Is $4M enough?

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

Another example: Super Meat Boy was considered a huge success in the Indie space. It took until over a year after its release to make $1 million dollars. We're talking completely different scales here.

 

Wikipedia is saying it sold 140,000 copies just on Xbox Live for $10-15 in a period of about 2 months and 10 days. Four months after that it had sold well over triple that. This is an incredibly hard game for people not familiar with 2D platformers, that's about 6 hours long, it's really niche.

Thanks for that, this was my bad. I meant to say 1 million sales, not $1 million in sales.

 

Also remember that that 1 million only came after the Humble Indie Bundle in which people paid as little as $0.01 for a copy of Super Meat Boy plus four other games. Before that they were at roughly 600,000 sales, half a year after release, many of those sales being made for $3.50.

[Freshock]

I think it's enough, atleast I hope so. After reading about Stonekeep and came across this:

 

"The project started out with just two people, Peter Oliphant and Michael Quarles. It was intended to last only nine months and only supposed to cost $50K. However, because the initial stages of the game looked good it exceeded nine months, lasting a total of five years. Eventually there was a production crew of over 200 people, and costing a total of $5 million. The intro sequence was the most expensive part of the production, costing nearly half a million dollars to produce, which was amount is ten times more than the initial budget for the entire project." Stonekeep / Wikipedia

 

Seems like it's the cutscenes that drains most of the money, and with less voiceacting I think they'll make it.

[Veeno]

<snip>

 

My point still stands.

 

Them getting 20+ millions of dollars from sales proves that it's far from impossible to achieve the same amount of budget through crowdfunding.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even come close to even implying that, let alone proving it.

 

It proves that the gamers have the ability to give that amount of money. As a direct logical consequence, it is possible for them to give that amount of money directly to the developer.

 

You seem to have difficulties grasping the meaning of "possible". It does not imply "easy" or "simple" or "it will happen tomorrow", just pure "possible" - nothing more, nothing less.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Veeno

[lordgizka]

Even if Obsidian don't have enough money to make the game the way they want, they can always use bank loans. It's not publisher's money or venture capital, so it should be fine.

 

Edit: and Kickstarter and it's kind are horrible for multi-million dollar projects. There needs to be a crowdfunding site specifically for games managed by, say, principal developers of a specific genre. Or the whole idea normal enough for pre-pre-orders on the developers' page to bring enough money (without using PayPal or similar services too).

Edited October 19, 2012 by lordgizka

[Eternitude]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even come close to even implying that, let alone proving it.

 

Being able to make more than $20 million by selling a finished, mainstream product through major retail channels only proves that you can make more than $20 million by selling a completed, mainstream product through major retail channels.

 

It does NOT prove, or imply, or even hint that these same people would give anything close to that under entirely different circumstances. All it lets us know is that they are willing to buy finished games at Wal-Mart.

 

Are you saying that you believe, even as the potential awareness, popularity, and acceptance of crowdfunding may increase, that it will *never* be able to achieve funding goals of $20M+? Veeno was just stating that it was a possibility, and I really can't find a compelling reason to say it will forevermore be impossible.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Eternitude

[AwesomeOcelot]

Another example: Super Meat Boy was considered a huge success in the Indie space. It took until over a year after its release to make $1 million dollars. We're talking completely different scales here.

 

Wikipedia is saying it sold 140,000 copies just on Xbox Live for $10-15 in a period of about 2 months and 10 days. Four months after that it had sold well over triple that. This is an incredibly hard game for people not familiar with 2D platformers, that's about 6 hours long, it's really niche.

Thanks for that, this was my bad. I meant to say 1 million sales, not $1 million in sales.

 

Also remember that that 1 million only came after the Humble Indie Bundle in which people paid as little as $0.01 for a copy of Super Meat Boy plus four other games. Before that they were at roughly 600,000 sales, half a year after release, many of those sales being made for $3.50.

