Biggest Kickstarter bullshit - strech goals, so far.

[Ecster]

Did you notice both acronyms for Kickstarter and bullshit (KS & BS) differ in one letter? Here goes...

I expected KS to evolve compared to its state earlier this year. Surely, it has been evolving in multiple directions - the one most notable is project initiator cockiness when it comes to stretch goals.

Not giving out names, but when you need $70k as a base for a project, then request ~15k as a stretch goal for achievements (what's this madness? Your life without achievements is nothing! Right...), it's not funny to look at.

Furthermore, a translation costs ~15k more, another chapter ~25k, and finally, improving your GFX a bit is going to take +25k, too. Not to mention there's more.

That's greed, nothing else. Or idiocy from potential customer's / backers perspective as he lets himself to be manipulated into thinking this is "substantial progress" worth paying for. In reality - it's far from it.

Let's talk stretch goals and other issues of KS.

 

[Esotera]

Translation for a whole game is legitimately going to cost about that much (along with everything else there apart from achievements). If people pay it they'll pay it, there's no need to let it irritate you - in fact you can even cultivate a satisfying smugness that you weren't one of the stupid ones who paid for the stretch goals.

 

[Smooth Operator]

You seem to misunderstand how this thing works, no one is forced to pay an extra charge for the extras in fact stretch goals are something the community is pressuring companies into now that everyone does it.
So the actual plan for the game get's warped with demands that were never part of it, thus developers come up with things that don't really affect the designated game or mess with their schedule to complete it, as it should be.

Yes if you turn it around you can just as well claim they are demanding absurd prices for all those inconsequential features, but they are only putting them up because that is expected of campaigns and those are poor features because then they don't affect the actual game production.

 

[KazeAizen]

Did you notice both acronyms for Kickstarter and bullshit (KS & BS) differ in one letter? Here goes...

I expected KS to evolve compared to its state earlier this year. Surely, it has been evolving in multiple directions - the one most notable is project initiator cockiness when it comes to stretch goals.

Not giving out names, but when you need $70k as a base for a project, then request ~15k as a stretch goal for achievements (what's this madness? Your life without achievements is nothing! Right...), it's not funny to look at.

Furthermore, a translation costs ~15k more, another chapter ~25k, and finally, improving your GFX a bit is going to take +25k, too. Not to mention there's more.

That's greed, nothing else. Or idiocy from potential customer's / backers perspective as he lets himself to be manipulated into thinking this is "substantial progress" worth paying for. In reality - it's far from it.

Let's talk stretch goals and other issues of KS.

Do you realize what it takes to make a game and the cost of doing that? Most kickstarter games have a final product in mind when they make it. That doesn't mean that there are features they themselves wanted to put in but couldn't because of monetary constraints. Ergo we have stretch goals. The backers aren't being manipulated. If they do want to see certain happen with the product they pay more money to make it happen. Stretch goals are not an issue with Kickstarter.

 

[elvor0]

KS and BS have a one letter difference? Ooh hoo, that's a sound argument right there. Can't argue with that logic.

Okay, achievements being an extra 15k is pretty dodgy, but otherwise, game development is damn damn expensive. Stretch goals are born out of the community/the developers wanting extra stuff, and any money that goes massively over the base funding needs to be shown to be going into something or something new, because of said amounts of extra money.

And at the end of the day, once the game has it's base funding you've no reason to put any extra money in. If the community doesn't want to put money in for achievements, they wont, simple of that.

 

[Dr.Awkward]

In my opinion, the only projects that should be supported are the ones that offer no stretch goals or offer stretch goals when start when the funds reach double or triple the intended goal, and know not to offer any physical rewards for bigger backers. The goals people give on their KS projects are often already too low to fund development; making those physical rewards for big backers would for the most part lose most, all, or more than that backing, and scope creep in general is a bad thing to have in your project, especially when you make it part of a promise.

So yeah - If you want a game that understands budgeting, support a KS that isn't promising stretch goals or don't offer you something ridiculous as a reward when you send them a big wad of cash. These kind of KS projects might be the dullest-looking and least enticing ones out there, but chances are they better understand the costs of development than KS projects who offer rewards like "we'll put you in the game!" for one thousand dollars.

 

[Yopaz]

KS and BS have a one letter difference? Ooh hoo, that's a sound argument right there. Can't argue with that logic.

After this opening statement I was unable to take anything that came afterwards seriously.

I'll have to agree that I don't really like achievements, but those goals seem quite reasonable. A huge chunk of that money will serve as commission for the service and taxes. Extra chapter isn't free to make and better graphics can really cost a lot, but then again, KS and BS is so closely linked so let's just assume that all Kickstarter campaigns are all about greed and scamming backers out of their hard earned money.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well the question is, does putting achievements on steam I'm guessing this is what this is about, Cost money? Does steam make devs pay money for Achievements and trading cards? They might actually. But more people now buy games that have achievements and trading cards to make it up for bigger developers.

