Director - Central Tech Online
Vicarious Visions / Activision
Vicarious Visions / Activision — Albany, New York, United States
[08.01.14]

Environment Artist-Vicarious Visions










Comments


Ron Dippold
profile image
I've funded several (and not funded more). There are two factors I weigh on any Kickstarter:

#1 Do I want what you're promising
#2 Do I think you can deliver?

#2 is where you can get away with showing less up front if you have a track record. Otherwise you better have plenty to show and a reasonable plan.

Unspoken #3 is I also have to find out about it in the first place.

Evgeniy Kolpakov
profile image
Wish everyone had same factors and make a research about game described and developers, that's making it.

Daniel Martinez
profile image
You better be able to deliver if your project gets funded. Generating funds is a matter of marketing. Justifying those funds is a matter of following through. If only politicians could get No.2 down instead of feeding people No.2... Okay I'm done. Seriously though, following through is paramount.

Brian Taylor
profile image
This is exactly why I don't see how anybody could do this. It's a neat idea sure, but what if (like you said) you fail to deliver? Then you basically lose everything you just had and everyone who supported you. Too risky lol

Aleksander Adamkiewicz
profile image
Brian, the same applies to -all- models you want to fund your project with.
If you go for angel investors and don't deliver, you get blacklisted from their services.
If you find a publisher and don't deliver, you will never find a job in the industry again.

The only positive with having investors or publishers is that they will often double-check your finances and keep a -very- close eye on you so they will get their return, this might motivate you to deliver.
They will also secure themselves with contracts that will leave you completely bankrupt in case you don't deliver.

Actually Kickstarter is the ultimate weapon for slackers, there is little to no risk for the creator of the project to actually deliver. The risk is far lower than with a publisher or investor.

Crowdsourcing is in my opinion the perfect way to conduct business as long as both parties -understand- the risk they are taking.
The risk on both sides gets significantly lowered actually.

Adam Bishop
profile image
Kickstarter is essentially an unusual combination of pre-order, patronage, and commissions. As a result, I don't think it's enough to simply present a game that people think would be fun to play. Lots of people may think the game would be fun, and might even be interested in buying it, but why should they give you money before you've got a game to give them? As a result, it's not enough to make people want to pay for the game, you've got to make them think the project is so great that they would hate to be the reason it didn't get released at all.

For example, I saw one Kickstarter today that I thought might turn out to be kind of fun, but my thought process was essentially "That looks neat. Hope it hits the target so I can check it out next year." The Shadowrun Kickstarter, on the other hand, got this response from me: "Dude! I've always wanted someone to make a Shadowrun RPG where you get to put together a team of runners to complete RPG missions with! And now I've got the chance to help make it actually happen! This is awesome!" It should go without saying that I gave no money to the former and was happy to support the latter.

Daniel Martinez
profile image
So at face value it seems like demand was the determining factor in your decision. The first example was something you were not demanding, whereas the second did a lot more than just pique your interest; it compelled you to dig into your pockets and contribute. Now I have to ask, how confident are you in the delivery of the final product? Was the guarantee that the team will deliver a factor you did not give much importance to because you were simply so moved by the initial concept that you needed no further evidence to be presented, or did you research the project and take a few minuts or hours to deliberate in your head? I suppose the amount you donated would also have to do with how much thought you put into it as well.

Daniel Gooding
profile image
The thing i've noticed with the winning kickstarters is they usually have nice options for pledge rewards.

If you look at double fines rewards, each tier seems very well thought out, and seemingly a good value for each tier, and they intelligently put limits to how many people could buy the tiers that might cost them a chunk of money to provide.

Wasteland took what Double Fine did, and took it even grander with their tiers, and rewards.

Jacob Germany
profile image
The tiers are much more important than people seem to be willing to admit.

Ron Dippold
profile image
HOW to run a Kickstarter campaign should a completely separate topic. I agree with what you said - I gave $100 to each before they were funded because it was worth that to me to get the games made. But once it's funded, what's your incentive besides tribe mentality? Exclusives for backers. Early access! Collectibles! Lunch with Tim!

Go for tightly spaced tiers because then there's not much marginal cost for the backer to go to the next level. And you might as well go for the ridiculous high tiers because people might go for it. It also makes the 'lower' tiers look more affordable. I admit that even though I knew the psychology of it I could go 'fffft only $100' after seeing the $10K tiers.

I think the single most important thing, though, once you hit your funding in the first place, is the promise of more virtual funding levels. This makes your roof the sky, makes new people more like to keep funding and fund more than purchase price, and make current funders up their funding (and get referrals). Wasteland 2 really milked this as well, as did Order of the Stick, and several other huge funding successes. A simple 'Hey, if we hit $900k we'll make a Mac version' is not literally priceless, but maybe worth twice your funding goal!

