The Kickstarter Thread

[BruceVC]

http://www.rockpaper...e-are-they-now/

 

He seems really upset with the projects only updating their backers so far, heh.

 

I was about to post the same link

 

I find this article interesting and relevant. Its disingenuous that developers don't keep to release dates or don't inform fans who funded the games

Edited November 28, 2012 by BruceVC

[AwesomeOcelot]

Most developers are really bad at keeping the community informed with updates, I guess they're not used to having to do it. I don't think the estimated release dates on KickStarter are real, it's probably KickStarter's fault, because obviously a lot of those games greatly surpassed their funding goal, therefore much bigger games, but twice the money doesn't mean you can develop a game in half the time, so those release dates should only count for the project without stretch goals. Of course developers should be way more upfront updating the status and releasing real estimated release dates.

[LadyCrimson]

*reads article*

 

...well, only more time will tell how much success/failure KS ultimately has re: actual games being released (I do think a lot of them are too optimistic in those "estimates" when they create the KS process), but that article did make one thing clear to me .... I want that Castle Story game. Why didn't I hear (or remember, or take note) about that one earlier? I want it, I want it.

[alanschu]

It's inevitable that some of these will "fail." There's one I read about (Link that has been creatively salvaged) that was just tragic as the guy lost all of his programmers and learned it was actually a pretty challenging scenario. Fortunately his honesty seems to have garnered some degree of empathy (and really, any hopeful programmer should recognize that this is a great way to get your foot into the door, if you have the time to spend) and he's fully open sourced the project.

 

I can agree that blocking out updates for everyone that didn't contribute is probably also not the best way to go about things. I suppose it works if you wish to employ a kickstarter model (that is, using kickstarter to develop all of your projects), but I think you do alienate those that were interested but not able to contribute for a variety of reasons.

 

I do agree that Obsidian had the most grounded release date.

[Malcador]

At the early stage of development, I'm not seeing much of a problem with the updates being backer only or having the updates not on the Kickstarter page itself (which he has an issue with apparently).

[BruceVC]

It's inevitable that some of these will "fail." There's one I read about (Link that has been creatively salvaged) that was just tragic as the guy lost all of his programmers and learned it was actually a pretty challenging scenario. Fortunately his honesty seems to have garnered some degree of empathy (and really, any hopeful programmer should recognize that this is a great way to get your foot into the door, if you have the time to spend) and he's fully open sourced the project.

 

I can agree that blocking out updates for everyone that didn't contribute is probably also not the best way to go about things. I suppose it works if you wish to employ a kickstarter model (that is, using kickstarter to develop all of your projects), but I think you do alienate those that were interested but not able to contribute for a variety of reasons.

 

I do agree that Obsidian had the most grounded release date.

 

This also raises another point, the role of Publishers. I have always maintained that Publishers aren't all bad and in many respects add value and do understand the business aspect of gaming development. So some of the challenges we now see on certain KS projects is due to the developers not having the guiding influence of a Publisher

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

It's inevitable that some of these will "fail." There's one I read about (Link that has been creatively salvaged) that was just tragic as the guy lost all of his programmers and learned it was actually a pretty challenging scenario. Fortunately his honesty seems to have garnered some degree of empathy (and really, any hopeful programmer should recognize that this is a great way to get your foot into the door, if you have the time to spend) and he's fully open sourced the project.

 

I can agree that blocking out updates for everyone that didn't contribute is probably also not the best way to go about things. I suppose it works if you wish to employ a kickstarter model (that is, using kickstarter to develop all of your projects), but I think you do alienate those that were interested but not able to contribute for a variety of reasons.

 

I do agree that Obsidian had the most grounded release date.

