do you think Kickstarter justified itself as valid alternative for game funding this year?

[NuclearKangaroo]

i mean, lets take a look at some of the kickstarter games released this year

Broken Age
The Banner Saga
Xenonauts
Shovel Knight
Divinity: Original Sin
Mercenary Kings

all released with favorable critical acclaim, and a couple of big hitters, wasteland 2 and pillars of eternity will also be released later this year

so, do you think kickstarter is a gimmick or is it here to stay?

 

[veloper]

Let's wait till the end of this year first.

Xenonauts doesn't really count as a great example, because it started on paypal donations and Desura and only went to Kickstarter when it was well underway.
Likewise Divinity, was already funded and going to be published for sure, before Larian did a kickstarter to fund only some extra features.

All the big ones are still in the pipeline: Torment, Wasteland 2, Eternity, Elite and the 2nd half of Broken Age.

Kickstarter is very promising, but I think it may still blow up.

 

[Entitled]

Not yet, but I believe it will.

Right now, the public is still too muddled between crowdfunding being a form of donation, or a form of preordering. (not to mention the sillier ideas about it being an investment, or Kickstarter being a store).

We need some time until these two ideas separate from each other. They both have a legitimate reason to exist, but possibly or different platforms, with different contracts to the backer.

I like the idea of throwing money in the general direction of no-name amateurs with great ideas, and see what happens. But I also like the idea of Obsidian or InXile gathering a few million dollars and working on an industrial-scale project, that otherwise couldn't materialize, and with them being an accountable service provider with customers.

 

[Vegosiux]

Not really, the way I see it for now is as a glorified pre-order platform, only that you're pre-ordrering something that didn't even make it out of concept stage yet.

Basically what Entitled above me said.

 

[Zhukov]

Nope.

Not yet at any rate.

Broken Age was disappointing and kinda serves as warning of the vagaries of Kickstarter. I mean, they got way more funding than they originally asked for and they still only managed to release half the damn game. And this was a project by industry veterans, people who should know what they're doing, not stary-eyed newbies. Gosh, it's almost as if they could have used a bit of financial oversight.

Xenonauts, AKA Let's Just Make X-Com Again.

Banner Saga was okay I guess. Some iffy design decisions and it was pushing hard against the limits of its budget. But at least it was a new IP and they managed to get the whole thing done and out the door.

What else? Some beepy-boopy platformer?

Haven't played Divinity.

I dunno. I was hoping Kickstarter would be a place where risky and interesting ideas could go and have a chance without being strangled in the crib by risk-averse, penny-pinching publishers. Instead it's just been turning out sequels, nostalgia bait and imitations. It's like the AAA market but smaller.

Colour me vaguely disappointed.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Seeing as crowdfunding has nearly given Chris Roberts 50 million dollars to make the game I've been waiting a decade for, I'd say I'm on-board with it as a funding model. I'll admit it has its problems and there is a big danger that you might be taken for a ride or that the features you were promised don't appear. But as far as alternatives to traditional publisher models go, I can't say I hate it.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

The subject is asking an incorrect question. Kickstarter doesn't need "justification" or "validation" or whatever else. It exists, it has already proven itself as a platform for projects which traditional avenues for funding don't support. There have been successes in every category from video games, technology, books, music and film.

So the question being asked is moot. It is irrelevant whether anyone thinks it's "justified" or not, it is proven to have worked on multiple occasions. The only question left to ask is whether an individual "likes" or "approves of" it or not.

I have backed multiple projects of which most are yet to be released but under development (Torment: ToN, Pillars of Eternity, Dreamfall Chapters, Star Citizen, Wasteland 2), at least one has (Legends of Dawn) and some sadly never made the cut. In addition, games that were Kickstarted (and which I bought but didn't back) have enjoyed full releases included FTL, Shadowrun Returns, Divinity: Original Sin and others.

Kickstarter is unquestionably a solution for getting games made that AAA publishers/venture capitalists won't fund. Could some prove to be a con? Yes. Could some fail to deliver? Yes. Could some of the games be crap? Yes. Doesn't make any difference. People above can umm, err, hedge and sit on the fence, it doesn't matter. Games have already been funded, developed and released thru KS while you're still asking "Can it work?"

 

[MintSM]

Like pretty much everything new-media that spreads for one reason or another, Kickstarter can be used properly or poorly. Whether you consider it a valid alternative for game funding (BTW, valid 'alternative?' How does that work?), it's here to stay to be used either well or not well.