Jeremy Reaban
profile image
One thing that I think WL did well was playing to people's egos.

For X (usually quite a bit) amount of money, you could get yourself in the game as an NPC. Or a statue. Or an item.

I mean, they had 147 people pony up $1000 each to become NPCs. That's amazing. 9 people pledged $5000 to be statues, and 12 pledged $10,000 a pop to have shrines.

On the other hand, in Shadowrun, they tried somewhat similar, but had lesser results - only 37 people paid $1000 to be NPCs. But the higher levels didn't really expand on the concept much.

Daniel Gooding
profile image
@Jeremy
Paying money to get fancy gear, and Mounts in an MMO to me feels like an ego purchase.
Paying money to be immortalized as an NPC/Object into a recreation of a childhood memory that you could never be part of feels more like emotional transference of wanting to be part of that world.

I think people starting a kickstarter campaign for a new IP should be aware of this before offering such rewards.

For example. Now that the Space Quest creators are making a new IP. IF they did do a kickstarter. Would you be more likely to pay to be an NPC if you didn't have an attachment to that NPC. Or if they were to recreate Scumsoft from SQ3, and let you be immortalized as a frustrated Scumsoft employee.

Just imagine how much Wing Commanders creators could charge to let a few lucky people be Wingmen, let them choose their own handle, and even have the wingman bag some Kilrathi on an important mission.

Jayna Pavlin
profile image
Kickstarter is great but I think you really have to drum up a reputation and social network to really make it work for you. There have been some great ideas that have come out though with a solid pitch behind them. I think the merit of an idea is whether it gets people excited.

Michael Joseph
profile image
Would it be a worthwhile idea for Kickstarter to allow for some sort of milestone schedule for developers to declare and then meet in order for a percentage of the funding to be dispersed up to the full amount on final delivery? Might be a headache for the people working at Kickstarter if they are also charged with determining whether a project has met a given milestone. But then they could also charge the fund raisers more. Then again some developer might decide to sue if they're in disagreement with Kickstarter's verdict on a milestone.

The advantage to developers is they get more backers because the risk to individual backers is decreased. The advantage to the backers is they know the developers have heavy incentive to make good on their promises. If the project falls too far behind on it's milestones, the remainder of the funding can be withheld and the backers recover some of their investment.


Aleksander Adamkiewicz
profile image
I find little in this proposal, essentially Kickstarters role would then change from facilitator to de-facto investor with a legal responsibility to fact-check both the backers and the creator.

Kickstarter only exists -because- the company/website itself does -not- intervene in the projects and stays neutral on grounds of delivery and fulfillment.

It would be like ebay being responsible for the quality of the product displayed on their website.

Aleksander Adamkiewicz
profile image
The problem with how Kickstarter is popularized right now is that people think paying the money to the project should have a realistic return.
This is relatively easy to do for digital products. Made a videogame? Here, have a free digital copy for 15$!
After all, digital copies have a production cost of 0$.

This breeds the wrong expectation that you should get your moneys worth for your pledge.
I know we are on a videogames site, but for physical projects this becomes impossible to manage.
Consider a project that needs to produce something physical for their tier, like a cardgame.
The production costs (printing, shipping, etc) will cut into your pledges and you will need either more pledges than normal, or you will need to up the pledge-price for the physical tiers, which means they will be less popular because people will not think they get their moneys worth for it.

I calculated this and its really hard to find a balance between pledges, production cost and limited tiers.
Add to that the profit kickstarter takes from the pledges and you could end up in a situation that you will only get around 50% of your pledges as net worth that you can actually utilize for development.

My physical project at 3000$ will only get me ~1500$ of actual money i can use for the development, which is very little for what I want to do.
It would be unrealistic to bump the price higher for the project (which scales poorly with production cost) because i will never reach it without major publicity.

Thankfully even my physical project offers a digital component for the lower tiers.
I can't imagine how someone would want to make something like a boardgame where the production-cost is even higher....

Thomas Grove
profile image
David Sirlin seems to be able to find the right tier prices for his physical board game. He's already published versions of this game before, and he was a math and business major, so I'm pretty sure that his numbers are spot on.

The project is currently 250% funded with 17 days left. http://kck.st/HPwjZ4

Aleksander Adamkiewicz
profile image
Absolutely, most of his backers went for the 135$ tier, not to mention the man has a track record of successful games and industry experience.

