Publishers beware: Can other game developers copy Double Fine's Kickstarter millions?

With adventure game maker Double Fine already bringing in close to $2 million for a new point-and-click adventure game through Kickstarter, are we on the verge of a player-funded-game revolution? Or is this just a case of the right game at the right time?

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/news/2012/02/publishers-beware-can-other-game-developers-copy-double-fines-kickstarter-millions.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[Madlyb]

Kickstarter is a pretty fickle place with even more fickle people running it. I would think that any decent dev group would be able to build a pre-order process with leveled rewards without using Kickstarter. KS just gets you visibility and there are many ways to get that these days.

 

[atfp]

Grim Fandango, one of the best games ever.

 

[Tridus]

I can think of several games I'd have bought if Ubisoft's publishing people didn't work so hard to chase customers away.

Publishers like that are just leeches that prey on the work of others, and the industry would be a whole lot better off without them.

 

[Miqunator]

As long as this method isn't used too much they may be able to repeat the success of Double Fine, maybe...

Personally I would be more interested to help fund improvements to games I already like than completely new ones though

 

[rossjudson]

This is a great expression of the love(?) the community has for Double Fine's creativity. Congratulations to them -- it must be great to get such tangible evidence of their fan base, expressed in _real_ terms!

 

[NeoPlasma]

I predict that there will be a flood of old-school adventure games coming in the near future from the big publishers. There's nothing that fuels their greed-induced envy like success from a project outside their control.

 

[Mesago]

Stay away from them publishers and ye'll do fine.

 

[mv10]

Publishers have already been doing this -- it's called pre-order.

 

[EVOO]

I think it takes a reputable developer and an orphaned/left for dead genre with a modest targeted budget to make this work. Like maybe a Treasure/Ikaruga 2 project. I'm sure a lot of people will clamor for a Half Life 3 or Team Fortress 3, but the budget of that kind of games is probably way too high for Kickstarter.

 

[ChickenHawk]

It will be interesting to see how Brian Fargo's Wasteland Kickstarter goes in the next few weeks. I think there is a lot of passion among classic RPG fans, especially Fallout1/2 fans (who are likely to get on-board as Fallout was only made because Wasteland 2 couldn't at that time). InExile's promising classic RPG style skills based game play (as opposed to the FPS style that Bethesda offered in FO3/Nv/Oblivion and dumbed down in Skyrim), and I think a lot of fans will be willing to pay to see it happen.

 

[iErik]

Personally I would be more interested to help fund improvements to games I already like than completely new ones though

Let's just hope not everyone thinks like that but I wouldn't be against extending some of my favorite games either

 

[Donnicton]

I can think of several games I'd have bought if Ubisoft's publishing people didn't work so hard to chase customers away.

Publishers like that are just leeches that prey on the work of others, and the industry would be a whole lot better off without them.

I can think of several games I'd have bought if Ubisoft never had anything to do with them. Heroes of Might and Magic 6 comes to mind(though I'd still be leery of it on principle since New World Computing is gone, but that's a different topic).

Which drives the point that developers can unfortunately lose sales simply by way of the abusive actions of the publisher they end up associated with. However, it's not as though the developers don't know what they're getting into going in, so not all of the blame is necessarily the publishers. It's not like their reputation hasn't preceded them - if companies stopped signing with Ubisoft, we wouldn't have to deal with Ubisoft.

 

[Uncompetative]

I'm astonished that indie developers don't collaborate on the creation of Open Source Middleware. Why do they reinvent the wheel at their own cost and then be all "precious" about the result. It's not CryEngine that they're making. They need to recognise the virtues of altruism and mutual benefit, whilst realising that their customers are paying for the Art & Design they bring to the tools, not the unique qualities of the tools they may have possibly contrived to engineer by themselves.

Just cross-licensing a collaboratively developed Engine between a "club" of non-competitive developers may be sufficient. Personally, the risks of "giving away the farm" by making the tools they use Open Source is nothing to be paranoid about as bedroom coders lack the time and money to produce equivalent A+ Art.

