Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
Kickstarter:From Fatigue to Establishment
We all talked about Kickstarter fatigue till recently as if it was just a fad,a passing wave of projects and maybe a project or two aftewards,if things ever got difficult.But I think it’s established more or less.There’s a new project kickstarter behind every corner.
More and more developers jumping on the bandwagon doesn’t prove it’s established; it proves it’s a fad. 
But that’s not to say it will fade away completely. I don’t recall anyone saying it would, and certainly not quickly. Fatigue just resulted in an increased difficulty in campaigns actually succeeding, not in Kickstarter being abandoned.
The real test is what happens after developers release their first Kickstarted game. Not only whether the first one is any good, but whether they come back asking for more a second time, and how willing people will be to continue bankrolling new projects.
But that’s not to say it will fade away completely. I don’t recall anyone saying it would, and certainly not quickly. Fatigue just resulted in an increased difficulty in campaigns actually succeeding, not in Kickstarter being abandoned.
Yeah, but… I’m not sure I’m seeing that increased difficulty. To me it seems like there’s more money in Kickstarter now than before. It’s interesting how both Jane Jensen and the Tex Murphy guys struggled for a long time to reach their goals a few months ago, and how Revolution cruised past a much bigger goal just now.
I also notice that, personally, I’m backing far more projects now than I did before. It takes much less to convince me to back a project these days. A lot of the initial scepticism has disappeared.
The real test is what happens after developers release their first Kickstarted game. Not only whether the first one is any good, but whether they come back asking for more a second time, and how willing people will be to continue bankrolling new projects.
I don’t think that, say, Tim Schafer would have problems if he went back to Kickstarter and asked for another 300k. But I doubt very much that he’d achieve anything like what he got before.
As for Big Finish, SpaceVenture, Al Lowe, et.c., I think they’ll have to count on regular income from the kickstarted games to make more games. Because they can only “return to adventure games” (or whatever) once.
Yeah, but… I’m not sure I’m seeing that increased difficulty. To me it seems like there’s more money in Kickstarter now than before. It’s interesting how both Jane Jensen and the Tex Murphy guys struggled for a long time to reach their goals a few months ago, and how Revolution cruised past a much bigger goal just now.
The Pendulo guys might argue that claim. But the Jensen/Tex/SpaceVenture period is exactly what I was referring to. That was the initial wave of fatigue that made it hard for all of them. After that, there was a bit of a lull (for adventure games), and Revolution capitalized. If we get another three high-profile adventures in the next couple months, we’ll probably see another plateau.
Really, all I’m saying is that jhetfield is confusing “fatigue” with “end of fad”. I don’t think the two are at all mutually exclusive. The fad is still going strong; fatigue is just part of the natural peaks and valleys along the way.
As for Big Finish, SpaceVenture, Al Lowe, et.c., I think they’ll have to count on regular income from the kickstarted games to make more games. Because they can only “return to adventure games” (or whatever) once.
There’s also the issue of rewards. I bet a lot of the big spenders kicked in partly for the extra goodies the first time around. There really can’t be quite the same incentive from here on out.
maybe you’re right,but I still think that kickstarter will be established.no matter how many projects arise people keep backing projects.maybe not the same people but kickstarter is better known now.especially since this is a way to fund your projects all the while eliminating the restrictions of a publisher and keeping most if not all of the sales income.
to tell you the truth if used in moderation i think it’s going to be a good stepping stone for AG developers.that means a KS campaign here and there,projects totally funded by the devs in between from the income of the KS campaigns etc.but i really believe a period in between those KS projects for our wallets to rest is invaluable.Kickstarter after kickstarter is just pushing it.especially for those of us who want hard copies,i keep mentioning that because hard copies are usually included in reward tiers of 60$ and above.
website:Adventure Game Adventures
twitter
I wrote this earlier today, but Jackal has made more or less the same point in the meantime:
I’ve said this before, but the entire Kickstarter movement in gaming will either stand or fall with the release of the first big games (especially DFA and Wasteland 2). If those games are actually good, then Kickstarter is here to stay (and hopefully change the entire publisher industry forever). If those games fail miserably, then it’ll be the end for Kickstarter. Which would be a very sad thing…
The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark: it scares you witless but in time you see things clear and stark. - Elvis Costello
Maybe this time I can be strong, but since I know who I am, I’m probably wrong. Maybe this time I can go far, but thinking about where I’ve been ain’t helping me start. - Michael Kiwanuka
Even a developer like Obsidian Entertainment with so many successful games…
Obsidian games sell poorly and they are in financial trouble.
Yeah, Fallout New Vegas just sold more than 5 million copies in 2010 (probably way more now), achieving revenue of $300 million. Pretty poor. All the money went to Bethesda (publisher in this case) though, since the game didn’t manage an average Metacritic score of 85%. (It got 84%)
Guess that’s one of the reasons they turn to Kickstarter.
The spiritual successor to the RTS Total Annihilation also managed to get more than 2 million dollar recently, so there has never been any fatigue on Kickstarter, and probably won’t be. If the project is interesting enough, people will pledge.
It’s also a bit naive to think that the Jensen/Tex/SpaceVenture-campaigns would have earned more if they waited for a period with less adventure games, like Broken Sword did. Broken Sword is a more popular brand. It’s really that simple.
to be fair adventures and rpgs are totally different genres with their own fanbase.sure there is some overlapping but it’s not so big.
website:Adventure Game Adventures
twitter
It’s not about Kickstarter, it’s about “pay in advance if you like the idea you see so far” principle that is “challenging” old “pay for the finished product based on the demo, previews and reviews…” although in reality two are not mutually exclusive, as you can comfortably buy the game after the Kickstarter.
