Adventure Gamers - Forums

thejobloshow - 14 June 2012 12:51 AM

Adventure games have nothing to prove in terms of mainstream appeal

Rather the opposite, I think the point I’d like to prove is that properly produced niche games are a more secure investment than mainstream games. Most first-person shooters lose money. Yes, they sell more and they make more money total, but adventure games can offer a very good return on investment if people produce ones by proven successful talent.

There’s value in games that you know will make $3 million, compared to games that might make you $100 million but might lose you $15 million.

Frogacuda - 13 June 2012 07:33 PM

I will be Kickstarting more games, but I’m done Kickstarting adventure games now for at least a good while, because I really don’t think there will be a lot of them that are better/more important than what we’ve done, and I’d rather save my money for when there’s a NEW message to send.

I think that’s the main different in our views. Your message was probably something like “we want adventure games, so you publishers should fund them”, and my message was more like “with digital distribution and crowdfunding, you publishers aren’t that necessary anymore”. I don’t see why publishers should be the #1 choice to get funding, especially for small/medium sized game projects, which can be crowdfunded. Just like big record companies, I see publishers as dinosaurs of the past, and I’m happy if we can get at least some control of our entertainment away from them permanently, not temporarily just to send them a message.

teme - 14 June 2012 01:42 AM

I think that’s the main different in our views. Your message was probably something like “we want adventure games, so you publishers should fund them”, and my message was more like “with digital distribution and crowdfunding, you publishers aren’t that necessary anymore”.

I get that people have that attitude, but I really think it’s a mistake. Publishers put up their money to make games that we get to play, they take all the financial risks, and that’s actually good for us, as long as they’re making the right moves.

It’s good that we have an alternative to show them the way when they’re being too conservative, but it’d actually be really bad for all of us if they were eliminated altogether. Publishers are not bad guys, they’re just scared of gambling. They do serve an important role, and one that benefits us in a lot of ways.

Frogacuda - 14 June 2012 08:46 AM

I get that people have that attitude, but I really think it’s a mistake. Publishers put up their money to make games that we get to play, they take all the financial risks, and that’s actually good for us, as long as they’re making the right moves.

It’s good that we have an alternative to show them the way when they’re being too conservative, but it’d actually be really bad for all of us if they were eliminated altogether. Publishers are not bad guys, they’re just scared of gambling. They do serve an important role, and one that benefits us in a lot of ways.

I agree that we need publishers. If you have new and unestablished developers coming in, someone needs to hold them accountable when they don’t finish a game. It can get a bit messy with crowdfunding.

Now that all the hype has died down, for many of these projects I’d suddenly prefer that I still had my money, rather than just the promise of something 12 months away. At least I only pledged at the bottom tier mostly.

I view the Kickstarter trend as a progression towards restoring balance. I doubt many people think that publishers are going away or that Kickstarter is some long term business/shopping model. But the past few months have helped provide some developers with the opportunity to make games that publishers may not have otherwise supported. If their games are successful, and others follow in their wake, then the power hold that publishers have over the developers will hopefully abate.

One of the reasons I really loved Jane Jensen’s project is that she explicitly laid out long term goals for her studio in the “community supported gaming” model. I imagine most other developers have similar long term goals as well. This is the first mile of a marathon, and it doesn’t appear to me that any developers are sprinting at 100% then hoping that something or someone will carry them. They just needed a push and some energy gels to get started. They have a plan to pace themselves. They might stop at an aid station at mile 10 or mile 20, but that’s what the aid stations are there for.

So, that’s why the idea that people should stop supporting crowd-funded games is silly. Nobody knows for sure what’s going to happen, but in general I see many more positives than negatives for current crowd-funding (which seems to have slowed down anyway). Every person is free to support projects in which they’re interested. We may not see many more huge smash hits like Double Fine Adventure, Wasteland 2, or Shadowrun Returns. However, if enough people in the community want to support their favorite developers, no matter how big or small their projects are, that’s their right. And this is a great way for smaller known developers to catch some interest and get their own projects off the ground. How people can think that’s a bad think eludes me.

I think that it’s true that “Kickstarter is not a good way to shop for games.” Kickstarter isn’t a site for consumers, it’s a site for fans. It’s for people who don’t just want to buy content but also interact with the developers.