 

[eg0nomic]

I think it's a matter of faith. A recognized name with a history of proven ability to execute is going to have a MUCH easier time generating this kind of reception. So I think overall publishers should be mostly worried that signing an act (be it music or game dev team or whatever) to a short term contract might mean that they would leave the publisher for other options once success was achieved. I think big names with momentum behind them can gain a lot more freedom and flexibility to pursue ideas with these options open to them. And that's pretty cool. but I think you're still going to have to go through several iterations of proving you can get the work done, and well, first.

 

[theseum]

Kickstarter is a pretty fickle place with even more fickle people running it. I would think that any decent dev group would be able to build a pre-order process with leveled rewards without using Kickstarter. KS just gets you visibility and there are many ways to get that these days.

What's wrong with Kickstarter? Why would you bother to build your own system? Yeah, for a $2 million raise, the percent they are giving to kickstarter probably exceeds the cost of rolling their own, but for the vast majority of projects, that's not true (you'd need a five-figure project to build anything at all for less than kickstarter's take, and a six-figure project to build something that remotely resembles kickstarter). And Doublefine had no way of knowing in advance that they were going to be so successful with this.

 

[jaman4dbz]

OMG make a sequel for Lunar or Grandia! two of my favorite RPGs [Grandia is by far my favorite classic rpg]

I sound like a school girl, but I'm giddy with the idea that someone would make another game like these originals.

 

[MoonShark]

I'd say Zeboyd nailed it.

"I think people like Valve could probably make Half-Life [3] without a publisher if they wanted to," [Rice] said.

Uh, I thought Valve was already rolling in dough thanks to Steam. There's so much demand for HL3 that they would be stupid not to make it; it's practically a guaranteed investment. The only thing holding them back seems to be their weird aversion to the number 3.

Publishers have already been doing this -- it's called pre-order.

No, that's for a game that's already mostly done. Like, it already has trailers and box art. This Kickstarter business if for ideas with almost nothing to show yet.

 

[Edward351]

I'm astonished that indie developers don't collaborate on the creation of Open Source Middleware. Why do they reinvent the wheel at their own cost and then be all "precious" about the result. It's not CryEngine that they're making. They need to recognise the virtues of altruism and mutual benefit, whilst realising that their customers are paying for the Art & Design they bring to the tools, not the unique qualities of the tools they may have possibly contrived to engineer by themselves.

Just cross-licensing a collaboratively developed Engine between a "club" of non-competitive developers may be sufficient. Personally, the risks of "giving away the farm" by making the tools they use Open Source is nothing to be paranoid about as bedroom coders lack the time and money to produce equivalent A+ Art.

The problem is that even the high end engines don't cost that much until you get to really big projects with a lot of volume.

Unreal is $99 upfront and no royalties for the first $50k in sales. You don't pay any fees until you begin selling your product.

GarageGames Torque Engine is $179 upfront, but there is a demo available. The licensing isn't clear, but it looks like there are no additional royalties for the first $500k in sales.

id has open sourced a ton of their engine stuff, with the exception of id Tech 4 and later.

The engines and tools don't cost that much until you get into the scale of large commercial deployments. If I'm not mistaken, there is even a basic version of Havok tools available for PC for free, again if your project scale is small.

 

[cownaetion]

New Grandia or Lunar (by people who love the franchise)? Take my money.

 

[taraba]

Boyd pointed to an RPG maker like Obsidian, which could find favor for a turn-based RPG that bucked the industry trend towards action RPGs.

I would not donate to anything Obsidian did on kickstarter. It would be a buggy mess as proven by their track record.

 

[hobgoblin]

This should be interesting to follow.

 

[astarre]

I can't get to the Kickstarter site through my firewall here in the Middle East. What is the business model? How does Kickstarter make money? Do people donate money or do they get anything back?

That said, I can think of a few games I might fund. Another Icewind Dale. A decent Heroes of Might And Magic. Another AD&D Gold Box Game.

 

[monkey314159]

What's Lunar? What's Grandia?

 

[Donnicton]

A decent Heroes of Might And Magic.

You'd need a Kickstarter project just to separate the IP from Ubisoft first. That's the only way you're going to get a decent one.

I'd say Zeboyd nailed it.