Almost everyone will turn to “pay in advance” method sooner or later if they make it a win-win situation - meaning even big companies have no excuse not to test the market this way. “Pay in advance” is right now synonym for the “we are rejected by the big publishers, so we’re turning directly to the players”, but others will join when it becomes more of a “buy the game in advance with an option to buy the game after it’s released”.
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale
it’s not just we are rejected by publishers,some will go at it thinking they can avoid them.there are positives from developing the game without a publisher and only bringing one for hard copies in demand is high.mainly profit and no restrictions to creativity.
website:Adventure Game Adventures
twitter
The Pendulo guys might argue that claim.
Maybe. I don’t think that campaign had what it takes to succeed anyway. It wasn’t on Kickstarter, so there’s an extra hurdle for people right away. And Pendulo basically asked us to fund another game like the others they’ve been making for the past ten years. Not everyone agrees that those games have been particularily good.
But the Jensen/Tex/SpaceVenture period is exactly what I was referring to. That was the initial wave of fatigue that made it hard for all of them. After that, there was a bit of a lull (for adventure games), and Revolution capitalized. If we get another three high-profile adventures in the next couple months, we’ll probably see another plateau.
Really, all I’m saying is that jhetfield is confusing “fatigue” with “end of fad”. I don’t think the two are at all mutually exclusive. The fad is still going strong; fatigue is just part of the natural peaks and valleys along the way.
I very much doubt it is a fad. It’s here to stay, absolutely. There will be periods where it’s more popular and periods where Kickstarter-projects are met with less enthusiasm, but I can not see any reasons for it to “end”. It’s a good idea, that has advantages both for game makers and game players, but like before it will not work for anyone and anything.
I agree that things will depend on the success of Kickstartered games. We’ve already had one release that’s been synonymous with Kickstarter (maybe unfairly), namely FTL. It’s been a big success, and everybody are talking about it right now. And there are enough major Kickstarter-games on the way now that the “system” can take a few high profile flops, I think.
All the money went to Bethesda (publisher in this case) though, since the game didn’t manage an average Metacritic score of 85%. (It got 84%)
I’m confused. How does achieving an average Metacritic score of less than 85% changes the way the revenues are distributed?
Almost everyone will turn to “pay in advance” method sooner or later if they make it a win-win situation - meaning even big companies have no excuse not to test the market this way. “Pay in advance” is right now synonym for the “we are rejected by the big publishers, so we’re turning directly to the players”, but others will join when it becomes more of a “buy the game in advance with an option to buy the game after it’s released”.
I think that this sort of thing is my main concern with kickstarter, not what it is, but what it might become.
If games are released successfully this way then even big companies who don’t “need” to do a kickstarter could start doing them routinely, to get some money upfront, making it simply the standard way that games are made.
Certainly a kickstarter couldn’t fully fund a Call of Duty etc. but if they could make $1,000,000 upfront (many people into those games would complain but still pay) then why not do it to help fund production, it’s got to be better than a kick in the teeth, even if it is only a fraction of the cost.
Then we are potentially in a situation where any studio has to provide funding upfront, via kickstarter or similar, before any publisher etc. will take them. That would not be good news for AG’s.
I’m not sure that I agree with others above who have said that Kickstarter will stand or fall by the success of games released though. Certainly the first big project to fail (maybe Ouya, maybe something else, but one will and the gaming media will be ready and waiting!) will cause an uproar but I do not think it would kill kickstarter. I think people will still give to projects they see as worthy and just be more selective in their choices. I think it is very likely that giving will tail off eventually though, leaving kickstarter (and inevitable spin-offs) a much smaller operation, or much less in the media spotlight.
Even if one or more of Moebius/Tex/BS etc. end up being rubbish it wouldn’t put me off backing something else I thought potentially looked good. In that regard it’s similar to buying a new game, you take the risk it might be rubbish and if it is it doesn’t stop you buying games!
I supose that if all the current kickstarter AG’s were to fail even to be made I would certianly think twice about backing again!
3.5 time winner of the “Really Annoying Caption Contest Saboteur” Award!
I think that this sort of thing is my main concern with kickstarter, not what it is, but what it might become.
If games are released successfully this way then even big companies who don’t “need” to do a kickstarter could start doing them routinely, to get some money upfront, making it simply the standard way that games are made.
that’s exactly what i meant by my second post.
I supose that if all the current kickstarter AG’s were to fail even to be made I would certianly think twice about backing again!
even if they all fail it doesn’t mean that it was because of kickstarter.in the end kickstarter is just a way to fund their games,in most cases at least,it doesn’t even have something to do with design decisions apart from what can be done with the money amassed.but most kickstarters gather just a bit more than the minimum goal they need to produce the game.if anything there is more than enough money to make the game as they always do.unless they set lower standards,seeing how other kickstarters are doing,and setting lower and more realistic goals.
website:Adventure Game Adventures
twitter
I’m confused. How does achieving an average Metacritic score of less than 85% changes the way the revenues are distributed?
It depends on the contract. In the contract Obsidian made with Bethesda, they included a possible bonus payment - if the game made 85%+ on Metacritic (which it didn’t) Obsidian would get that bonus. So in this case Bethesda paid for the production of the game, and probably a small percentage of the revenue, which, as far as I know, is the standard for these kind of contracts.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