 

I'm impressed with 600,000 sales. 2D platforming is one of the most saturated genres in indie games, Super Meat Boy had more competition than AAA FPS games. Super Meat Boy was developed in 18 months by two people (if random internet sides on google are correct), and I'm pretty sure the development costs were lower than $1m. It would be interesting if we had access to profits from Super Meat Boy compared to AAA titles.

[Melhelix]

Oftentimes the exact cost to make a game is covered under an NDA, so part of the reason why it is so hard to find the exact number is due to the fact that folk who worked on the titles literally cannot talk about it.

 

It is nice to compare the other end of the spectrum as well. Geneforge 4, which is a low graphic but very dialogue heavy game, cost 120k to make. The lack of cutscenes and any form of VO dramatically reduces a game's cost.

[Infinitron]

I'm fairly sure you won't see Kickstarter campaigns reaching much higher budgets than what we've already seen until some of these Kickstarter-funded games start getting released. The system needs to prove itself.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Infinitron

[Hormalakh]

I asked Feargus about the BG2 budget during the Kickstarter drive and due to NDA he said that he couldn't tell me.

 

@daemon451 Sorry, I usually just let that question slide by. I'm still under non-disclosure with Interplay. Don't mean to give a lame answer like that - but it's the case. -Feargus

Would you know about how much Baldur's Gate II took to make? Or is that also non-disclosure? -Hormalakh

@Hormalakh Same non-disclosure and probably tied into non-disclosures that are now handled by EA as well now. -Feargus

@Feargus Would you feel confident that with the current budget you have now, you'd have the funds necessary to make a game as good or better than BG2 or IWD2? -Hormalakh (We were at around $3.3mil then).

@Hormalakh I am confident that we can make an awesome RPG for what we have. -Feargus

 

Edit: Evidence from Kickstarter comments.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Veeno]

I'm fairly sure you won't see Kickstarter campaigns reaching much higher budgets than what we've already seen until some of these Kickstarter-funded games start getting released. The system needs to prove itself.

 

This, too. After the games start getting released and people start (hopefully) realising that "holy s**t, these games are awesome!", then crowdfunding will really be in bloom.

 

 

 

[Melhelix]

I'm fairly sure you won't see Kickstarter campaigns reaching much higher budgets than what we've already seen until some of these Kickstarter-funded games start getting released. The system needs to prove itself.

 

Do you mean Kickstarter campaigns in general? Because Pebble, a watch, made $10,266,845 back in May. As for proving themselves I will say FTL has been an absolute joy to play. I see a bright future ahead for Kickstarter.

[Infinitron]

I'm fairly sure you won't see Kickstarter campaigns reaching much higher budgets than what we've already seen until some of these Kickstarter-funded games start getting released. The system needs to prove itself.

 

Do you mean Kickstarter campaigns in general? Because Pebble, a watch, made $10,266,845 back in May. As for proving themselves I will say FTL has been an absolute joy to play. I see a bright future ahead for Kickstarter.

 

I was referring to games only, of course.

[rjshae]

One thing is for certain, it doesn't matter how much they brought in, somebody will always fret about whether it is enough.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

<snip>

 

My point still stands.

 

Them getting 20+ millions of dollars from sales proves that it's far from impossible to achieve the same amount of budget through crowdfunding.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even come close to even implying that, let alone proving it.

 

It proves that the gamers have the ability to give that amount of money. As a direct logical consequence, it is possible for them to give that amount of money directly to the developer.

 

You seem to have difficulties grasping the meaning of "possible". It does not imply "easy" or "simple" or "it will happen tomorrow", just pure "possible" - nothing more, nothing less.

You're acting as though these groups are the same. They're not.

 

If we did a mental experiment in which crowdfunding was as well-known as Wal-Mart, a crowdfunded game would still make a LOT less than a finished game because the finished game is finished. People who give money to get a thing in their hands two seconds later are a different set of people than those who give possibly even more money to get a thing in two years are simply not the same sets of people.

