RaccoonTOF Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) 1 - Project: Eternity 2 - Double Fine Adventure 3 - Wasteland 2 4 - Homestuck 5 - Planetary Annihilation (hand 1) 6 - Shadowrun Returns 7 - Broken Sword 8 - Banner Saga 9 - Leisure Suit Larry And others as well...but those are all ones which are popular and well-known, discussed in a variety of forums/blogs/etc, with post-release sales expected to be significantly higher than their KS funding. It really depends on how you consider "compete with the major publishers" too I suppose - but all of those reached the "tens of thousands" figure mentioned earlier as well, just in KS supporters. Edited to remove smiley in numbering Edited October 20, 2012 by RaccoonTOF "If we are alone in the universe, it sure seems like an awful waste of space"
HungryHungryOuroboros Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) And others as well...but those are all ones which are popular and well-known, discussed in a variety of forums/blogs/etc, with post-release sales expected to be significantly higher than their KS funding. It really depends on how you consider "compete with the major publishers" too I suppose - but all of those reached the "tens of thousands" figure mentioned earlier as well, just in KS supporters. $3-4 million is a drop in the bucket for these people. Banner Saga got $700k? That's nothing. You're not competing with the people who spend $100 million to make GTA IV, $55 million for Halo 3, $22 million on Crysis, etc. Budget-wise they are, at best, five times smaller than the smallest AAA game. If you're a 6 foot tall man, it's like standing next to a 30 foot tall giant. Hell, ti's like standing next to a machine that can churn out 10 30 foot tall giants every year. Edited October 20, 2012 by HungryHungryOuroboros
rjshae Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Interesting, well-informed discussion by the way. Thanks. "It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."
Veeno Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) How the hell is that supposed to make sense...? See, once again, this is the perspective of someone who sees Kickstarter like regular shops, and pretends the two are nearly interchangeable "except some people may not want to pay that early". No, it's not. I am fully aware that Kickstarter allows the gamers to do nothing but pure investment. But your logic is flawed. Just because, so far, the games on Kickstarter have gathered support because they appeal to nostalgia of a certain crowd in no way means that other, more widely popular ideas, couldn't succeed on Kickstarter. Even now there are games which appeal to a larger crowd than adventure games and isometric RPGs do. Just because game ideas which get rejected by publishers can succeed on Kickstarter doesn't mean that those which wouldn't get rejected by publishers have no chance of success there. All it takes is for the awareness of why crowd-funding is better than publisher funding for both developers and gamers to spread. Edited October 20, 2012 by Veeno Hey, I just backed you, and this is crazy, but here's my money, so stretch goal maybe?
Darkpriest Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) And others as well...but those are all ones which are popular and well-known, discussed in a variety of forums/blogs/etc, with post-release sales expected to be significantly higher than their KS funding. It really depends on how you consider "compete with the major publishers" too I suppose - but all of those reached the "tens of thousands" figure mentioned earlier as well, just in KS supporters. $3-4 million is a drop in the bucket for these people. Banner Saga got $700k? That's nothing. You're not competing with the people who spend $100 million to make GTA IV, $55 million for Halo 3, $22 million on Crysis, etc. Budget-wise they are, at best, five times smaller than the smallest AAA game. If you're a 6 foot tall man, it's like standing next to a 30 foot tall giant. Hell, ti's like standing next to a machine that can churn out 10 30 foot tall giants every year. We really need that kind of machine in the actual game j/k 4 mln USD is a good budget to make a very good game. As I said before, the main part of the production costs are salaries, that's why for example a Polish Game The Witcher 2 had a budget of roughly 5mln USD, but it was made with CGI, Full Voice over in different languages, teasers and stuff... US based company will not be able to afford full voice overs, but it can create a lot of dialog, and graphics is a lot simpler and thus cheaper in terms of workhours to create in the 2.5D isometric game. The team will be what? 20 people? I am fairly sure that Obsidian will fill any possible gaps from their own funds if they would hit some major delays or required to get more people at the same time on the project to get it on time. Either delay or more people would result in additional working hours though... As for the funding.... Well IF the big three-five projects will be involved in the Kicking it forward initiative, they can roll their own budgets through this quasi-profit sharing. So successful sales of these titles and fairly large initial amount of money, might continue to get people invested in crowd funding... The thing is, that 90% of these big titles has to be successful sales wise (around 1mln copies publisher free product will be a hit and a lot of cash for the company), and they need to promote that this was possible to establish this franchise, because of KS initiative... I can easily see these RPGs making 1mln copies sold on the release... If you will look at the sales generated by The Witcher franchise (check only the PC versions), it is possible. After all, TW wasn't done by a major developer / publisher combo and it is based on not so well known fantasy setting. Only now CD Porjekt RED has a lot of goodwill value and they surely keep doing the great job (The Witcher 3 in works, Cyberpunk 2077 in works - yes, The Cyberpunk game, with involvement of the P&P Cyberpunk creator). I can see that this is another studio, which could get the funding via the Kickstarter initiative. Kickstarter will not kick BIG 5 in the balls and will not hurt them, but smaller publishers might want to diversify their portfolio with smaller budget, but high profitability projects... If I see that the goal for Dead Space 3 from EA is to sell 5 mln copies just to BREAK EVEN, it's astounding... Edit: A solely PC game requires less money than a game for three platforms (PC, XBOX, PS3) Edited October 20, 2012 by Darkpriest