 

This also raises another point, the role of Publishers. I have always maintained that Publishers aren't all bad and in many respects add value and do understand the business aspect of gaming development. So some of the challenges we now see on certain KS projects is due to the developers not having the guiding influence of a Publisher

 

The games that fail wouldn't get publisher backing, that's why they're on KickStarter. These problems happen with publisher backed games, delays and cancellations happen. You could say that the majority of failures from KickStarter wouldn't have happened because publishers would have seen that they were likely to fail and would never have backed, so it's not guiding influence that's the difference. The influence of publishers apart from the money they bring is bad, they ask for gimmicks and multiplayer, they expect unrealistic release dates, they cancel projects.

[Oner]

The games that fail wouldn't get publisher backing, that's why they're on KickStarter. These problems happen with publisher backed games, delays and cancellations happen. You could say that the majority of failures from KickStarter wouldn't have happened because publishers would have seen that they were likely to fail and would never have backed, so it's not guiding influence that's the difference. The influence of publishers apart from the money they bring is bad, they ask for gimmicks and multiplayer, they expect unrealistic release dates, they cancel projects.

You are confusing failure to sell with failure to create. The point of KS is that games get funded, so that's not an issue. Assuming you can plan around your assets, which some/many can't. And then the project fails.

[alanschu]

There are advantages to having deadlines and deliverables to meet.

 

I wouldn't at all be surprised if some of these games (especially those that brought in much more money than expected) have run into some serious scope creep issues.

[AwesomeOcelot]

The games that fail wouldn't get publisher backing, that's why they're on KickStarter. These problems happen with publisher backed games, delays and cancellations happen. You could say that the majority of failures from KickStarter wouldn't have happened because publishers would have seen that they were likely to fail and would never have backed, so it's not guiding influence that's the difference. The influence of publishers apart from the money they bring is bad, they ask for gimmicks and multiplayer, they expect unrealistic release dates, they cancel projects.

You are confusing failure to sell with failure to create. The point of KS is that games get funded, so that's not an issue. Assuming you can plan around your assets, which some/many can't. And then the project fails.

 

I didn't mention sales.

[HoonDing]

Obviously the behemoth publishers like EA and Activision are only interested in Awesome Button Simulators, but there are still small & mid-sized publishers around (although many have gone the way of the dodo as well) supporting games of small & mid-sized developers, mostly in Europe.

[Oner]

The games that fail wouldn't get publisher backing, that's why they're on KickStarter. These problems happen with publisher backed games, delays and cancellations happen. You could say that the majority of failures from KickStarter wouldn't have happened because publishers would have seen that they were likely to fail and would never have backed, so it's not guiding influence that's the difference. The influence of publishers apart from the money they bring is bad, they ask for gimmicks and multiplayer, they expect unrealistic release dates, they cancel projects.

You are confusing failure to sell with failure to create. The point of KS is that games get funded, so that's not an issue. Assuming you can plan around your assets, which some/many can't. And then the project fails.

 

I didn't mention sales.

But you did mention cancellations. An AAA game doesn't get cancelled because the publishers suddenly decide the professional developers forgot how to make games.

[AwesomeOcelot]

The games that fail wouldn't get publisher backing, that's why they're on KickStarter. These problems happen with publisher backed games, delays and cancellations happen. You could say that the majority of failures from KickStarter wouldn't have happened because publishers would have seen that they were likely to fail and would never have backed, so it's not guiding influence that's the difference. The influence of publishers apart from the money they bring is bad, they ask for gimmicks and multiplayer, they expect unrealistic release dates, they cancel projects.

You are confusing failure to sell with failure to create. The point of KS is that games get funded, so that's not an issue. Assuming you can plan around your assets, which some/many can't. And then the project fails.

 

I didn't mention sales.

But you did mention cancellations. An AAA game doesn't get cancelled because the publishers suddenly decide the professional developers forgot how to make games.

 

It does get cancelled if it starts to look like it won't meet its budget, or the publisher want to "concentrate on established franchises". Of course it's unfair to compare KickStarter projects to AAA (I hate that term), that's an nonsensical arbitrary stipulation. Publishers don't tend to give AAA budgets and teams to leads that haven't developed games before, the teams are by definition much larger than KickStarter project teams, you're not going to get all the same problems just by the nature of the size of the projects.

