Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
Kickstarter reflection of succesful games in production
On the other hand, the Kickstarter funds are not enough for Pinkerton, Big Finish and Ragnar. They needed (angel) investors too. But I’m still sure they know what they’re doing.
I think unless a game was very far into development when the kickstarter sterted most of them will need more funds to complete the game if Double Fine Adventure is an indicator. But at least most campaigns was enough to… “kickstart” the production.
On a side the note the kickstarter site (and indiegogo) must make a ridiculous amount of money with all these PC games, board games, bds and now even hollywood films now.
You’re just making shit up at this point. And she always made it clear the games would be voted on during the campaign. The MGX deal was separate from the kickstarter. The timing was coincidental. Funding was never meant for MGX, and it was made clear it was only for the CSG game.
It sounds like you didn’t even follow the campaign and are looking at the final result and making up your own narrative.
I did follow her campagin and that’s how I understood it. I know MGX wasn’t originally part of the campaign, it became a part of the high level backers when it came evident that she would rise only enough to make Moebius. Even now I, or any other low level bakcer, can make a choise between MGX or Moebius as the reward game. Originally low level backers could make a choise between of the games Pinkerton would put out during the cycle.
inm8#2, you’ve got the facts right regarding the Pinkerton Road stuff, but that doesn’t change the fact that the whole thing was both confusing and intrinsically flawed. Originally, the whole campaign was all about how you were not pledging for one game but for “a year of adventure”. However, the funding target only covered one game. Which means that, in they only got $300,000 or so, people who had pledged at the $50 level would only get one game (+ Lola and Lucy, yay)—which defeated the purpose of pledging at that level.
And then it was a vicious circle: people didn’t think the $600,000 stretch goal would be reached and therefore didn’t want to pay for a second game that wouldn’t get made, which meant that the pledged amount only raised slowly, which comforted people in their idea that the $600,000 wouldn’t happen, etc. It was only when MGX was announced that the whole CSG model started making sense—and by that point the campaign had been refocused on Moebius anyway.
So you’re right to defend JJ and to set the facts right, but still, by making the whole thing hinge upon the idea of two games but only asking funding for one (and asking people to pay before they knew what game would get made, as was originally the plan before the vote got moved to much earlier), the campaign was highly problematic. If she wants to do another CSG season, she’ll have to handle things quite differently.
On a side the note the kickstarter site (and indiegogo) must make a ridiculous amount of money with all these PC games, board games, bds and now even hollywood films now.
$320 million were pledged on Kickstarter in 2012. 5% of that is $16 million, which is a nice sum for a small company.
I think unless a game was very far into development when the kickstarter sterted most of them will need more funds to complete the game if Double Fine Adventure is an indicator.
The Double Fine Adventure is an exception on so many levels that it’s probably impossible to use it as an indicator for anything. 
But I agree with the assessment that quite a few of the successful Kickstarter projects will run into financial trouble if the pledged money is all they can work with. In some cases, the budgets seem very low.
inm8#2, you’ve got the facts right regarding the Pinkerton Road stuff, but that doesn’t change the fact that the whole thing was both confusing and intrinsically flawed. Originally, the whole campaign was all about how you were not pledging for one game but for “a year of adventure”. However, the funding target only covered one game. Which means that, in they only got $300,000 or so, people who had pledged at the $50 level would only get one game (+ Lola and Lucy, yay)—which defeated the purpose of pledging at that level.
And then it was a vicious circle: people didn’t think the $600,000 stretch goal would be reached and therefore didn’t want to pay for a second game that wouldn’t get made, which meant that the pledged amount only raised slowly, which comforted people in their idea that the $600,000 wouldn’t happen, etc. It was only when MGX was announced that the whole CSG model started making sense—and by that point the campaign had been refocused on Moebius anyway.
So you’re right to defend JJ and to set the facts right, but still, by making the whole thing hinge upon the idea of two games but only asking funding for one (and asking people to pay before they knew what game would get made, as was originally the plan before the vote got moved to much earlier), the campaign was highly problematic. If she wants to do another CSG season, she’ll have to handle things quite differently.
Oh I agree that it could have been handled and communicated in a more suitable fashion, but I’m pointing out certain details that are being misrepresented. I understand that certain elements of the campaign were confusing to people. Personally I had no trouble, though. It was pretty clear to me from the beginning. But I think that perhaps Jane was a bit ambitious in her pitch for the CSG cycle. The thing is, she was actually forward thinking. Instead of just doing one game she wanted to make it clear she had long-term goals. But it would have been better to pitch one game, then tell people they’re going to be part of the CSG and she hopes her studio can produce more games after the first cycle.
Basically, instead of asking questions and doing a little reading on the kickstarter page, people spread their negativity spread like wildfires across multiple forums and in a way chose to hurt the campaign. I liked that she wanted the supporters to be a part of the game selection process. Maybe not the best choice from a clarity or presentation aspect, but something I think spoke volumes about Jane’s best intentions for her supporters. Certainly you remember my epic posts last year in the thread, largely dealing with the “No GK4, no sale” attitude so many people have.
But certain notions about how her campaign was managed set off my bullshit detector, so I addressed them. To some of you it seems I’m being a fanboyish defender of everything JJ does. In reality I think much of the AG community is too harsh on her in these situations, often not giving her even a sliver of a benefit of the doubt like they do with most other developers in similar situations. And that disappoints me.
I think unless a game was very far into development when the kickstarter sterted most of them will need more funds to complete the game if Double Fine Adventure is an indicator.
The Double Fine Adventure is an exception on so many levels that it’s probably impossible to use it as an indicator for anything.
