Getting the Planescape rights to a game would be self defeating as WotC/HASBRO own it and they would be involved in the development. Which is the entire point of Kickstarter, avoiding the terrible influence/demands of publishers on games made today.

Okay, I think I have to limit myself now.

Double Fine Adventure
Wasteland 2
The Banner Saga
Pinkerton Studios CSG
Tex Murphy (upcoming)

undecided:
Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective
Leisure Suit Larry remake

Holy cow, this morning I just found out there's a Jane Jensen Kickstarter and a Kickstarter for a new Shadowrun game.

Okay, I think we need to set ourselves some ground rules...

1. I will not support a project that does not offer a boxed copy. Many of these games look like they're going to get their funding anyway and I can easily buy them when they get released on Steam with the added incentive of knowing how the game turned out.

2. I will not support a project that does not offer a full retail release. Sorry TAKEDOWN - funding an alpha on the hopes the investors will come out of the woodwork to support you is just too much of a risk.

3. I will not support a first time designer/people with no experience in the industry. I know this sounds harsh - but we've had a flourishing indie scene for many years now full of designers who made product without crowdsourcing. You need to build up your reputation and prove your value before asking for large sums of funding.

No, I did both. But was Kickstarter really meant to be a last resort for Big Names in the adventure game industry? I don't think so.

Darn... :(

Just a couple of numbers: 24 hours after kick-off DFA had raised over a million dollars. Jane Jensen has raised around $45,500 as I am writing this (slightly past the 24-hour mark). Both of them have the same goal.

There might be some issues with the marketing of Pinkerton Road's KS that some people have pointed out at the respective thread. But I am convinced that the biggest issue is that people are just running out of money.

People interested in AGs are a relatively small crowd (by comparison, Shadowrun Returns have basically already raised their $400K less than 24 hrs since kick off) and many people went all out with DFA and can't afford to support any other adventures.

Don't get me wrong - pretty much all the people on these forums are hardcore AG fans and they will contribute as much as they can to as many games as they find interesting. So before you give yourself as an example, please realize that it's the people who are marginally interested in AGs that should be the target group of KS projects! I am talking about those who would play maybe an adventure every year or so, or those who used to be into adventures but have moved on, or open-minded garden-variety gamers, or even those who play AG-like casuals. They are a huge group and each project has to try and convince as many of them as possible to fork over their small annual AG budget. I am afraid that DFA tapped out that group.

But even hardcore AG types must be running out of dough! Some more numbers: around 1% of the backers of DFA have contributed at least $250 but they account for around 15% of the funds raised (close to half a million). (And the most generous 0.1% account for more than 5%.) How many people, no matter how dedicated, can afford to give $5000 to more than one kickstarter project?

To summarize (and apologies for the length of this post), DFA have completely tapped out a huge group of people who care about adventures but cannot support more than one KS project. Jane Jensen can currently only reach out to the hardcore AG crowd. I am afraid to extrapolate what will happen to Tex...

Completely agree TerminusEst. I think that is what is happening.

I do hope she makes her target though. *crosses fingers*

1. I'm not in a good situation presently to support any kickstarter campaign but would do so otherwise for some developers. I do like boxed copies of a game but see the advantage to developers of releasing a download first - there seems to be enough people who like the immediacy of being able to get games almost instantly so would quite happily wait. But yes, if I supported something I would accept a download in the 1st place with the promise of a boxed version eventually even if it was just exclusive to supporters.

2. I would not consider contributing to a project that only goes to 'Alpha' stage and relies on further funding to complete - I don't see the point except for the developers trying to be modest & not asking for too much. In all honesty they are better off asking for the total amount they need to complete a game.

3. No, no, no, no, NO! to supporting first time developers - yes, I agree it's harsh! but I would need to see evidence of passion, skills & resourcefulness - if you have all of those qualities then you should have a completed game to present however low-cost & basic to convince me! :)

You ARE aware Kickstarter (using Amazon) does NOT take any money until the project reaches it's goal and date right?

Backing it, is the important thing. It's the one voice we have as a consumer and telling Publishers and their marketing departments we are mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore.

I also think that the reward tiers in kickstarter need some work. The higher reward levels in most of the kickstarters are completely unappealing.

I can't imagine someone paying $10000 for a lunch with the developer. Thats one expensive lunch, its the kind of thing a millionaire might do. And once someone has put down 10K, its unlikely they are going to do that again for another game.

Since Double Fine was first, they maxed out all the upper tiers, but now I'm seeing the upper tiers going unclaimed for a number of kickstarters.

The upper tiers aren't really supposed to give you your money's worth, and no regular person can donate thousands of dollars for many games. Lunches, conserts, art, ingame characters... it's all very nice. They are supposed to raise money, not offer joyrides around the world or anything like that.

Exactly. The only person who is going to go for it are those who are emotionally attached to the genre, have a lot of money, and dont know what to do with it. How many people are there like this?

You cant copy the Double Fine model, simply because they were first and people pledged to it out of curiousity and to be a part of the buzz. It's a special one-off case.

And most of those who pledged higher tiers for Double Fine will probably not put >$1000 on another project.

So, everyone else on Kickstarter needs to find a way to make the higher tiers appealing to common folks like you and me, otherwise they just wont raise any money from those tiers. Its that simple.

As someone who works in development, there are people who will donate - and regularly - to projects that they have an emotional connection to.

For some, $10k is nothing. So the number of campaigns has little to do with the "whales."

Also, DFA raised the traffic to KS and especially the video GW section to a degree that projects across the board are seeing funding levels thought impossible only a month ago.

There is no crowd KS fatigue. Or high donor fatigue.

Beyond that, is the Ag community's - and just the Ag community - an unfortunately small niche genre of a multiblion $ industry being stretched to what it can support?

I fervently hope not, but it's possible and supports the tired conclusion that we are not a financially viable audience to make sustainable games for.

If you don't want that to be true, if you want this to be a revolution and not a fad - bust out your wallet. I have no problem supporting this cause like I do the political candidates and local non-profit causes I give money to.

I'm extremely emotionally involved in Jane and Al's success.

A Kickstarter for Little Big Adventure 3 with Frédérick Raynal would get me really excited. I would pay a lot for that.

Well, lets hope that there are enough of those people still around and willing to do it three or four times more. I dont see them backing any of the other projects...

How about something like this: If you pledge 10K you get 1% of the profits + all previous tier rewards.

So, if the game goes on to make half a million (after deducting expenses), the backer gets 5K back. If its a mega hit, the backer might even make a profit.

If they limit the tier to 10 backers, the developers can raise 100K, and will have to part with 10% of profit at the end. They can keep the remaining 90%.

I don't know about the legalities involved, but it might entice more people to pledge at higher levels.

I think one of the good things about the fatigue is that Jane Jensen's project actually has a chance to make some money after the game gets made unlike Tim Schaffers project. I'm still undecided about contributing to her project or not but probably will when they're close to reaching their goal.

Although maybe there's 1 or 2 people left in the world who hasn't contributed to Tim's project yet.

If only Schafer made so.

I think that Kickstarter is a great idea, but it banks on the developer's previous reputation and his/her fans. So really, the call goes out to an already established population. As much as I'm an adventure fan, I'll only happily contribute to someone who makes a game I'm willing to play. Gabriel Knight 4, Myst 6, Obsidian 2, RotS/Omega Stone sequel - I'd be there with bells on.

Why no one interested in a KS for Gabriel Knight 4 yet?

I like GK but have never finished any of the games. Personally I could not handle the camera in GK3 it made me sea sick, its the reason I never play 1st person games.