Is $4M enough?

[Woolvey]

I think the question is more about whether the money will fund the required effort. $4m is committed upfront and really only needs to cover payroll. There should be funding on the back end too. 74,000 people have purchased the game already, but BG and BG2 had 2m sales each. There's scope for many more sales (and pre-sales). There is also scope for money from merchandising and possible licensing of gameworld concepts and content for other purposes (Novels were created from the BG stories, within the existing Forgotten Realms world, and there are novels based on the DIablo world). To Obsidian, this is a 'must achieve' goal. Their credibility is shot if they fail. If they succeed, $10m+ for their next big project becomes a realistic goal.

[RaccoonTOF]

Most of your examples from the article actually show how it is "based on but added to" in ways that are far more than just graphics. As for this:

Also, Star Citizen isn't solely crowd-funded. There has been ACTUAL investment by private investors. This also makes it a poor example.

Aside from their own personal funds, the only actual investment so far outside of kickstarter has been from a similar setup on their own website - similar to the paypal setup which P:E had, except that in the case of Star Citizen the "local" funding came before the addition of the kickstarter campaign. Still crowd funding though. The mention of "private investors" is there as a "guarantee to make the game as envisioned" IF there cannot be raised enough money through crowdfunding to do so, as long as a certain minimum level of crowdfunding is still met. Agreed that it is not a "purely" kickstarter funded project, and in fact so far is only about 1/5 kickstarter funded, but currently it is over 3/4 crowdfunded still, and depending on how the next month goes it may turn out to mean no need for any significant outside private investment at all.

[Eldmore]

I'd like to ear it from a dev. What does 4M$ cover in the making of PE. All we gamer can do is speculate.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

Most of your examples from the article actually show how it is "based on but added to" in ways that are far more than just graphics. As for this:

Adding elements doesn't make something cease to be retro. Super Meat Boy is retro, despite the small level design, speedrun pace, and quick respawn at the start of a short level. You can advance a retro genre without discrediting it as essentially a niche retro throwback. Project Eternity is going to come with its own set of advancements, but nobody is going to pretend that it's not a niche retro throwback.

 

 

Aside from their own personal funds, the only actual investment so far outside of kickstarter has been from a similar setup on their own website - similar to the paypal setup which P:E had, except that in the case of Star Citizen the "local" funding came before the addition of the kickstarter campaign. Still crowd funding though. The mention of "private investors" is there as a "guarantee to make the game as envisioned" IF there cannot be raised enough money through crowdfunding to do so, as long as a certain minimum level of crowdfunding is still met. Agreed that it is not a "purely" kickstarter funded project, and in fact so far is only about 1/5 kickstarter funded, but currently it is over 3/4 crowdfunded still, and depending on how the next month goes it may turn out to mean no need for any significant outside private investment at all.

Roberts has referred to the crowdfunding as "an element" of his funding strategy. He will get private investment to cover it all if crowd funding doesn't kick in, but private investment is part of the funding strategy no matter what.

 

Roberts has funded the game thus far via private investors

[AwesomeOcelot]

The only developers who get enough money to compete with the publisher-funded projects can be counted with the fingers of one hand.

As opposed to the number of "major publishers" of AAA titles? Not counting platform-specific publishers (since by previous argument that makes them automatically not AAA titles) that leaves us with what? EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard/Activision, Take-Two, Square? There are a few others in there that are "up there" but I'd say those are likely the publishers of the vast majority of AAA titles released...

1. EA

2. Ubisoft

3. Take Two

4. Activision Blizzard

5. ZeniMax Media(five fingers, hand #1)

6. THQ

7. Square Enix

8. Konami

9. Sega

10. Capcaom (10 fingers, hand #2)

11. Namco Bandai

12. Warner Bros. Interactive

13. Namco

14. Valve

15. Atlas(three hands)

 

Nameco is on there twice? Atlus? No. Where's Sony and Microsoft? NCSoft?

Edited October 20, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Veeno]

The modern console shooter is essentially a power fantasy. You walk down a linear hallway and shoot at the guys who run at you. There are big setpieces, but the levels themselves are a big line.

 

 

Ah, so you're pulling that crap...

 

A retro FPS would include puzzles, exploration, crowd management, resource management, and quick reflexes.

 

Pffff...

 

Please. Puzzles, exploration, crowd and resource management are as prevalent in Modern Warfare 42658 as they were in Quake and Half-Life.

 

And quick reflexes... well yeah, that's a part of all the first-person shooters, isn't it? If there's anything in modern shooters you can't say there isn't a requirement for quick reflexes.

 

Health and ammo are not managed resources in the modern FPS. Health regenerates, changing the pacing and purpose of the entire interaction players have with the level.

 

In some modern shooters.

 

Ammo is infinite, rather than also having to be stored.

 

In some modern shooters.

 

 

 

Do you realise what you're doing here?

