Torment: Tides of Numenera?

[Bos_hybrid]

I got myself a box copy, I can't justify $150 on a collectors edition. Even though this and WL2 sound/look awesome, Inxile have yet to deliver.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Bos_hybrid

[Theobeau]

For those interested, T:ToN's latest update just up.

 

Mark Morgan's music is truly amazing; references PST but remains unique and further info about the tides.

 

Lots of great info; sounds like they have a good KS game plan, no doubt learning from WL2 and PE as to how best engage with the fan base.

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torment-tides-of-numenera/posts

[Starwars]

I like the sample stuff of Morgan better here than the WL2 stuff that's been showcased so far. The bit that starts around 2:13 is particularly nice, with the piano chords. Very good stuff.

[Lysen]

Original Fallout music was also quite different from PST soundtrack. It's good to see that Mark didn't lose his touch.

[Luridis]

I'm not happy with the forward rotating prices of pledges. They still don't have anything between 135 and 275. I'll give them about another week and then I'll just pull my pledge. I sincerely hope this isn't a trend starting, because I'll just cancel my KS account if it is. Asking for support in developing a game is one thing, consumerising it with sleazy marketing tactics is another.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

 

Pledge Gorth, pledge. Its the right thing to do

Sorry. not this time

 

I still regret not pledging for the Shadowrun game, but I honestly forgot that one when it was getting close to its Kickstarter deadline. This one however, I'm very skeptical about the entire concept. I see nothing so far that screams to me "I must have this game!". So I'll wait and see what my Wasteland 2 pledge results in and then judge inxile on those merits

 

 

Have you seen the video they released for WL2?!

 

 

I had my doubts but come on - that's just awesome. I'm afraid we're going to have to see a pledge from you, Gorth, there's really nothing I can do.

 

that looks incredibly beautiful and impressive. Did you notice how one ceiling fan was spinning faster than the other? that's attention to detail! how could I have missed this!?

I mean I heard some reference to Wasteland 2, but I dismissed it as an older game which I just never played.

I know! I think it was Valorian who put a link out to this a few weeks ago, and I was so blown away by it! I didn't play the orginal, but fortunately I got a copy of this in the bag via me PE pledge. It looks and feels fantastic - a mix of FNV and XCOM Unknown plus a lot of new stuff.

[alanschu]

I'm not happy with the forward rotating prices of pledges. They still don't have anything between 135 and 275. I'll give them about another week and then I'll just pull my pledge. I sincerely hope this isn't a trend starting, because I'll just cancel my KS account if it is. Asking for support in developing a game is one thing, consumerising it with sleazy marketing tactics is another.

 

 

What exactly are you referring to?  I haven't really looked at the tiers (since I just jumped in at $20), but I have noticed a lot of bizarre numbers for tiers and weird top up sort of thing, but didn't really investigate much further as I have little plans on upping my contribution.

Edited March 9, 2013 by alanschu

[AwesomeOcelot]

Early bird rewards are used for a number of reasons, in this case and a lot of the time it's for momentum, since a lot of backers tend to hang back, but successful campaigns get a bonus in "me too" backers and visibility.

[Luridis]

It's not the early bird mechanic I'm seeing... it's sell out of x pledge and it's price goes of 5, 10, 15 or 25, depending on where it started. When that tier sells out it goes up again by the same amount. By the end of this thing I suspect what started out as $95 will be around $150 and what started at $250 will be around $350.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Luridis

[AwesomeOcelot]

I don't see the problem, that's still early bird, it's just in multiple stages.

[duskwind]

The problem is the early bird limits are much too low relative to the total number of backers. There were tiers sold out in six hours, before I even knew it was happening.

[duskwind]

1) Crowdfunding is a publisher.

 

Except the studio is in control; if for example they decide they need a few extra months to get the game right, they can take it. Some backers might get pissed off at the delay, but there's nothing they can do about it. And the studio owns the game, and keeps all profit from post-kickstarter sales.

Edited March 9, 2013 by duskwind

[Humanoid]

It's not the early bird mechanic I'm seeing... it's sell out of x pledge and it's price goes of 5, 10, 15 or 25, depending on where it started. When that tier sells out it goes up again by the same amount. By the end of this thing I suspect what started out as $95 will be around $150 and what started at $250 will be around $350.

 

Not that I'm particularly fond of the concept, but the $135 tier is uncapped, so it'll never go to $150.

[Veeno]

The problem is the early bird limits are much too low relative to the total number of backers. There were tiers sold out in six hours, before I even knew it was happening.

 

 

Well, the limited 28$ tier (which they added after the campaign started) still has plenty of spots left - over 17000 of 20000.

[Veeno]

1) Crowdfunding is a publisher.

 

2) So by that logic, they should never have enough money to publish anything on their own? That's a completely stable business model.

 

You seem to have completely missed the entire point of crowd-funding.

