Came here to post about http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1964463742/the-mandate The Mandate: looking great! In addition to what Loerwyn said they also have boarding mechnics reminiscent of XCOM, so really great combination of game features there. So yeah needless to say I've backed this too. They have a lengthy campaign so I'm positive for them reaching their goal
Here's one that I'm supporting that I may have mentioned was coming a while ago. It aims to be the spiritual successor to City of Heroes: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans. Apparently, it hit its funding goal in 5 days, so I consider that a good sign.
1. City of Heroes had a dedicated fanbase. 2. MMO? Kickstarter? No. Just no. 3. MMO? No. 4. No. It also looks like they're not actually seeking funds for the game itself, but for software and some other stuff to cover their bills, which is a bit... yeah.
So? It means they are not going to be drawing a salary from the kickstarter for the work they are doing on the game. The money is going primarily for tools to build the game. I understand the problem from a purely 'hey guys we gotta eat' perspective, but not from a kickstarter perspective. It sounds to me like it's a labor of love from fans of the game. Yes, it does have a dedicated fanbase. I'm a long-time fan. While I hadn't played the game for a long time when it was cancelled by NCSoft, I had actually been looking among other MMOs for a decent replacement. For me, games like DCUO and Champions Online just didn't cut it. It had its flaws, but it was also among the top innovators in MMOs, bringing concepts like dynamically scaling of dungeons/missions (which has been copied a lot, but never ever done nearly as well as CoH did it), Sidekicks/Exemplars, dynamic content, randomly-generated missions (although admittedly not done as well as it should have been), player-created content, Task forces (which admittedly kind of sucked early in its history, but got loads better), and so on. It was the first game I've played where loot didn't play a huge part in (although that was changed, which actually might not have been such a great decision). Once loot was added, the game had one of the best designed auction houses that I've seen. It's one of the few games where I actually enjoyed PVP (normally I opt out of PVP in other games). As I said, it wasn't perfect, and I did eventually grow bored with it. Some of the older content, in particular, sucked. But some of the content, such as the Ernesto Hess Task Force, ranks as some of the best fun I've ever had in any game ever. It was never a perfect game. But it had a huge following for good reasons: because it was fun, because it had one of the best communities of any game I've ever played, because no game allowed you to customize so much about your character (granted the character creation evolved into an unwieldy mess, but in its heyday, no other game could boast the options that CoH did). It was the type of game where two players could be the same exact class, yet have entirely different gameplay associated with it. It broke with the golden trio of Tank/Healer/DPS, especially when CoV was released. It was one of the first games where people often PREFERRED to play without a healer on their team, because their were so many more viable options as far as team makeup was concerned. When a Defender joined your team, unless you asked, you had no idea what you were getting -- which was ok because despite them all playing completely differently, they all were assets to the team -- even if that defender happened to be a healer. People (including me, apparently) are passionate about the game, because the game had a tendency to create good memories, I think most of that could be attributed to the success of the devs in creating a friendly, mostly mature, community.
BTW, referring back to Worlds of Magic, I really should post a link to the second kickstarter campaign, just in case anyone is interested. It also has a link there to a demo of the battleboard (in other words, the tactical combat simulator). http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wastelands/worlds-of-magic
I just don't think it makes sense. "We want to Kickstart this game... So... um... give us money for the stuff so we can make it" doesn't seem particularly confidence-inspiring. It implies they're not even in a position to *make* this game yet, let alone use KS for the 'more traditional' way of funding the staff to work on it or get voice actors or whatever. It looks like the KS will be going *on the very basics*. On top of that, MMOs just are throwing money down a pit. MMOs come and go with the sunrise/sunset. Only a few are managing to last even a couple of years. And I don't think they're worth investing in (sorry, donating towards), because you're just adding to an ever-crowded market.
I dislike MMOs too. But I simply do not support kickstarters for things that do not interest me. It seems easier.
