Kickstarter/crowdfund for games/mods?

(DarkangelUK) #1

So kickstarter basically allows people to pitch an idea/working project to the general public and they set a goal of funding needed to ‘kickstart’ that idea. People can then invest in that idea and, depending on the amount pledged, will then gain from its creation by receiving things such as a credit on the website to a fully working version on release. Such a thing sounds like it would work with games/mods.

So as a general example, a small dev company comes forward with a cost analysis and says 'We’ll make ET2 but it will cost £100,000. Pledge £5 for name in the credits, £10 for name in credits plus an exclusive ingame skin, pledge £20 and get a copy of the game plus skin+credit" and so on etc. If they reach £100,000 in funding, then the project gets the go ahead to begin… public demand determines if a game/mod gets made rather than relying on investors. The ideas could be pitched by dev companies, or if the community pitch it then the volume of registered potential investors could appeal to dev companies.

I’ve seen numerous occasions where groups have said they’d pay for <insert game sequel or mod here>, and this way they could put their money where their mouth is and actually invest to turn dream into reality. Thoughts?

(Slade05) #2

A fad soon to pass.

(tokamak) #3

I think games are too risky for this. The budget for a game is way less certain than for a documentary or something.

(BioSnark) #4

Is there a way for the game concept buyers to be refunded if the project dies or doesn’t reach initially promised feature set?

(tokamak) #5

No. Same with angel investors.

(BioSnark) #6

Seems like there’s room for a trusted 3rd party to hold pledges and either guarantee devs that they will be able to cover their costs in sales upon completion or refund customers essentially buying into a concept if the project dies. Perhaps, additionally, buyers could choose to release their funds early to directly support development if they really liked what they saw from demonstrations or played in alpha and beta tests.

I’ve supported a couple projects during development but just trusting an indie developer, potentially one completely new to the scene, is certainly not ideal.

(tokamak) #7

Well that’s what World of Tanks and Tribes had. Micro-transaction gaming but enabled during the beta. The beta is still late in the process though and developers need money earlier.

(DarkangelUK) #8

That’s the basic idea of investing, and with any type of investment there’s some risk involved. You’re investing in the idea of a game that sounds appealing, but the risk is the game and some of the ideas in it may not be to your liking.

The crowd sourced funding goal is there to get the project off the ground without the need for large scale investors, it’s the big companies that can afford throw a wad of cash at developers that are driving what games are developed. A poor example is the ‘What SD game would you like to see’ thread, on this forum 750 users said they’d like to see W:ET remade, which lets be fair, no company is going to invest in a remake of a free game. So say 10,000 fans want to see it made and are willing to pledge a minimum £10 each, there’s £100,000 to kick start the project. So W:ET gets remade on idtech4 with 6 maps and mod tools and sold at a reasonable price of £10.

Obviously I’m not overthinking this enough, and there are a lot of variables I probably don’t know exist, but my basic thought is if enough people want something, and want it enough then they’ll be willing to pay for it.

(Bullveyr) #9

http://www.games-plant.com

(DarkangelUK) #10

Nice! The only worrying part is that they can’t spell ‘Finished’ :tongue:

(BioSnark) #11

That’s the risk if buying a game without playing it, first. That’s hardly the extent of the risk of buying a game in concept stage from individuals who may have never have released a game before and may not intend to. Without some sort of net under this tightrope, some indie company will fall off, either as a premeditated scam or the team breaking up, and it will hurt indie funding across the board if the scene is associated with that kind of practice.

I may sound like I’m viewing indie as a brand because that’s exactly how I see it. It’s a brand and pc gamers are very willing to buy into it right now. I suspect minecraft has done a lot to push back the state of the product the general market are willing to buy into and I think that’s a great thing for the scene. It was ‘released’ only late last year. Pushing it too far back is go, and pushing risk up,… I don’t think that’s going to end up helping.

(DarkangelUK) #12

I think you’re missing the element of desire, and that users want the game created in the 1st place, I’m not saying blindly throw money at something random and hope you like it, you’d be investing in an idea you genuinely want to see developed where without funding it would never see the light of day. That’s completely different from simply buying a game you haven’t played… completely different mindsets and desires involved.

I understand you’d like a contract of sorts that protects the investor from being ripped off if someone did decide to scam the system, and I agree certain measures should be in place to stop that from happening, but for genuine projects I don’t see how both can go hand in hand. If they had the money to cover full investment return then they would’ve had the money to begin the project in the 1st place. I guess for the average joe the risk of losing £10 outweighs the potential to get a game the community has wanted but no major publisher has been willing to back.

(BioSnark) #13

I was assuming that that was what you meant and I was using that context in discussing a game purchase. Also, as I said, previously, I do think people should be able to release their funds early. I just don’t think it should be the default means of funding indie projects because it will inevitably get a backlash when it fails and larger than simply that with Project Zomboid.

(Dormamu) #14

i’m in. what’s the game name, who’s the dev’s and what is about? If is linux friendlily i want 2 copies.
I have preordered Overgroth and even if it takes 5 years to finish i’m happy.
If SD will make it i want the “£20 and get a copy of the game plus skin+credit” (don’t care about the skin or the copy put me twice on the credit and i’m happy).
no joke here

(DarkangelUK) #15

Here’s a very interesting article on the subject, and obviously it seems the idea is already under way.

(suj8) #16

i totally agree with Slade05. but is the risk worth taking ? i am not at all sure of it

(brbrbr) #17

community-driven/made development - works.
subject-related one - not.
proven by years.

(Indloon) #18

A game developer should develop for a fun,not for a money :stuck_out_tongue:

But yeah,when the developer don’t have time for a project or makes his/her mind to get money for that,she/he will start asking for a money from interested people.

(Runeforce) #19

There is a crowdsource funded game from Tim Schafer in the making.

//youtu.be/5Gi_VdXbBos

The donation opportunity is still open for a few hours: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure

(SockDog) #20

I’d like to have details on the concept and prior works to show the developer is competent to finish but I have no problem gambling some cash at that point, hell if the price is low and the idea original I’ll support it on the basis of just seeing if it works, http://projectzomboid.com/ is one such game that I doubt we’d have seen if left to traditional funding and I happily gave them 10 quid just to see where it went.

On the subject of Mods/Maps I think giving some perks (skins, sneak peaks, signed artwork etc) but still making the release totally open and free to all would be a nice way to encourage and support without all the douchebaggery of paying for DLC.