 

To get the kind of money major titles make, you'd need major title appeal.

 

To have major title appeal, you have to have a design that appeals to regular non-gamer people.

 

To have a design that appeals to non-gamer people, you need to sacrifice the niche appeal.

 

If your game doesn't have niche appeal, there's no reason to pay 2 years in advance when there's finished non-niche games on shelves RIGHT NOW.

 

 

I was referring to games only, of course.

Tons of games have been made. Most people don't know about them because they were pre-Double Fine and very small scale. I remember when I funded the game by Creatures creator Steve Grand* a year before Double Fine, the $70,000 he raised seemed like such a big deal.

 

*By the way, the creatures in that project are currently unable to move anything below their necks. The project is trying to make truly artificial life, though, building a brain out of neurons and actual muscle systems rather than animating rigs, so these things sort of take longer.

[Infinitron]

Tons of games have been made. Most people don't know about them because they were pre-Double Fine and very small scale. I remember when I funded the game by Creatures creator Steve Grand* a year before Double Fine, the $70,000 he raised seemed like such a big deal.

 

*By the way, the creatures in that project are currently unable to move anything below their necks. The project is trying to make truly artificial life, though, building a brain out of neurons and actual muscle systems rather than animating rigs, so these things sort of take longer.

 

What's your point? Yes, those low-budget games have been made, and one can reasonably conclude that their success increased confidence in the system and led to the higher budgets we have today. And budgets may rise higher still if the games being made now are successes.

 

Let me remind you that Baldur's Gate sold two million copies. Project Eternity has less than 100,000 backers. The customers are out there, man.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Infinitron

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

Tons of games have been made. Most people don't know about them because they were pre-Double Fine and very small scale. I remember when I funded the game by Creatures creator Steve Grand* a year before Double Fine, the $70,000 he raised seemed like such a big deal.

 

*By the way, the creatures in that project are currently unable to move anything below their necks. The project is trying to make truly artificial life, though, building a brain out of neurons and actual muscle systems rather than animating rigs, so these things sort of take longer.

 

What's your point? Yes, those low-budget games have been made, and one can reasonably conclude that their success increased confidence in the system and led to the higher budgets we have today. And budgets may rise higher still if the games being made now are successes.

 

Let me remind you that Baldur's Gate sold two million copies. Project Eternity has less than 100,000 backers. The customers are out there, man.

Customers for the finished game are out there, yes.

 

My point wasn't very concisely put, actually, so let me try to remedy that:

 

-The system HAS proven itself, BUT

-This probably doesn't affect most backers, since it seems the vast majority of them clicked a link from Kotaku or IGN or wherever, because if there wasn't such a big media fuss about Kickstarter they'd be making sub-100k numbers like every game pre-Double Fine

[Infinitron]

Customers for the finished game are out there, yes.

 

Yes, and in two years, those customers will be paying attention when the next big Kickstarter comes around. Because they'll know what great things it can create!

 

You seem to have a strange zero-sum mentality about this.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Infinitron

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

Customers for the finished game are out there, yes.

 

Yes, and in two years, those customers will be paying attention when the next big Kickstarter comes around. Because they'll know what great things it can create!

Yeah, there's growth potential there. It will just never make the same kind of money as a finished AAA game will, because finished AAA games are finished products with wide appeal. You're not going to reach Joe Average with Kickstarter, you will reach Joe Average with Wal-Mart. Idiots will accidentally buy good games because "this one lets you fight dragons" or "I heard this one had boobs in it". Instant gratification will beat out philanthropy every time. Always does, always will.

[Infinitron]

Customers for the finished game are out there, yes.

 

Yes, and in two years, those customers will be paying attention when the next big Kickstarter comes around. Because they'll know what great things it can create!