Generally it seems like a lot of KS studios already have the basics in place, and have progressed on their title. A lot of KS schemes seem to be based around either finishing a game or enhancing it, rarely do they come for a project that can't even be made yet. Yes, some KS projects do fund new software, etc. with their gains, but it seems like the *entire* budget is going almost exclusively on software (or at least a HUGE part of it is), and to me that is worrying. It means that it's even *less* secure than most other KS titles, because if they got their target (let's say just their target) and they got the software... well, then... how will they fund the rest of the title? How will they pay for their own upkeep, how will they pay to hire people, how will they pay for other software they might need or new versions or something? Will they get outside funding, is it going to be self-funded? It just seems *backwards* to me. It's not entirely an anti-MMO thing - I'm not against MMOs, they're just a very, very risky thing to invest in and rarely is long-term success seen - but more it seems like they're not in a position, right now, to make the game or even work on it in any meaningful way until the KS finishes.
I see what you're saying, but those other studios you mentioned probably bought the software they needed out of their own pocket, and then used the Kickstarter funding to do the other stuff. These guys are probably just doing the opposite. It seems backwards at first, but I don't think it isn't viable. When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense to present the bare-bone basics like this and try to find sponsors for your entire project. Pretty much anything but the game industry does it like that, anyway. I have to say though, that their flipping long wall of text on the Kickstarter page is not the way to go. How will they ever get people interested if they have to read half a bible to get half up to speed with whatever they're trying to get them to pay for. You know, apart from the people that are already up to speed and probably already funded to begin with, exactly the kind of people their Kickstarter is not trying to reach. Maybe you are right.
But, to me, you're not presenting a positive image if you're saying "we want to make a game but we don't even have the software". That, to me, is not something that instils confidence. Surely if you could afford to make the game out of your pocket, you'd buy the software and then seek funding *as you make it*? That's how most KS games work, and it makes sense. They're generally either some of the way into development, or they are in a position where they can make that game *but they just need the funding*. If you don't have the software then *you are not in a position to make a game*. It's that simple. Yeah, there have been times where games failed on KS but managed to secure funding in other ways, because publishers saw interest and picked it up or whatever, but I just don't see how you can try to crowd-source funds for a project when you're literally not in a position to make it.
You make some valid points. I agree that the more you can present on your Kickstarter project, the better it looks for the potential backers, and that a lot of other studios tackle things differently. I just don't think you can pick on a studio for "not being in a position to make a game", when that is exactly what Kickstarter was set up for, you know? If it's a reason for you not to back it, that makes perfect sense. But it's not like they're making trying to make soup out of bricks or anything. Just soup out of vegetables in a slightly different way.
But they're seeking funding to get in a position to make that game, under the guise of using that money to make the game. You're arguably not actually 'donating' money for them to make that game, you're donating money for them to get themselves into a position where they can make that game.
But isn't that the whole point of Kickstarter and indeed all endeavours that search to get funding? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
Yes, and no. The point of Kickstarter is to seek donations of a certain amount in order to produce something. Whether it's a book, an album, a video game, even a film, the point is to crowd-source money to put into a product. However, when all the money from a Kickstarter is put into the software needed, then that is not putting money into a product. I see it as being like, say, a Kickstarter where a group of musicians want to create an album but over half their budget is for buying the instruments. It's a mismatch of the group's goals, and of their presentation. What I mean is if you're asking for, say, $500k to invest into a game, it should be on things that contribute towards that game. Hiring a composer, hiring better artists, going for a better graphics engine if you hit a stretch goal. Those sort of things actually contribute directly to the goal, because those people generally bring their tools with them. But if you need the money for a game but your first major outlay (which will take a high percentage of the budget) is actually on the software itself, that money isn't being pumped into developing the game, it's being pumped into making the studio functional. It's kind of dishonest. They're asking for money to make a game, when in reality they're asking for money (primarily) for software to make the game. That's two similar, but different, things. It's hard to explain better than that. Closest analogy I could think of was the band and the instruments.