[alanschu]

There are diminishing returns with larger team sizes, yes, but the types of problems that can occur will in many ways still be an issue.

 

You're still going to have to contend with feature creep.

It's going to have to make sure to stay within its budget.

It's going to have to iterate to make sure systems are stable and well executed.

 

I'm curious what types of problems you think Obsidian won't have compared to larger budget games? There's the degree of autonomy (although I think that people overestimate the level of influence publishers typically exert, it's certainly not nothing).

 

 

The biggest advantage of the Kickstarter model is that the game is funded directly by the customer. Meaning, if the game sells no additional copies, but the backers are all satisfied, business can continue. The risks are that we aren't sure how backers will respond when deadlines are missed and features slip.

 

If we're lucky, we get Haunts: The Manse Macabre. Most people seem pretty sympathetic to the developer's woes down the stretch. It's a game that only had $25k in funding though, so the scale may be important.

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

There are diminishing returns with larger team sizes, yes, but the types of problems that can occur will in many ways still be an issue.

 

You're still going to have to contend with feature creep.

It's going to have to make sure to stay within its budget.

It's going to have to iterate to make sure systems are stable and well executed.

 

 

I'm curious what types of problems you think Obsidian won't have compared to larger budget games? There's the degree of autonomy (although I think that people overestimate the level of influence publishers typically exert, it's certainly not nothing).

 

 

The biggest advantage of the Kickstarter model is that the game is funded directly by the customer. Meaning, if the game sells no additional copies, but the backers are all satisfied, business can continue. The risks are that we aren't sure how backers will respond when deadlines are missed and features slip.

 

If we're lucky, we get Haunts: The Manse Macabre. Most people seem pretty sympathetic to the developer's woes down the stretch. It's a game that only had $25k in funding though, so the scale may be important.

 

The opposite in terms of failure, smaller teams are far more risky. Larger teams to need proportionally more management, that doesn't scale evenly, it's way harder to coordinate design and style with larger teams, I find that smaller teams produce games with a more consistent vision and style. With larger teams, you can lose a few people and it's not a disaster, with smaller teams, if you lose someone you're going to have a hard job finding a replacement, an even harder job getting them up to speed.

 

Publishers insist on gimmicks and multiplayer, box checking features, things that take a lot of time for little benefit, time that could be spent making a better game, they often take over QA and then the developer gets blamed for how buggy a game is,

 

I think backers will always be sympathetic to release dates slipping as long as it's measured in months not years, that happens with publisher backed projects, and a large sentiment from gamers is that they'd rather get a good game released later than a buggy mess released for Christmas, but publishers don't see it that way.

[rjshae]

Good news: Sui Generis just made their KS goal with a few hours to go! This project should be interesting to watch. It's technically very interesting; I'm just not sure how good a game they will make. We'll see...

[alanschu]

The opposite in terms of failure, smaller teams are far more risky. Larger teams to need proportionally more management, that doesn't scale evenly, it's way harder to coordinate design and style with larger teams, I find that smaller teams produce games with a more consistent vision and style. With larger teams, you can lose a few people and it's not a disaster, with smaller teams, if you lose someone you're going to have a hard job finding a replacement, an even harder job getting them up to speed.

 

I agreed that you get diminishing returns with the larger companies. Although a good point that with a smaller team, each individual member is potentially much more valuable (I think it depends on the roll as well as the scope of the project).

 

Publishers insist on gimmicks and multiplayer, box checking features, things that take a lot of time for little benefit, time that could be spent making a better game, they often take over QA and then the developer gets blamed for how buggy a game is,

 

Is this actually the case, or is it what people think it is?