Well the important thing is that these companies have some ability to cover overrun costs if they have to. If they plan to go broke releasing a game, that leaves them in a very vulnerable position if ANYTHING goes wrong, and it’s impossible to predict everything. So some of these Kickstarters from small upstarts or companies on the verge of bankruptcy are the riskiest.
Well the important thing is that these companies have some ability to cover overrun costs if they have to. If they plan to go broke releasing a game, that leaves them in a very vulnerable position if ANYTHING goes wrong, and it’s impossible to predict everything. So some of these Kickstarters from small upstarts or companies on the verge of bankruptcy are the riskiest.
It would have been pretty interesting to see how Gas Powered Games would have fared if they’d had gotten the minium funding for Wildman. Beofre Wargaming.net bought them Wildman was pretty much their only lifeline.
It’ll be also very interesting to see how many of the KS success stories are left as one offs. There definetly are projects im which the people walk in with roes tinted glasses.
Well the important thing is that these companies have some ability to cover overrun costs if they have to. If they plan to go broke releasing a game, that leaves them in a very vulnerable position if ANYTHING goes wrong, and it’s impossible to predict everything. So some of these Kickstarters from small upstarts or companies on the verge of bankruptcy are the riskiest.
Of course. That’s how indie studios usually start. One project. Seriously underfunded. And all planning is based on the assumption that nothing will go wrong.
It would have been pretty interesting to see how Gas Powered Games would have fared if they’d had gotten the minium funding for Wildman.
By their own admission, pretty poorly. They said they would have likely needed additional outside funding anyway.
Agustin sent out an Asylum update (that game deserves to be discussed here, they’ve had a head start on development for a couple years 
). He mentioned the Game Developers Conference next week in San Francisco. I know Double Fine folks will also be there, as they’ve discussed it in their forums.
Do we know who else is going? I think this conference may be the first public glimpse of many of these kickstarter games, and I’m very curious to see what the reactions are.
And then it was a vicious circle: people didn’t think the $600,000 stretch goal would be reached and therefore didn’t want to pay for a second game that wouldn’t get made, which meant that the pledged amount only raised slowly, which comforted people in their idea that the $600,000 wouldn’t happen, etc. It was only when MGX was announced that the whole CSG model started making sense—and by that point the campaign had been refocused on Moebius anyway.
I don’t think that’s a correct interpretation of how things went down. It contradicts the fact that the average pledge by the campgain’s backers was 75$. Now the main problem of the campaign was that it didn’t convince enough people to chip in, probably because the pitch was too confusing for many of them. I can’t blame them, I’m somewhat surprised I found it to be mostly straightforward given how easily confused I normally am. Nevertheless, a few aspects were also somewhat unclear to me. I’m not sure it was a great idea to offer a reward you’ll only get if a certain stretch goal is reached. That may have been the single most irritating aspect of the whole campaign.
Personally I’m still surprised that out of all the big name adventure game kickstarters the Jane Jensen one remains the most unsuccessful.
I don’t think that’s a correct interpretation of how things went down. It contradicts the fact that the average pledge by the campgain’s backers was 75$.
It seems like you’re correct and I was wrong (although the final value of the average pledge really doesn’t prove/disprove anything here). There was definitely a lot of chatter about how the $50 tier was a terrible deal, because you’d only end up getting Lola and Lucy on top of Moebius. People definitely talked about that whenever the Kickstarter was mentioned anywhere. But at the end of the day, if you look at the proportion of people at the $16 tier vs. $50/51, it was almost the same right before the MGX announcement as at the end of the campaign. Which means that these people that were complaining ended up not pledging anyway, or only at the $16 level.
(As always, checking the facts and the numbers beats relying on memory. My bad.)
Personally I’m still surprised that out of all the big name adventure game kickstarters the Jane Jensen one remains the most unsuccessful.
Looking at the numbers gives a fairly clear explanation of what happened: this is pretty much the only Kickstarter in which the basic tier to get the game was not the most popular (with more backers at the $50/51 level). The picture here seems to be that hardcore Jane Jensen fans sold their organs to fund the campaign, but she failed to attract “casual” supporters, who only wanted a nice deal on a pre-order. (Contrast that with the Tex Murphy campaign, which had hardcore backers (and an extremely high average pledge level), but also lots of casual supporters willing to pay $15 for the game.)
Now, why did the campaign fail to attract non-hardcore-fans? A quick glance at the early version of the page, which starts by a lecture on what CSG is instead of talking about the game or mentioning !GABRIEL KNIGHT!, gives a pretty clear idea of why. If you didn’t know who Jane Jensen was by name and just wanted to support an interesting game, this page didn’t exactly make a great job of pulling you in.
Ultimately, I think kickstarters have to cater to both hardcore fans who want to get exclusive rewards and follow the development of the game and casual supporters who are willing to take a chance on a pre-order but aren’t interested in more. I’m not sure the CSG model is well suited to that second category. In any case, not the way it was originally presented.
Now, why did the campaign fail to attract non-hardcore-fans? A quick glance at the early version of the page, which starts by a lecture on what CSG is instead of talking about the game or mentioning !GABRIEL KNIGHT!, gives a pretty clear idea of why. If you didn’t know who Jane Jensen was by name and just wanted to support an interesting game, this page didn’t exactly make a great job of pulling you in.
I agree… the CSG model is very good idea and I like it, but it’s not simple enough for Kickstarter.
It’s difficult to get back the backers who you loose from the start. Had Jensen pitch been more traditional she propably could have done better. But as it was initially presented in a confusing way, the people who saw it and dismissed on the first glance propably didn’t come back in huge numbers.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