That's actually misleading. You ARE donating money for them to make a game. It just so happens that part of making that game includes buying the appropriate tools, which is something that ANY game developer might have to do anyway. Not everyone says that though. Some people need to hire staff. In this case, they don't because their staff seems to be composed of, primarily, volunteers. That's not a negative. Just because they tell you that they are buying tools, whereas other projects may not mention it, doesn't mean that they are the only ones that do that, nor does it mean that it's any less viable of a project than those that don't tell you that. I also don't think that most people will consider that a negative. The only thing that I worry about, because it is a volunteer staff, is that key people may decide that they don't have the time to commit to the project. I mean people do have lives, and things happen. Generally speaking, when bad things happen, and you have to cut things out of your life, usually it's not your job that gets cut, but your time-consuming hobbies. BTW, if you don't believe or trust in Kickstarter as a means of getting a project going, then nothing about this project is going to appeal to you anyway. If you don't like MMOs, then you aren't going to want to invest anyway. That's basically it. There are actual MMOs with small audiences out there that were done on shoestring budgets -- not a lot of them, but I remember at least one that was a one-man project (I did try it, but I can't recall the name). It may not be a success from the standpoint of a commercial powerhouse like Blizzard. But I bet that those who play and enjoy the game don't worry too much about whether or not it is a commercial success, and I bet that it was very fulfilling for the person who created the game to share it, even if it doesn't have the numbers that a game like WoW or Rift or GW gets. It doesn't mean that it wasn't worth the effort. And it doesn't mean anything that there are lots of other MMOs to the people who play that game.
It's not misleading, though. The money you 'donate' arguably won't be going towards the game itself. It will be going towards getting themselves in a position to make the game. I don't think that's the same thing at all. There's no reason why new software can't be part of the expense, but if you read the actual deconstruction of the budget, almost *none* of it goes on the game itself. It goes on an extensive software library *and this applies to stretch funding*. Your money goes on getting the licenses they need, middleware, pre-made assets and so on. There is little-to-no talk of the money actually going into the development of the assets the game needs. The Kickstarter is misleading because you are not donating towards the development of the game. You are donating towards the creation of a studio. On top of that, they don't explain how they're going to actually pay for everything once the KS funds are exhausted, and that seems like it'd be done quickly with the cost of the licenses, middleware, etc. that they're talking of using. It's not about my dislike of MMOs, it's not about me disliking KS. This is about me pointing out that this KS in particular is misleading, it's unclear and there is no talk of how they're actually going to fund this game, because almost all of the KS funds are said to be going towards getting the licenses to be in a position to make this game, let alone *actually* make it.
In a way, yes. But let me try and put it a bit more succinctly. They admit - in their own words - that the money from the KS is going on software licenses, middleware and pre-made assets for the game. The more you donate, the more of the latter they can get. There is utterly no talk of any in-studio development, there is no talk of how the rest of the budget (of which the KS will be 10% at least, I reckon) will be found, there is absolutely no talk of anything except what the game may be, and where the KS money is going. There is utterly nothing there which suggests the studio will actually be stable, there is no talk of funding, there is NOTHING. You are putting your money into buying photoshop for someone. You are not putting your money into that someone working on the game. That, to me, is a clear difference, and one that is worrying. It raises many questions: 1. What are they doing during the KS? 2. What, ultimately, is the point of the KS? Is it just to fund their software library? 3. What are they actually going to make themselves? How much of the game is going to be cobbled together from pre-made assets, from backer-developed items (which form numerous tiers), and so on? 4. What will happen if the KS cannot buy all the software they need? How will they fund the rest? 5. In fact, who is actually funding development of the game? 6. Who is paying the staff, and how? It's clearly not two guys working in their time off. There just seems to be no accountability. They're not even able to do much (if any) of the work as they currently stand, and they're projecting the game being playable in some form by May 2015. Sorry, but MMOs take a bit longer than 18 months to develop, even to a beta stage.