 

As someone with a programmer background myself, I don't expect my programming work to be bug free because of QA. I say that as someone that actually works in QA now. Fortunately, my team has pride in their work and I don't get blamed if something they checked in happened to break something horribly, even if I could have caught it. BioWare has had in house QA for a long time now, and even now there are still aspects that get put out to EAC in Vancouver and whatnot. Does Obsidian not have in house QA because publishers don't allow it? (I use Obsidian because I have seen many state that Fallout New Vegas' issues are a result of poor QA from Bethesda)

 

To be clear, as someone that works in QA, but more importantly is directly involved with the development of it, if BioWare makes a poor and buggy game, I accept that my team is responsible for it, not the outsourced testers that we use from EA. I would feel the same way if I was a programmer.

 

 

I think backers will always be sympathetic to release dates slipping as long as it's measured in months not years, that happens with publisher backed projects, and a large sentiment from gamers is that they'd rather get a good game released later than a buggy mess released for Christmas, but publishers don't see it that way.

 

The problem with this perspective is that a game like Mass Effect 3 literally slipped out of the holiday window to release during a less lucrative time. It was done because the game needed it. So it's not absolute. I do agree that it can be a serious concern though.

 

Disagreements over the potential gains for delaying the game will always occur, and they're going to occur with Obsidian and the Kickstarter guys as well. This is not something isolated to big projects. The point is you will always get someone that wants more time to work on their feature. There was a lot of FaceFX work that was done a few days before release of DAO that I didn't even notice had to be done, but was effectively slapping the programmer in the face every time he saw it. It bothered him because he was a programmer and felt ownership over that feature. He wanted it to be awesome.

 

I will agree that a publisher will be more likely to go "the potential gains from continued work are too limited" than someone closer to the development may think, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Feature creep is easily the biggest issue in pushing a project off schedule.

Edited November 29, 2012 by alanschu

[AwesomeOcelot]

Is this actually the case, or is it what people think it is?

 

As someone with a programmer background myself, I don't expect my programming work to be bug free because of QA. I say that as someone that actually works in QA now. Fortunately, my team has pride in their work and I don't get blamed if something they checked in happened to break something horribly, even if I could have caught it. BioWare has had in house QA for a long time now, and even now there are still aspects that get put out to EAC in Vancouver and whatnot. Does Obsidian not have in house QA because publishers don't allow it? (I use Obsidian because I have seen many state that Fallout New Vegas' issues are a result of poor QA from Bethesda)

 

To be clear, as someone that works in QA, but more importantly is directly involved with the development of it, if BioWare makes a poor and buggy game, I accept that my team is responsible for it, not the outsourced testers that we use from EA. I would feel the same way if I was a programmer.

 

It's not programming work (excluding scripting) that's the source of all the bugs, or even most of the bugs. I think every developer that has budgets over $10m has QA, but it's never enough for the scales of games we're talking about, most developers couldn't possibly do testing in house. Also it depends on the game, multiplayer games and RPGs need a lot more testing. Even Dragon Age: Origins didn't have that much depth in terms of RPG elements, Jade Empire was even more simple, more linear. I haven't played Mass Effect yet, but I saw a lot of complaints about Mass Effect 3 around the internet on games forums and youtube.

 

The problem with this perspective is that a game like Mass Effect 3 literally slipped out of the holiday window to release during a less lucrative time. It was done because the game needed it. So it's not absolute. I do agree that it can be a serious concern though.

 

It's not absolute but it might as well be. Find me developers that could do this that aren't Blizzard or BioWare. It makes a bit of difference when the developer merges with one of the biggest publishers around. Independents have a different experience with publishers. Good luck getting funding for the next project if you aim for Christmas and miss.

Edited November 29, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[alanschu]

It's not programming work (excluding scripting) that's the source of all the bugs, or even most of the bugs.

 

You misunderstood. I meant, as a programmer, I don't blame QA for my issues. Those are still my issues, and at the end of the day I am accountable for them. QA just helps me out when I write programs. I could have put in any role (artist, designer, writer).