Terry Reine
profile image
It is fascinating how it appears to be working and I do believe a lot of the success is being driven by known IP or developers with strong histories. I am amazed at how rapidly it has grown. In most cases I wouldn't rely on it as your only source of income but rather a way to supplement existing funding to add that extra spark or touch to make a great game. Thomas mentioned David Sirlin' success in a board game above and Steve Jackson has been doing phenomenally as well with his kickstart http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/847271320/ogre-designers-edit
ion. Since he is a know quantity in delivering games and the basic game itself is well know and loved the enhanced remake has really gathered a quick following. They started out with a $20k goal and are now at 340K.

Maria Jayne
profile image
It's all great until somebody produces a dissapointing product, then the player/investors will realise how much all their hopes were on words. Then again, I suppose it hasn't stopped big publishers churning out yearly crap that sells so maybe I'm giving people too much credit!

Isaiah Taylor
profile image
Off topic: I still think something tawdry occurred between Cifaldi and Sonic.

Kris Graft
profile image
If only you knew whose hand was on Chris Morris' shoulder...

(thanks for the comments everyone!)

sean lindskog
profile image
One important one I'm surprised wasn't mentioned.

Should I do a Kickstarter campaign?
Maybe. But only if you are American.

James Coote
profile image
I would like to see a lot more people use crowd-funding to kick-finish; get a project over the finish line where a developer has done as much as they reasonably can without funding.

I also want to see more crowd-funded DLC / expansions. Developers saying "We will add this feature if enough people want it enough to pay us to make it". That way, players can support their favorite devs/games and everyone benefits, not just those who have made an IAP

The Le
profile image
Sadly, most of the editors in the article are saying that a kickstarter game must be (1) new and unique (2) attached to a big name like Brian Fargo.

It's really a damn shame because a website like this should be encouraging new developers to bring new games to the marketplace. Sadly, this article is extremely negative towards people who want to try a kickstarter project.

Lars Doucet
profile image
You don't have to have a big name - but you do have to have an established track record.

And track record doesn't have to mean "has shipped 6 AAA titles."

Seriously, even being able to point to a few small indie games that you've started and *finished* would make me way more likely to fund your kickstarter project than if you just pitch an idea. Having a playable prototype serves much the same purposes - hence the success of the FTL guys.

I'm sure the fact they won IGF China makes a difference for some people, but I personally couldn't care care less - the playable prototype established their cred for me.

Kris Graft
profile image
@"The"

For some editors, that's kind of what it boils down to for them (your two points), but if you read the whole article, our opinions do vary.

Also, I think you (kind of accidentally) raise an interesting point when you say we "should be encouraging new developers to bring new games to the marketplace."

Of course we want that, and we actually do encourage that. But why do you automatically assume that if an editor says "Kickstarter is not the right way to go," it must mean that person doesn't want new things in the marketplace?

Indies and interesting ideas existed in the marketplace before Kickstarter, and this automatic reaction of "I have an idea, I'm going to Kickstart it!" is exactly why we thought this was a good question to answer. It's simply not the best route for everyone. As great as Kickstarter is (I'm a fan!), it's not automatically the answer, unfortunately. It's just another (exciting) funding option to explore and take seriously.

Kevin Alexander
profile image
My biggest concern that interests me regarding all these kickstarters is, people seem to be overlooking a very tempering sentiment when it comes to development.

The Idea, and the Money belong on one side of the problem.... But on the other exists the notion that you have to successfully get creative people together, to play nice, and execute on the ideas in question to completion.

I would argue the latter is more significant when it comes to making great games than the former. While true, you can't really have one without the other, but getting games to ship is not ever just a money problem.

I won't be surprised if many of these projects run into problems again and they have to try to dip back into the well for more money when things run on past deadlines, the have team building issues, and they out budget themselves.

Lance Thornblad
profile image
This is a good point and unfortunately, scenarios like this will end up hurting the entire crowd-funding process.

Tim Lang
profile image
Given the recent problems Mass Effect 3 had with their ending, how soon before a Kickstarter investor sues the company because the game that got made doesn't fit their expectations?

Eugene Zhukov
profile image
After reading opinions and answers I'm getting strange feeling - why nobody say about promotion? Kickstarter is kind of online show. And we found, that the price of tier is not the key, but promotion is the key.Having a great idea, good presentation of the project and even (!!!) playable demo we encountered the total ignorance of the project by ALL and ANY mass media. Every second new backer asks us: why didn't you send press release to Rock Paper Shotgun, Total Biscuit and other game review sites? But we DID that! And got NO response during a month. Maybe somebody could explain, where we are wrong? Here is a project page: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/digitilus/skyjacker

[Update] - Finally we got attention of mass media. Blue's News and Rock Paper Shotgun were the first two! It was like an explosion after their publication :))


none
 
Comment: