Idea for deciding if co-op/modding/etc are viable

[RogueBurger]

I don't know if this is possible within Kickstarter itself, but I'd love to see stretch goals for things like co-op, mods, player houses, etc. priced out fully on their own. Then people can divide up what they want to pay among the things they want to see. If something does not reach 50% funding by two weeks, then you cut it and people have to redistribute their funds elsewhere. You continue pruning until you have only things that people have specifically decided to fund and are fully funded according to the budget you need to make it happen. That way, you no longer have to argue about whether some feature is worth it or not.

Edited September 16, 2012 by RogueBurger

[Delterius]

I'm not sure you can adequately determine just how expensive is a feature. Especially something as big as co-op.

[RogueBurger]

I'm not sure you can adequately determine just how expensive is a feature. Especially something as big as co-op.

Co-op is not a new concept to game development. And budgeting is done before a project starts, regardless of whether it's crowd-funded or not. Any development team worth their salt should be completely able to budget out a feature like co-op to within a reasonable ballpark. How else would any co-op-inclusive game ever get funded?

Edited September 16, 2012 by RogueBurger

[JayDGee]

I would like to see it have a co-op feature (icewind dale co-op first online game I ever played) but I'm more interested in seing if the game will be open and accepting of the modding community.

 

I always think this is a great way to expand a game and build community support at the same time. Plus with steamworks it can be implemented that much easier.