 

 

I think every developer that has budgets over $10m has QA, but it's never enough for the scales of games we're talking about, most developers couldn't possibly do testing in house.

 

So you'll agree that widespread bug issues (barring the standard Gamebryo engine issues that affected all of those game) aren't simply Bethesda's fault?

 

Also it depends on the game, multiplayer games and RPGs need a lot more testing. Even Dragon Age: Origins didn't have that much depth in terms of RPG elements

 

What level of "RPG complexity" is necessary to truly necessitate a lot more testing? Something like the Landsmeet has dozens of different flags and whatnot that influence how it plays out and was certainly a high risk area. I have limited visibility into something like The Witcher, but even compared to other BioWare games, it's probably among the most complex in terms of its risk.

 

Even DA2, which I would consider less complex overall, had more issues simply due to a schedule that was too aggressive, and the uncertainty of a plot import that made it less easy to control for variability.

 

People are quick to excuse BioWare's problems as being an EA issue, but they make the assumption that the decisions like multiplayer are made by EA, not by BioWare, which is incorrect. Since I've been here, every game was being explored for multiplayer. Now I've only been here since EA owned BioWare, but multiplayer was a planned feature for Origins and was ultimately cut.

 

 

Find me developers that could do this that aren't Blizzard or BioWare.

 

Obsidian. The significantly less financially well off Sega delayed Alpha Protocol from October 2009 to June 2010 (which was already delayed from February 2009). I'd be surprised if this is as isolated as you seem to think it is.

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

It's not programming work (excluding scripting) that's the source of all the bugs, or even most of the bugs.

 

 

You misunderstood. I meant, as a programmer, I don't blame QA for my issues. Those are still my issues, and at the end of the day I am accountable for them. QA just helps me out when I write programs. I could have put in any role (artist, designer, writer).

 

You're going to have bugs regardless of who you are and the complexity of any game, just through the limited amount of time you have, it gets worse with more complex games, so you're relying on QA, it's their responsibility.

 

I think every developer that has budgets over $10m has QA, but it's never enough for the scales of games we're talking about, most developers couldn't possibly do testing in house.

 

 

So you'll agree that widespread bug issues (barring the standard Gamebryo engine issues that affected all of those game) aren't simply Bethesda's fault?

 

It's certainly Bethesda's fault that there's no official support for the game now, that tells me they don't really care, let alone the issues with their engine you mention that plague all their games, it's not like other companies don't fix this stuff. I don't know specifically what it was like for Obsidian making New Vegas, there's ways that developers could be at fault. Obsidian insist it wasn't their fault, I'm way more inclined to believe them.

 

 

Also it depends on the game, multiplayer games and RPGs need a lot more testing. Even Dragon Age: Origins didn't have that much depth in terms of RPG elements

 

What level of "RPG complexity" is necessary to truly necessitate a lot more testing? Something like the Landsmeet has dozens of different flags and whatnot that influence how it plays out and was certainly a high risk area. I have limited visibility into something like The Witcher, but even compared to other BioWare games, it's probably among the most complex in terms of its risk.

 

Even DA2, which I would consider less complex overall, had more issues simply due to a schedule that was too aggressive, and the uncertainty of a plot import that made it less easy to control for variability.

 

People are quick to excuse BioWare's problems as being an EA issue, but they make the assumption that the decisions like multiplayer are made by EA, not by BioWare, which is incorrect. Since I've been here, every game was being explored for multiplayer. Now I've only been here since EA owned BioWare, but multiplayer was a planned feature for Origins and was ultimately cut.

 

Actually having RPG elements, something like: Fallout 1 & 2, Arcanum, VtM: Bloodlines, and New Vegas are notoriously complex and hard to test, but also the Infinity Engine games and NWN series. Origins is definitely the most complex game BioWare have made since EA bought them. The Landsmeet is one event, in one area, filled with cutscenes, and although I didn't experience any bugs the Dragon Age Wiki shows there are some.