"I think people like Valve could probably make Half-Life [3] without a publisher if they wanted to," [Rice] said.

Uh, I thought Valve was already rolling in dough thanks to Steam. There's so much demand for HL3 that they would be stupid not to make it; it's practically a guaranteed investment. The only thing holding them back seems to be their weird aversion to the number 3.

Didn't you learn anything from Schoohouse Rock? 3 is a magic number. It probably awes and scares Valve like the monkeys at the monolith in 2001: A space odyssey.

 

[Bengie25]

Publishers have already been doing this -- it's called pre-order.

Pre-orders happen *after* the product is mostly done as they are contractually obliged to deliver. Kickstarter is all about donations in good faith.

 

[Snarky Robot]

I can't get to the Kickstarter site through my firewall here in the Middle East. What is the business model? How does Kickstarter make money? Do people donate money or do they get anything back?

That said, I can think of a few games I might fund. Another Icewind Dale. A decent Heroes of Might And Magic. Another AD&D Gold Box Game.

The Kickstarter funding works like this. An individual or group sets up a project, and says " I need X dollars of money to make this". They can offer various tiers of benefits. So, pledge $20, and you get the product. Pledge $50 and you get the product with a signature. Pledge $5,000 and I'll deliver it personally to your door. Et cetera. So, on the last day of the drive, either they have reached enough money or they haven't. If they have, everyone who pledged has their cards charged. If not, then no one is charged anything.

Thus, there is little "risk" to the customer, as if the product will not get made, they don't pay anything.

 

[astarre]

Thus, there is little "risk" to the customer, as if the product will not get made, they don't pay anything.

Ahh...thanks. Sounds like a good deal. Pitch the right game and I'm in!

 

[blckgrffn]

What I think is interesting about this arrangement is that now Double Fine is working directly for us and not a publisher. See those people in that picture? How much harder are they willing to work because they know they are working on our good faith? This could be an extraordinary way of motivating employees as well...

ie, would this game have cost $4M if a publisher was paying for it, but now they'll find a way to get it done with $2M? Are they more likely to hit milestones? Etc.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of motivated employees.

 

[Bengie25]

Thus, there is little "risk" to the customer, as if the product will not get made, they don't pay anything.

There is "less", not "little". It is less "messy" if "customers" are only charged if the minimum is met, but there is the whole thing on if the product will get delivered in the end.

"I need $20k to make this game. I have never used a computer before and I have an IQ of 80, but I will give it my best shot"

People can still donate, there is no formal contract. All you have is their word that they will try.

 

[grrrrreat]

I'm astonished that indie developers don't collaborate on the creation of Open Source Middleware. Why do they reinvent the wheel at their own cost and then be all "precious" about the result. It's not CryEngine that they're making. They need to recognise the virtues of altruism and mutual benefit, whilst realising that their customers are paying for the Art & Design they bring to the tools, not the unique qualities of the tools they may have possibly contrived to engineer by themselves.

Just cross-licensing a collaboratively developed Engine between a "club" of non-competitive developers may be sufficient. Personally, the risks of "giving away the farm" by making the tools they use Open Source is nothing to be paranoid about as bedroom coders lack the time and money to produce equivalent A+ Art.

Indie developers generally don't need to do what you suggest because there already are a lot of open source game engines, frameworks, libraries, etc. out there that are free and open source. The main cost of making an indie game (and probably most non-indie games too) is in the labor required to create the specific art/code assets, and in the design and testing of the gameplay.

 

[Ganz]

I guess I don't understand why kickstarter is the only model under discussion for getting publishers out of the picture. What motivates publishers to dish out cash is the potential profit on their investment.

I'd be up for the same model brought down to the personal level: I want to buy shares, not pre-order an unfinished game.

Rather than rely on faith, we could hedge against potential risk by modifying share prices and/or interest rates. I think this is called a "market".

 

[Hellboy]

It's not just this Double Fine / Kickstarter thing. I'd say Minecraft was a similar phenomenon where a relatively small group of enthusiasts helped fund the early development of a game. In that case there was a working beta build for users to try, which helped address the trust issue. I also think Louis C.K.'s recent success releasing his standup directly from his website can be lumped into this. The bottom line is that the Internet makes it possible for creative people to sell directly to their fans, and fans to influence what gets worked on by their favorite artists.