RaccoonTOF Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 $3-4 million is a drop in the bucket for these people. Banner Saga got $700k? That's nothing. You're not competing with the people who spend $100 million to make GTA IV, $55 million for Halo 3, $22 million on Crysis, etc. Budget-wise they are, at best, five times smaller than the smallest AAA game. If you're a 6 foot tall man, it's like standing next to a 30 foot tall giant. Hell, ti's like standing next to a machine that can churn out 10 30 foot tall giants every year. My entire point is that budget spent =/= quality games, but that quality games do still equal "competition". All of those games have generated significant publicity, consumer awareness, and are expected to sell well beyond their KS figures in both earnings as well as sales numbers. Whether that happens or not we still have to see, but that is the current expectation. And if they DO manage to follow through with that expectation, then we should expect to see those numbers go up, not down - which then means a real honest competition for market share with the big publishers. Sure, not on the scale of The Sims, or CoD, or Madden, or WoW perhaps - but competition for Elder Scrolls? Deadspace? GTA? Prototype? With Prototype 2 the total sales were so low in comparison to costs that Activision basically completely destroyed Radical Entertainment as a studio, and PC-sales were only a little over half of what the total KS pledges already are for P:E. That's got to be enough for them to at least sit up and notice... "If we are alone in the universe, it sure seems like an awful waste of space"
AwesomeOcelot Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 KickStarter isn't and doesn't have to compete with major publishers. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens when other developers see projects where the creator keeps the IP and the profits. People seem to think there's going to be an inevitable decline, and there will be, but there's also areas of growth when certain models are discovered. KickStarter works, and will continue to work for some games.
HungryHungryOuroboros Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 But your logic is flawed. Just because, so far, the games on Kickstarter have gathered support because they appeal to nostalgia of a certain crowd in no way means that other, more widely popular ideas, couldn't succeed on Kickstarter. Former LucasArts adventure devs want to make an old school adventure game. $3 million. Former Black Isle and Troika devs want to make an old school isometric RPG. $4 million. Halo dev Christian Allen wants to make a shooter. $200,000. Even now there are games which appeal to a larger crowd than adventure games and isometric RPGs do. ...since when are 90s space sims like Wing Commander anywhere close to being more popular? I don't know what universe you're living in, that's an extremely niche old genre.
Eternitude Posted October 20, 2012 Author Posted October 20, 2012 Money is not a reward for quality, for greatness, for intellect. But, it CAN be, and isn't crowdfunding one of the new tools that RPG fans can use to foster and cultivate these attributes in our favorite developers, without interference from publishers? As RPG fans, as people who have watched the fall of Troika, the stumbling of Obsidian, and the end of Black Isle, I thought this simple truth would be pretty much evident. It is very clearly evident, and exactly one of the reasons that crowdfunding could gain in acceptance and popularity with fans. It empowers them and gives them a connection directly to the developers when backing the content they love. Look, I have obviously been influenced in this converstation by some of the great points you and a few others have made, and certainly have to defer to your studies in economics. I have definitately curbed my originally soaring estimates of the potential upper limits of crowdfunding. However I just can't bring myself to the conclusion that we are closer to the upper limits now at $4M than say a few years from now as knowledge of the concept grows and we start tapping into a great pool of potential backers. You see I am not prepared to say you are *wrong*, but I just don't know how you and some others can be so comfortable using the word *never* when describing potential [video game] funding levels. At what point does *possible* become *never*? 6M? 8M? 12M? 15M?
HungryHungryOuroboros Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 You see I am not prepared to say you are *wrong*, but I just don't know how you and some others can be so comfortable using the word *never* when describing potential [video game] funding levels. At what point does *possible* become *never*? 6M? 8M? 12M? 15M? Double Fine has said that they want to make a Psychonauts 2, but wouldn't even try to Kickstart it. The original Psychonauts had a $13 million budget. I'm thinking that a budget in that sphere is unlikely enough that it may never be worth pursuing.
Veeno Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Even now there are games which appeal to a larger crowd than adventure games and isometric RPGs do. ...since when are 90s space sims like Wing Commander anywhere close to being more popular? I don't know what universe you're living in, that's an extremely niche old genre. You didn't watch the video, did you? There's nothing "90s" about that game. Hey, I just backed you, and this is crazy, but here's my money, so stretch goal maybe?
RaccoonTOF Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) ...since when are 90s space sims like Wing Commander anywhere close to being more popular? I don't know what universe you're living in, that's an extremely niche old genre. I dunno, if you include not only the Wing Commander series, but also things such as the Freespace series? That's a lot larger market than you think. Just looking at GoG stats for actual purchases, while the IE games do have a lead in total sales, they've also been available on the site longer. If you limit your rankings to only go as far back as Freespace has been available as well, Freespace is right up there in the middle of the pack with the IE games. Edit: And Veeno you are evil for posting that...I'm just glad it still has 30 days left to go, because after the P:E KS I'm totally tapped out now Definitely think I'll be backing that one as well... Edited October 20, 2012 by RaccoonTOF "If we are alone in the universe, it sure seems like an awful waste of space"
HungryHungryOuroboros Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Even now there are games which appeal to a larger crowd than adventure games and isometric RPGs do. ...since when are 90s space sims like Wing Commander anywhere close to being more popular? I don't know what universe you're living in, that's an extremely niche old genre. You didn't watch the video, did you? There's nothing "90s" about that game. I watched the video within the first half hour of the Kickstarter going up. Like I've said, I follow this ****. There is everything 90s about tossing Wing Commander, Privateer, and Freelancer into a blender.
Veeno Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 There is everything 90s about tossing Wing Commander, Privateer, and Freelancer into a blender. Well then there is everything equally nineties about throwing Doom, Quake and Duke Nukem into a blender. There, all first-person shooters are nineties! Hey, I just backed you, and this is crazy, but here's my money, so stretch goal maybe?
HungryHungryOuroboros Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 There is everything 90s about tossing Wing Commander, Privateer, and Freelancer into a blender. Well then there is everything equally nineties about throwing Doom, Quake and Duke Nukem into a blender. There, all first-person shooters are nineties! You're being either obtuse or ignorant to argue that the mechanical differences between 90s shooters and modern shooters don't make them essentially different genres. A 90s shooter Kickstarter would probably succeed, a modern shooter Kickstarter would not, because the former is a different kind of game entirely. Star Citizen is pretty, but mechanically it blends several of Chris Roberts' 90s children. The big floating text at the start of the video makes it clear: "We're bringing back 90s PC space sims". What do you think "rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated" referred to? Chris Roberts accidentally choking on a chicken wing? 1
Cultist Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 BioWare was considered as an AAA developer. Look how great it turned out. BioWare stated that main voiced protagonist is the most expensive part of the voicing...somehow they tried to make it look like advantage. It's not like PE will be an interactive movie like Dragon Age 2, with lots of motion-captures or such. 1
Veeno Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 You're being either obtuse or ignorant to argue that the mechanical differences between 90s shooters and modern shooters don't make them essentially different genres. A 90s shooter Kickstarter would probably succeed, a modern shooter Kickstarter would not, because the former is a different kind of game entirely. Pray tell, what exactly are the differences between a nineties shooter like Quake or Half-Life and today's shooters that aren't among the differences between nineties space games and Star Citizen? Hey, I just backed you, and this is crazy, but here's my money, so stretch goal maybe?
Darkpriest Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 You're being either obtuse or ignorant to argue that the mechanical differences between 90s shooters and modern shooters don't make them essentially different genres. A 90s shooter Kickstarter would probably succeed, a modern shooter Kickstarter would not, because the former is a different kind of game entirely. Pray tell, what exactly are the differences between a nineties shooter like Quake or Half-Life and today's shooters that aren't among the differences between nineties space games and Star Citizen? Cut content for later DLC sales
Veeno Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Cut content for later DLC sales Ah, true, how silly of me to forget. Hey, I just backed you, and this is crazy, but here's my money, so stretch goal maybe?
HungryHungryOuroboros Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Pray tell, what exactly are the differences between a nineties shooter like Quake or Half-Life and today's shooters that aren't among the differences between nineties space games and Star Citizen? Oh, okay, so you're actually among the people who are ignorant about it and not just being obtuse. This makes me feel better. 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. A retro FPS would include puzzles, exploration, crowd management, resource management, and 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. The point is no longer to manage resources over a long term, but to create short-term spikes of excitement that then reset between encounters. Ammo is infinite, rather than also having to be stored. The number and types of weapons are reduced to the point that strategic weapon selection is no longer an aspect. Multiplayer maps, which are SUPPOSED to just be big arenas to shoot people, are more complex in modern FPS games than their single-player counterparts, which is completely fipped from how it works in the 90s FPS. A modern FPS is a hallway gallery shooting meant to give the player a power fantasy through highly detailed(but low on interaction) setpieces while the 90s FPS is, in every way, a mental and reflex challenge.
RaccoonTOF Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Actually...with Star Citizen and the microtransactions, that's only half true Difference being that you CAN get the content through normal gameplay, unlike many/most f2p games. As for this: Star Citizen is pretty, but mechanically it blends several of Chris Roberts' 90s children. The big floating text at the start of the video makes it clear: "We're bringing back 90s PC space sims". What do you think "rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated" referred to? Chris Roberts accidentally choking on a chicken wing? The same video you use in your own argument states pretty clearly that what is being referred to are two things - PC focused (as opposed to console) games, and the GENRE of the space sim. There is a huge difference between being in the same genre, and being the same mechanics. I'd have to say that from what is available in the video, comments, and the site itself, it is certainly going to be a lot more than just a prettier Wing Commander. The "living world" aspects of the multiplayer just as one example, without making it a "purely MMO". "If we are alone in the universe, it sure seems like an awful waste of space"
Darkpriest Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 The IDEAL FPS games of the 90s: Duke Nukem 3D - you just cannot not love it... especially the special edition... that was very climatic. Doom series. I am not sure if I will not harm this game by calling it an FPS but here it is - System Shock - no contest...
HungryHungryOuroboros Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 The same video you use in your own argument states pretty clearly that what is being referred to are two things - PC focused (as opposed to console) games, and the GENRE of the space sim. There is a huge difference between being in the same genre, and being the same mechanics. I'd have to say that from what is available in the video, comments, and the site itself, it is certainly going to be a lot more than just a prettier Wing Commander. The "living world" aspects of the multiplayer just as one example, without making it a "purely MMO". http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/10/wing-commandeered-chris-roberts-star-citizen-preview/ Everything in the Star Citizen demo is very obviously there as a nostalgic hook to Roberts’ longtime fans, to the extent that the logo for the space combat portion of Star Citizen currently uses the Wing Commander font. I’d be stunned if the final game follows suit though (not least because I can’t imagine EA letting it go unchallenged), and the actual universe underneath it is very different to any of Roberts’ past space games. ... The game’s name comes from the fact that in this universe, citizenship has to be earned. How you go about it though is completely up to you. If you want that Wing Commander flavour, sign up for a tour of duty in the military and you can focus on combat in a solo/co-op part of the universe. For more freedom, grab a ship and just do your own thing, Privateer/Freelancer style, only within a living economy and ever-expanding universe of mystery and intrigue, only with players instead of just NPCs and no one jerk getting to hog the Steltek gun. ... And that’s just the start. If Roberts manages to implement all the features he wants, Star Citizen will be one of the greatest space games ever. You’ll be able to host your own universes for instance, as in Freelancer. Also, Star Citizen isn't solely crowd-funded. There has been ACTUAL investment by private investors. This also makes it a poor example.
gakmen Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I am pretty sure that e.g. Ubisoft can pay for the development of several big titles simultaneously. On the other hand no matter how talented Mr. Avellone is, I still have a hard time imagine him working on more then one game at a time. He actually worked both on FO2 and PST (as a lead). And now he works on W2 and PE. Not to mention that as soon as the fund-raising for P.E.2 starts people would wonder what happened to all the revenue P.E brought to the developer, so Kickstarter is only a one time option for a company. If a project truly succeeds and makes profit, few would be willing to back the successor because the first game proved that it could stay on it´s own two legs. If a project fails there is even less reason to pay for a second attempt. So either way developers just get one chance. I don`t get that point. If I like PE, I will definitely back PE2 (or any other game by Obsidian) on KS and most likely will pledge much more than I did first time. I just won`t ask questions about how are they spending their money (maybe to "cover for loses" or to start 2 projects simultaneously, or just to make the game bigger) I am no fan of the big publishers at all, and really think there should be better ways (not that I can think of any) but crowd-funding is simply no alternative for the top price segment. It works for the niche market and might actually even give impulses that affect the triple A segment but believing that it will ever being anything more than that is delusional. Who cares about alternatives for the top price segment? I just want to play games that I want to play and currently I don`t see such games on the market (stopped playing after PST), KS gives me such opportunity. Really simple as that.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now