 

[lacktheknack]

Furthermore, a translation costs ~15k more, another chapter ~25k, and finally, improving your GFX a bit is going to take +25k, too. Not to mention there's more.

That's greed, nothing else.

Nope. You simply don't have any perspective on how much things cost.

I really wish that people would at least do a lick of research or even common-sense searching before they make blanket statements.

Do me a favor, dude... Buy RPGMaker, make your own tileset, and make your own thirty-hour game. Tally up the costs. Now consider that you used the easiest game-maker in existence and other engines actually require multiple full-time workers to use.

You have one year.

For bonus, make a Russian version of your game. You lose the bonus if the result is the equivalent of Engrish.

 

[Lyri]

Did you notice both acronyms for Kickstarter and bullshit (KS & BS) differ in one letter? Here goes...

I expected KS to evolve compared to its state earlier this year. Surely, it has been evolving in multiple directions - the one most notable is project initiator cockiness when it comes to stretch goals.

Not giving out names, but when you need $70k as a base for a project, then request ~15k as a stretch goal for achievements (what's this madness? Your life without achievements is nothing! Right...), it's not funny to look at.

Furthermore, a translation costs ~15k more, another chapter ~25k, and finally, improving your GFX a bit is going to take +25k, too. Not to mention there's more.

That's greed, nothing else. Or idiocy from potential customer's / backers perspective as he lets himself to be manipulated into thinking this is "substantial progress" worth paying for. In reality - it's far from it.

Let's talk stretch goals and other issues of KS.

How is this greed?

Stretch goals are there for investors who end up getting capitol further than they believed they would have or asked for.
Good kickstarters get more backing than they need from the public, once the goal has been reached further funding goes to extra rewards.

This is hardly greed, it is just something to give them if they achieve more than intended.

 

[Clankenbeard]

Did you notice both acronyms for Kickstarter and bullshit (KS & BS) differ in one letter? Here goes...

You will lose a lot of people's interest with this arguement. 50% of the letters are different. That is a stretch. I feel for you though. I am the worst guy ever at using metaphors to illustrate my point. But I won't stop doing it for some reason. I'm the monkey in a bathtub... Wait. Stop it.

Let's talk stretch goals and other issues of KS.

Well, let's look at it from the flip side. Suppose you had a kickstarter project to make a game. Your deliverable is an electronic copy of the game (plus some other t-shirts and autographed bullshit). This electronic download is a minimal cost item--no shipping, tiny management costs to set up the download, no real overhead. Something goes entirely right and you get a ton of people backing you for the game. You make 100% more than you expected. But you had a very specific plan for the game scope. What do you do? Your sponsors only expected a certain level of game when they donated, but they will think you are a greedy bastard if you just pocket all of that extra cash.

I think that the stretch goals may not always be the wisest selections. I think they are a way for the KS project managers to kind of cover their asses against bad feedback from their backers. Are achievements bullshit? Yeah. But people do enjoy them.

 

[Jateca]

Daft stretch goals aren't the fault of Kickstarter, only the person/company looking for funding.

They make perfect sense for games like Project Eternity and Torment: Numenera where people were throwing money at it so fast that the original goals were met almost instantly.

If a developer has said "I need X amount of money to make this game as I'm describing it now" and people pledge well over that amount then the developer needs to add stretch goals to account for the surplus money that they'd be receiving... otherwise people would question what was going to happen to that money and wonder if someone was just pocketing it. I think they're the most sensible way to achieve this.


Like any crowd-sourcing organisations, kickstarter is going to have success and failures... in terms of video games I think some of the best funded projects like Star Citizen and Broken age are very exciting, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they pan out.

 

[The Jovian]

Well the question is, does putting achievements on steam I'm guessing this is what this is about, Cost money? Does steam make devs pay money for Achievements and trading cards? They might actually. But more people now buy games that have achievements and trading cards to make it up for bigger developers.

I always assumed that creating achievements would require additional programming work. Some lines of code to track achievement progress such as "Do X number of Y" as well as lines of code to trigger the achievement when a certain prerequisite is met. So yeah, more programming = more money. Not sure if it really costs an additional 15K myself but whatever.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well the question is, does putting achievements on steam I'm guessing this is what this is about, Cost money? Does steam make devs pay money for Achievements and trading cards? They might actually. But more people now buy games that have achievements and trading cards to make it up for bigger developers.

I always assumed that creating achievements would require additional programming work. Some lines of code to track achievement progress such as "Do X number of Y" as well as lines of code to trigger the achievement when a certain prerequisite is met. So yeah, more programming = more money. Not sure if it really costs an additional 15K myself but whatever.