There will probably always be room for the big blockbusters published under the traditional model. But I think for more niche interests, middle-men (whether it's the recording studios, movie studios, or game publishers) are an increasingly unnecessary impediment to getting things done.

 

[jsrudd]

I'd be up for the same model brought down to the personal level: I want to buy shares, not pre-order an unfinished game.

Its really expensive to issue shares. There are also many questions that need to be answered such as how much stock would be allocated to the game designers services, etc

Publishers have the funds and the ability to negotiate all the contractual terms in a way that cannot be done if you are transacting with lots of shareholders. Most companies start by acquiring funding from either banks or venture capital funds and then, only later issue shares. At that point all the difficult preliminary issues have been worked out and the company is mature.

 

[tigerhawkvok]

The Double Fine team celebrates becoming only the second project in Kickstarter history to bring in over $1 million

Well, it'll be the third complete Kickstarter to break 1,000,000, as the Order of the Stick reprint drive ends today:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/599 ... 9?ref=menu

 

[foxyshadis]

Although a lot of the hate on publishers is justified, they actually do a lot of polish and advertising work that small developers just don't have the resources for. They will often bring in art and voice talent, which obviously skyrockets the development cost but creates a game that has a much broader appeal.

The wave of 8-bit nostalgia has to come crashing to an end at some point, you can only use that as an excuse for poor artistic skill for so long before the market is saturated and people demand something that looks at least professionally 16-bit again. Sales of 8-bit graphic games on iOS and Android have already slumped tremendously this year compared to the boom of last year.

The main problem is that the biggest publishers tend to cause more problems than they ever fix, with their DRM, bad PR, and constant executive meddling. The publishers that do useful work are continually gobbled up by the larger ones, so maybe it's time for devs and artists to start their own co-ops instead of relying on outside business people to keep their best interests at heart.

 

[Bengie25]

I guess I don't understand why kickstarter is the only model under discussion for getting publishers out of the picture. What motivates publishers to dish out cash is the potential profit on their investment.

I'd be up for the same model brought down to the personal level: I want to buy shares, not pre-order an unfinished game.

Rather than rely on faith, we could hedge against potential risk by modifying share prices and/or interest rates. I think this is called a "market".

Another site touched on the whole "investment" idea, and the problem is there is a TON of government red-tape and regulation around any public formal investments.

The "donation" model is the only one that won't invoke the wrath of the IRS/lawyers/etc.

I think it would be awesome if there was a streamlined+simplified version of laws for crowd-sourcing public investments. tens-hundreds of thousands of people drop $1-$20(I assume this would be the vast majority) into a "start-up" investment without all the regulation. Have the law state a small cap on how much you can "invest", like $50 or something.

But currently, you would need SSNs and other traceable information for tax reasons. They would have to claim the investments for tax reasons and they would have to have identifiable information on whom invested.

I can't imagine any company wanting to store hundreds of thousands of SSNs and bank account info, just so a bunch of people can invest small amounts of pocket change into random single person start-ups.

 

[Viking ZX]

I've honestly been tempted to make use of Kickstarter recently, and Double Fine's massive success has only increased my interest in the idea. The thing is, I don't need much more to get my studios first game out, so at the point I'd only do a Kickstarter if something drastic happened.

 

[westworldviewer]

There's probably a narrow window of opportunity here for other devs (I've heard that Cipher Prime has got a KS drive planned). But not just KS is a fickle thing, the whole internet is. So, there will probably less than a dozen projects in the coming months that will attract significant funding, and then this will be overtaken by some other form of crowdsourcing. I guess, in general this will open up many more opportunities for indie devs to move even further away from publishers, which is a good thing.

 

[Donnicton]

The Double Fine team celebrates becoming only the second project in Kickstarter history to bring in over $1 million

Well, it'll be the third complete Kickstarter to break 1,000,000, as the Order of the Stick reprint drive ends today:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/599 ... 9?ref=menu

Oh, if you wanna do semantics, then first to two million.