Yeah, there's growth potential there. It will just never make the same kind of money as a finished AAA game will, because finished AAA games are finished products with wide appeal. You're not going to reach Joe Average with Kickstarter, you will reach Joe Average with Wal-Mart. Idiots will accidentally buy good games because "this one lets you fight dragons" or "I heard this one had boobs in it". Instant gratification will beat out philanthropy every time. Always does, always will.

 

No argument there.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

No argument there.

And that's basically all I'm saying. Veeno's assertion that Money Made By Finished Mainstream Games=Money Potentially Available for Kickstarter Campaigns just doesn't fit with the reality that the two scenarios(giving to Kickstarter v buying a retail product) are extremely different propositions. The difference between the two isn't just that more people know about Wal-Mart, and people aren't equally likely to pledge as they are to pick sommething up off a shelf. That's just not a plausible thing to say.

[Darkpriest]

Usually marketing isn't factored into those budgets.

 

Yeah, I would think that marketing is taken out of the global marketing pool of operating expenses. Production budget is just that, production budget... (salaries being the main factor here) Allocation of marketing budget to a title is a whole different story (and then profitability of the project as a whole).

 

You need to remember that the current triple A titles tend to hire HUNDREDS of people (code, graphics, etc), plus usually expensive voice actors. Add to that any outsourced services (for example music) and you get bloated production costs...

 

The team at Obsidian will be what, 20 people?

[Veeno]

You're acting as though these groups are the same.

 

No, I'm not. I'm not presuming anything at all about the two groups.

 

I'm just saying that the fact that these people obviously have the money required for the publishers to get back their invested 20+ million dollars, it is POSSIBLE for that money to get from these people to the game developer directly.

 

That is perfectly sound logical reasoning. The only problem here is that your perception of the term "possible" is loaded with more meaning than that term actually possesses. "Possible" only means "not impossible" (duh), nothing more and nothing less. I've already explained that and I don't see further arguments about it going anywhere.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Veeno

[Eternitude]

And that's basically all I'm saying. Veeno's assertion that Money Made By Finished Mainstream Games=Money Potentially Available for Kickstarter Campaigns just doesn't fit with the reality that the two scenarios(giving to Kickstarter v buying a retail product) are extremely different propositions. The difference between the two isn't just that more people know about Wal-Mart, and people aren't equally likely to pledge as they are to pick sommething up off a shelf. That's just not a plausible thing to say.

 

I think the main point may have been lost in the symantics of the argument. I do tend to agree with you that the funds available in the two pools you noted above don't overlap sufficiently to complete the picture. However, I believe it is just as implausible to assert that crowdfunding will never be able to achieve [video game] funding levels of $20M or more due to this singular argument.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Eternitude

[Metabot]

I'm fairly sure you won't see Kickstarter campaigns reaching much higher budgets than what we've already seen until some of these Kickstarter-funded games start getting released. The system needs to prove itself.

 

This, too. After the games start getting released and people start (hopefully) realising that "holy s**t, these games are awesome!", then crowdfunding will really be in bloom.

 

 

 

 

Yea, its fair to say that PE, DFA, and WL2 all have a lot riding on them in terms of maintaining faith in crowdfunding.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

You're acting as though these groups are the same.

 

No, I'm not. I'm not presuming anything at all about the two groups.

 

I'm just saying that the fact that these people obviously have the money required for the publishers to get back their invested 20+ million dollars, it is POSSIBLE for that money to get from these people to the game developer directly.

 

That is perfectly sound logical reasoning. The only problem here is that your perception of the term "possible" is loaded with more meaning than that term actually possesses. "Possible" only means "not impossible" (duh), nothing more and nothing less. I've already explained that and I don't see further arguments about it going anywhere.

Possible in the same sense that it's possible for a Kickstarter to reach $1 trillion, as that much money exists in the world. It's not "possible" in a practical sense. People buying finished games says NOTHING AT ALL about the money available to Kickstarters for games and to say otherwise is the stuff of fairytales.