No but I mean having the actually have to pay to have achievement with you game. Like you have to pay Microsoft for licensing fees if you want to do a game on their console, or pay money to release a patch or update. Your probably paying someone at steam to put achievements into the steam interface, if they were just soley in the game and not on steam then it's just be the programming work.

 

[The Jovian]

Really??? Now stretch goals are evil!? Ever heard of modular design, it's where you break down design into core features (core gameplay mechanics, core story missions), and modular features (unnecessary but experience enhancing gameplay mechanics, side-quests, multiplayer modes). May I remind you that Kickstater doesn't give a cent to anyone if their campaigns fail to reach their primary goal. So it's better to make the primary goal just big enough to cover the costs of the core features, and leave the modular features for the stretch goals. That way the campaign's odds of success increase, the studio can still make a decent product, and the contributors feel like the stretch goals are worth investing more money as it means a richer experience. Star Citizen's crowdfunding campaign originally aimed for a 4 million dollar budget, everything after that (all of the additional 22 million dollars gathered ever since) were just stretch goals that exist to make the game as a whole deeper, richer and better and not because the dev team wanted to be millionaires.

Saying that stretch goals are inherently bad or always used to make more cash for the developers as opposed to the game, is a fallacy. Like with DLC and microtransactions, they are are good concepts if used correctly, if the former isn't just content cut from the game midway through production by the publisher just to get more cash, and if the latter is priced accordingly (we're talking less than 2$ apiece) and isn't Pay to Win. It's not the concepts that are inherently wrong, it's how they are used that can be wrong. Don't blame Kickstarter for people using stretch goals wrong, don't demonise the very concept of DLC or microtransactions as evil, because neither of them are inherently bad and I will not stop repeating this point until you people learn it. Blame the wrongdoers, not the concepts.

 

[Flutterguy]

I find many gaming kickstarters to be overambitious, and often seem greedy. For example I absolutely love a game that came out on steam early access a few months back. Yet roughly 3 months after release they start a kickstarter fund with a video. They liberally mention how the playerbase have not bought many skins. The writing just seemed quite whiny considering they have little to no advertising, are a new game, and are F2P meaning lots of people test the game then do not play again or have multiple accounts, which make any statistics they show pretty silly.

The quality is evident and the playerbase grows daily. However they are pretentious enough to think after a few months people will individually throw hundreds or thousands of dollars to them for skins and a forum badge? I very much like the game, but I have cut back on playing it quite a bit once they started the KS.

That being said I did fork in some cash on War for the Overworld (Dungeon Keeper 3). The goals set are reasonable, and in interviews they legitimately sound excited to continue the series, albeit under a new name due to legal issues with EA.. Fck EA.

I guess at the sum of it. When a developer is simply irresponsible. Like expecting people to spend money on aesthetics when a game just launch, then whine and ask for handouts when their unreasonable business model fails I feel no remorse. When they put in genuine effort and give reasonable goals which they can explain well without the air of greed or smugness, Then it seems pretty resonable. Also lets offer some unique rewards, have the nearest employee take me out for a beer and a happy ending for a few hundred bucks maybe.

 

[ViridianV6]

Assume a developer has two potential options relating to their Kickstarter project and that the total amount the dev thinks they need is $50,000:

Option A - The project target is set at $50,000, with a $10,000 stretch goal for achievements and a $10,000 stretch goal for minor aesthetic changes, or;

Option B - The project target is set at $50,000, with no stretch goals. The developer will not have achievements nor the aesthetic changes.

In this case, the total funding received is adequate for all needs in both projects.

Provided people do not have some irrational hatred towards the addition of achievements or optional palette swaps, Option A sounds like a much better course of action for the consumer (as they receive the stretch goals). With the developer, stretch goals help the developer reach the main target goal, so in both cases each party is better off.

Without stretch goals, the consumer suffers a greater risk that there isn't enough funding, and that the concept they are willing to back won't happen (though they do get financially reimbursed), and the developer is subject to a greater risk of not being able to make a game they like/making money.

Thus I don't really see the downside of stretch goals. I'd rather see a project earn substantially more than it's target than failing to reach it.

tl;dr: Stretch goals = good.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well it's smarter to just ask just enough for the game itself and what you need to sell it licenses and stuff. It doesn't mean they won't put achievements in later or up the graphics and what not but if they asked for 100k and failed to get that you have no game where if they hit 70k you at least have a game all be it achievement-less and without an extra chapter. Now it's not to say they won't do it later as DLC if they hit sales goals and what not.

On the other hand you have a game like Obduction which has maybe one or two stretch goals that don't really have much to nickle and dime about, But the making the game goal is 1.1 million dollars, and with about 1/3 of the kickstarter left they are about 1/3 away from the funding goal. If they managed their budget better and found ways to do the game if it at least hit 500k we'd at least know for sure the game would get made while this one is still up in the air.

 

[loa]

You're not buying a product. It's more like charity.