It doesn’t matter if I didn’t know the developers before, if I pledge for a project it’s because I feel a connection to the project or developer. It’s because I enjoy getting updates about the development and sometimes being able to offer my opinion and have a chance that it will affect the development. It can also be a chance to be in the game, to have a name in the credit or a statue of your design (though I never pledge at this level).

Value for money, Kickstarter isn’t a good deal for me. I rarely pay more than $5 for a game outside of Kickstarter, and I rarely play those. I don’t pay a lot of money on Kickstarter either, but if I pay $30 that’s a hell of a lot more than I usually pay, and I imagine that I won’t play most of the games I helped Kickstarted either. It’s of course more risky too, but I feel that what I get from it is a lot more than what I get by just buying a game.

Frogacuda - 14 June 2012 08:46 AM

I get that people have that attitude, but I really think it’s a mistake. Publishers put up their money to make games that we get to play, they take all the financial risks, and that’s actually good for us, as long as they’re making the right moves.

It’s good that we have an alternative to show them the way when they’re being too conservative, but it’d actually be really bad for all of us if they were eliminated altogether. Publishers are not bad guys, they’re just scared of gambling. They do serve an important role, and one that benefits us in a lot of ways.

Fortunately there’s an alternative for the publishers and Kickstarter now, the digital portals. Publishers may not be bad guys, but there are examples they (and retailers) made it sometimes very hard for developers to make any profit. Thanks to the App Store etc. some developers are finally making profit, and may even self-fund their own games.

Frogacuda - 14 June 2012 08:46 AM

Publishers are not bad guys, they’re just scared of gambling.

The way I see it, it’s not exactly that they’re scared of gambling, but that they’re in it for the money. Their goal is to make a big return with the smallest risk. This means that they gravitate towards games which have the most appeal, that they often don’t want to bother with too small projects because the return is small, and that the publisher, apart from putting deadlines in front of the developer might also want changes to the game to increase its appeal. While this relationship might teach beginner studios some things, it can also interfere with creative vision or cause games to be shipped before they’re ready.

Which is why Kickstarter is so much more appealing to developers. It’s great for small projects that publishers won’t even look at, and for all projects it frees the developers to pursue their own artistic vision without pressure. Sure there’s some fan pressure, but that’s different because first of all the developers already have the money (unlike with publishers where they might get it piecemeal based on milestones) and perhaps more importantly they’re making the game for the fans, so fan feedback is more valuable than publisher feedback.

mart - 07 August 2012 10:07 AM

Fortunately there’s an alternative for the publishers and Kickstarter now, the digital portals. Publishers may not be bad guys, but there are examples they (and retailers) made it sometimes very hard for developers to make any profit. Thanks to the App Store etc. some developers are finally making profit, and may even self-fund their own games.

This replaces one aspect of publishing, but it doesn’t replace the financing part. If a studio needs money to finish the game, the digital stores will not be of much benefit. That’s not totally true because Desura and GamersGate allow developers to sell beta and alpha state games to get funds, but Kickstarter usually is a better way, and can be used at a much earlier stage of development.

ET3D - 07 August 2012 02:22 PM

This replaces one aspect of publishing, but it doesn’t replace the financing part. If a studio needs money to finish the game, the digital stores will not be of much benefit. That’s not totally true because Desura and GamersGate allow developers to sell beta and alpha state games to get funds, but Kickstarter usually is a better way, and can be used at a much earlier stage of development.

My remark wasn’t about what is the best way to proceed in a particular case, but that there are more options nowadays besides publishers. A decade ago one was often completely dependent on them, but today there are more ways to get funding, to make - more - profit, or to distribute one’s project. Kickstarter, portals, and in some cases the developer offers the download himself. No publishers, retailers, marketing, problems to get a project signed. To be able to publish games digitally has changed the status quo and has offered new opportunities. Portals can effect the financing part as well though, in particular if one is already an established developer (I was thinking of Revolution Software, who is able to self-fund the upcoming game thanks to the profit on previous games sold through the portals).

Jatsie - 05 August 2012 07:45 PM

Now that all the hype has died down, for many of these projects I’d suddenly prefer that I still had my money, rather than just the promise of something 12 months away. At least I only pledged at the bottom tier mostly.

Don’t worry, 12 months from now, when you’re enjoying the new adventure games from these legendary designers, you’ll be glad that you helped them get back on adventure scene. Or you tell me that you regret giving Jane Jensen or Chris Jones 15 dollars?