 

You're proving my point - you're defining "modern shooter" by "a shooter that sucks". There are modern shooters which don't feature the stuff you're talking about, but you're referring to those as "retro shooters". Instead of "retro" and "modern" just use good old non-misleading words "good" and "bad" and then realise that you're saying exactly what I was saying - in crowd-funding, developers who make good games would be rewarded and get to make another game, while those who make bad games wouldn't.

 

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

Please. Puzzles, exploration, crowd and resource management are as prevalent in Modern Warfare 42658 as they were in Quake and Half-Life.

Half-Life is the beginning of the modern shooter. Based on narrative, lots of time spent looking at setpieces, very little time spent actually shooting things.

 

Second of all, no, no they really are not. To say otherwise is stupid.

 

And quick reflexes... well yeah, that's a part of all the first-person shooters, isn't it? If there's anything in modern shooters you can't say there isn't a requirement for quick reflexes.

Yes, you very much can. Ducking behind a chest-high wall or around a corner and waiting for your health to regenerate is a big part of the modern shooter. The modern shooter.

 

You're proving my point - you're defining "modern shooter" by "a shooter that sucks". There are modern shooters which don't feature the stuff you're talking about

Name one.

[Veeno]

Second of all, no, no they really are not. To say otherwise is stupid.

 

Ah, brilliant argumentation. But allow me to retort: No, and to disagree with me is stupid. Now what?

 

 

Name one.

 

I don't think there's a point, because by the way you're defining "modern" shooters, any I would name you'd proclaim a "retro" shooter.

 

As I said, if you're defining "modern shooter" as "a shooter that sucks" then yes, I agree - those could never be successful on Kickstarter. BECAUSE THEY SUCK. Which was exactly my point in the first place.

[Veeno]

If you really want an example of a modern shooter that doesn't include neither chest-high-walls-cover nor automatic health regeneration, here's one.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

I don't think there's a point, because by the way you're defining "modern" shooters, any I would name you'd proclaim a "retro" shooter.

The only retro shooter made in the past ten years, off the top of my head, would be Gun Godz by Vlambeer. There are a couple arena shooters in the sub-$20 range. There is not a single full-priced retail shooter that doesn't fall under the "modern shooter" label.

 

As I said, if you're defining "modern shooter" as "a shooter that sucks" then yes, I agree - those could never be successful on Kickstarter. BECAUSE THEY SUCK. Which was exactly my point in the first place.

I'm defining them as a shooter that is of the genre that appeared post-Halo, which is so distinct in its mechanics and how it is played and paced that it is distinct from the type of shooter that existed in the 1990s. There's a difference between being a BAD shooter(and there ARE very bad retro shooters, many of which in the "cheap Doom cash-in clone" category) and being a MODERN shooter.

[TheLastMalkieri]

Anger be now your song, immortal one,

Akhilleus' anger, doomed and ruinous,

that caused the Akhaians loss on bitter loss

and crowded brave souls into the undergloom,

leaving so many dead men--carrion

for dogs and birds; and the will of Zeus was done.

Edited October 20, 2012 by TheLastMalkieri

[Piccolo]

I'm defining them as a shooter that is of the genre that appeared post-Halo, which is so distinct in its mechanics and how it is played and paced that it is distinct from the type of shooter that existed in the 1990s. There's a difference between being a BAD shooter(and there ARE very bad retro shooters, many of which in the "cheap Doom cash-in clone" category) and being a MODERN shooter.

Modern, heavily consolized FPS games like COD and Halo suck... but so do most retro FPS games from the 90s.

 

Tactical / simulation style shooters like Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis and Arma 2 are the pinnacle of online FPS gaming, while FPS/RPG hybrids like Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are the pinnacle of single-player FPS gaming.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Piccolo

[lechuck]

ftl(faster than light)costs about 200 000 dollars,and it's a great game from a team of 2 devs...money means nothing sometimes...

[rjshae]

Interesting, well-informed discussion by the way. Thanks.

...and now, not so much.

[Madae]

Is there a way to donate to this still? Or will another way be opened up in the future, like through this website? I didn't see this until now, and I'm kinda bummed that I couldn't give anything for it.

[Ieo]

Interesting, well-informed discussion by the way. Thanks.

...and now, not so much.

 

I'm confused where the thread went. Oh well...

 

Is there a way to donate to this still? Or will another way be opened up in the future, like through this website? I didn't see this until now, and I'm kinda bummed that I couldn't give anything for it.

 

The Paypal options don't work on the Eternity page? At least they seem to still be there...

[Eternitude]

Is there a way to donate to this still? Or will another way be opened up in the future, like through this website? I didn't see this until now, and I'm kinda bummed that I couldn't give anything for it.

 

You can still go to : http://eternity.obsidian.net and use the paypal donations (right column) to pledge and choose your reward level.

[Madae]

Ah! I didn't see that. Thank you.

[Eternitude]

Interesting, well-informed discussion by the way. Thanks.

...and now, not so much.

 

I'm confused where the thread went. Oh well..

 

 

Lost it's way, time to go to forum thread heaven (or hell as the case may be....)

[Veeno]

I think everything's pretty much been said. There's only so much you can say when discussing predictions about the future of something relatively new like crowdfunding for video games.