Or by creepy buggers who make Chris-Chan look sane. [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/973736766/cybermatrix-100-u01]

 

[Bonk4licious]

It's certainly proved that it can get the funding required for a game, but since validity of a producer is defined by the producer on Kickstarter I think it leads to a lot of problems with over-funding of under-scoped projects. In the future, I'll definitely need a bit more than just a couple videos or a short demo before funding a project.

Some projects are working well, like Elite: Dangerous and Double Fine's project, but overall I don't think it's doing a lot of good for indie developers to get their funding too early on without a lot to show for what they would be doing.

 

[Lodgem]

I think that Kickstarter is a viable funding model for games, but my concern with it is that I think that there are some people who don't seem to understand the risk involved.

If I pre-order a game then I can be reasonably certain of what kind of game I'm buying. I'd also be extremely certain that the game will be released. If it is cancelled that late in development then I'd expect to get my money back.

If I back a Kickstarter game (and I've backed a few) then I have to acknowledge that I'm not buying a guarantee of a finished product, but investing in a development idea where the expected return is a completed game. If the game doesn't turn out as I expected when I backed it, or if the development team fails to deliver, then I'd have wasted my money.

I don't know what the official Kickstarter policy is for failed projects, but I wouldn't expect a refund. Kickstarter has the potential to be very positive, but back at your own risk.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

This is really on the fence. On one side, an indie dev can get the funding to start a project well within their capabilities. Or, it can show unsure investors that a project by a bigger dev has enough demand to generate a good return, and the money from kickstarter will help the budget.

On the other side, there's always the chance that even a project that has met its goal can and up failing. That Yogscast game didn't get very far since they never asked for enough to make it to begin with. The only things backer are getting from that deal is a free game the dev will make sometime in the future and lessons in game making economics.

There is also those scams. Most are obvious, but they still can try to trick enough people and run off with the dough before kickstarter stops them. There was one where a guy said he was going to make the next Half-Life since Valve wasn't, calling it Halflife 3 and saying he got a group of six people working on it. If that wasn't enough to raise every red flag in existence, the goal was just $3000.

Great things can come from crowd sourcing. Backers just have to be cautious. If it wasn't for kickstarter, Kenji Inafune probably wouldn't be able to make Mighty No. 9(AKA the only Mega Man we'll see for probably a long time, since Capcom are idiots).

 

[Googenstien]

Its a tool that is being abused and flooding the market with alot of crap and yes some games come out good, but most will not and end up wasting peoples money way before a finished product is released and able to be judged/reviewed then

 

[Lotet]

Its a tool that is being abused and flooding the market with alot of crap and yes some games come out good, but most will not and end up wasting peoples money way before a finished product is released and able to be judged/reviewed then

What? Most funded Kickstarter games won't come out decent? Or are you saying most won't come out at all? Is this statement based on knowledge or ignorance?

Like, you follow these games or are you guessing?

 

[William Fleming]

Like pretty much everything new-media that spreads for one reason or another, Kickstarter can be used properly or poorly. Whether you consider it a valid alternative for game funding (BTW, valid 'alternative?' How does that work?), it's here to stay to be used either well or not well.

Or by creepy buggers who make Chris-Chan look sane. [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/973736766/cybermatrix-100-u01]

You know the weird thing is that it got funded with $500 3rd time round. [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/973736766/the-cybermatrix-100-tu01?play=video_pitch&ref=users]

OT: Stuff like this is why I actually kind of hate Kickstarter. Talentless hacks can go set up a page and if people are fooled enough then they can basically walk off with what they asked for, be unable to complete the project and pretty much anyone who donated just through their money down the toilet. There are legit and good ideas that publishers refuse to fund and then they go to Kickstarter to get the needed funds and turn out an awesome product. Unfortunately, you kind of have to wade through a good amount of shit like this [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/310237227/thomas-the-tank-engine-themed-rpg?ref=discovery] until you get something good.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It has demonstrated that it is a valid avenue of funding by having funded projects to a combined tune of countless millions of dollars.

That said, Kickstarter, like Steam's Early Access, is a fundamental problem. This is an industry where people, for one reason or another, regularly fail to deliver on promises to the consumer. By asking for money from a consumer rather than some third party funding source, developers ask a wholly unqualified people to assume significant (not generally on a personal scale) financial risk on their behalf while being entirely free of any obligation to deliver on any particular promise they might make. The consumer assumes this risk and, at best, will get a game that roughly resembles the expectations they had. That arrangement is flat out appalling and I will continue having no part in the process.

I, as a consumer, do not need to assume any risk in the exchange of money for games and were I ever to enter into an arrangement where I did, I would do so by investing in a company that has a proven record of making and selling them at a profit. At least in that case the risk I assume has the potential to reward me personally.