 

Find me developers that could do this that aren't Blizzard or BioWare.

 

Obsidian. The significantly less financially well off Sega delayed Alpha Protocol from October 2009 to June 2010 (which was already delayed from February 2009). I'd be surprised if this is as isolated as you seem to think it is.

 

Didn't Sega cancel two Obsidian projects after that? Pretty sure that's a slam dunk for me.

[alanschu]

You're going to have bugs regardless of who you are and the complexity of any game, just through the limited amount of time you have, it gets worse with more complex games, so you're relying on QA, it's their responsibility.

 

Tell that to the people I work with. QA shares the responsibility. I'm literally speaking from experience in this regard. No self respecting content creator simply goes "eh, QA should have caught it. My hands are washed of this."

 

There are aspects of development that I cover and support, and if something is broken you'll find that I'm not the only person that accepts responsibility for the issue existing. This is in part why I love working with the team I'm on.

 

 

Obsidian insist it wasn't their fault, I'm way more inclined to believe them.

 

Did Obsidian actually state that it was all Bethesda's fault? I know many fans feel this is the case, but fans always see what they want to see. Although given the project budget, you've already conceded that Obsidian should have already had their own in house QA team.

 

 

Actually having RPG elements, something like: Fallout 1 & 2, Arcanum, VtM: Bloodlines, and New Vegas are notoriously complex and hard to test, but also the Infinity Engine games and NWN series. Origins is definitely the most complex game BioWare have made since EA bought them. The Landsmeet is one event, in one area, filled with cutscenes, and although I didn't experience any bugs the Dragon Age Wiki shows there are some.

 

In what ways is Baldur's Gate more complex than Dragon Age: Origins? You loosely coin a term "RPG elements" and effectively list off games you like.

 

 

Didn't Sega cancel two Obsidian projects after that? Pretty sure that's a slam dunk for me.

 

It's only a slam dunk for you if you were actually arguing something else. They didn't even originally aim for Christmas. Alpha Protocol in and of itself was also not a successful game. You ignore the confounding variables in order to support your assumptions.

 

Colonial Marines was canceled one month after Alpha Protocol was released, with Sega stating that they won't be making a sequel to Alpha Protocol. I'm sure they still would have done this if Alpha Protocol sold well enough to justify it though, simply because it fits your hypothesis. (Even though SEGA straight up stated that poor performance is the reason why).

 

Unless you can prove that SEGA wouldn't have done this had the game made its October release (you can't), you're just stating what you think is the case.

[AwesomeOcelot]

In what ways is Baldur's Gate more complex than Dragon Age: Origins? You loosely coin a term "RPG elements" and effectively list off games you like.

 

If you can't tell the difference between Origins and Fallout there's probably no point in trying to explain it to you. Why pick Baldur's Gate, and not Icewind Dale 2 or NWN2? You already know why.

 

Unless you can prove that SEGA wouldn't have done this had the game made its October release (you can't), you're just stating what you think is the case.

 

You can believe whatever makes you feel better.

Edited November 30, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Kaldurenik]

War for the Overworld

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/subterraneangames/war-for-the-overworld

 

Dungeon Keeper inspired game.

They also have a tech demo up where they show some of the art and models. They are going to continue to "unlock" doors in the demo as the imp dig on kickstarter.

 

Tech demo:

https://www.wftogame.com/demo

[melkathi]

I'm backing

Alpha Colony

A family, strategy, trading game with a cute robot. Only just over 30 hours to go and they still need 9k.

Would be nice if they made it. Seems like a nice little game and a good crew making it.

[dvis]

I wanted to point out: Larry Elmore's Art Book

 

While I'm stretching the "Computer and Console" aspect, Mr. Elmore's artistic renderings have vastly influenced my visualizations of RPG's all around - novels (Dragonlance), board/pen and paper games (DnD), and video games (Might and Magic .