 

1) Sure, crowd-funding (i.e. the backers) could technically be considered a form of "publisher". But it's the right kind of "publisher", exactly the kind of "publisher" they would want to have as their publisher in the first place - the gamers, the fans, people who play video games, people who care about video games, people who know what a good or a bad game is, as opposed to sales experts, people who don't play video games, people who only care about how much money they can earn from selling video games and not about video games themselves, people who know what a "good selling" or a "bad selling" game is but have no idea what a good or a bad game is. So even if your semantic tendencies are such that you prefer to refer to crowd-funding/backers as "publisher" in their own right, sure, you're not wrong about that. But that was never an issue to begin with. Whoever provides the money for the budget is the publisher. Even without crowd-funding, couldn't the gamers be considered the actual publishers as well? They're the ones who buy the game, it's their money that the developer gets and uses to develop the next game (the official "publisher" serving as the needless middleman); the only difference is that, without crowd-funding, gamers are blindly providing the money for a future game that they have no idea what it's going to be like. Moreover, if the publisher funds multiple developers (as is often the case), gamers could, by buying a certain game published by said publisher, be actually providing money for some random third developer who they don't care about at all.

 

2) How is relying on crowd-funding for the development of each following game any less stable a business model than relying on current game's sales for the development of each following game?

Edited March 10, 2013 by Veeno

[duskwind]

I own Planescape. Why do I need to own it again?

 

You've got Baldur's Gate; why do you need Project Eternity? T:ToN is telling a different story different characters in a different setting with different game mechanics, just in a similar style to P:T.

[Tigranes]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRsTwF0aHv6dFVwaTF1WTI5b24tbGxpQUdQNU1TSHc#gid=1

 

The definitive Torment $ trends comparison with DFA/WL2/PE. Much better indication of where we might end up at the end; my bet is around 4 million.

[duskwind]

Cool Any chance you could you add a day 0 to the graph? So it starts at the beginning of the first day, rather than the end.

[Veeno]

Cool Any chance you could you add a day 0 to the graph? So it starts at the beginning of the first day, rather than the end.

 

That's pretty useless, they're obviously all at 0$ at the very beginning.

[TSBasilisk]

I think Torment had an early advantage primarily due to their heavy advertising of the future pitch. They got the word out through multiple publications well in advance about what they were doing, so more people were already interested and ready to pledge. In the short term this leads to a large initial surge, but it may also mean in the long-term there will be less of a surge at the end, and possible slower growth in between.

[Veeno]

I think Torment had an early advantage primarily due to their heavy advertising of the future pitch. They got the word out through multiple publications well in advance about what they were doing, so more people were already interested and ready to pledge. In the short term this leads to a large initial surge, but it may also mean in the long-term there will be less of a surge at the end, and possible slower growth in between.

 

The exact effects are really unpredictable. Take this into account:

 

- Such a huge early surge in donations is sure to garner the campaign a lot of media exposure, i.e. attracting a lot of attention and, thus, bringing more people to check out their KS campaign than compared to how many would have done so had it had a slower start.

 

- Basic psychology × 2. Let me explain: With so many backers coming in early, the limited cheaper tiers will all be (have all been) snatched away pretty quickly. Since the campaign goal has been reached so early, this enables them to add stretch goals, additional rewards to higher tiers etc., which incites people who've already backed the project to increase their tiers and pledged amounts (this is basic psychology #1 - "I've already pledged to give them some money, might as well increase it 'a bit' now"), very slowly but steadily freeing up a couple spots on the low limited tiers now and then. People who come to check out the campaign after the initial boom will see that all the limited tiers are taken and some will get hooked to "snipe" for an open spot (basic psychology #2). So not only do they get money from people who've already pledged by inciting them to increase their tiers and pledged amounts, but also from people who wait for an open spot in the limited lower tiers to snatch it away.

[Bester]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRsTwF0aHv6dFVwaTF1WTI5b24tbGxpQUdQNU1TSHc#gid=1

 

The definitive Torment $ trends comparison with DFA/WL2/PE. Much better indication of where we might end up at the end; my bet is around 4 million.

Bah! Disregard what I wrote, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bester

[alanschu]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRsTwF0aHv6dFVwaTF1WTI5b24tbGxpQUdQNU1TSHc#gid=1

 

The definitive Torment $ trends comparison with DFA/WL2/PE. Much better indication of where we might end up at the end; my bet is around 4 million.

 

 

Torment kind of had some level of hype/advertising for their kickstarter, which could very well explain the early jump and a bit faster leveling out than the other games.  I agree it'll be somewhere in the mix.

 

EDIT: TSBasilisk mentioned this before I read his post.

Edited March 10, 2013 by alanschu

[Luridis]

I don't see the problem, that's still early bird, it's just in multiple stages.

 

Here's the problem: I won't go over $250 and they're not offering any options that will cause me to move from the much lower figure I'm at now. I usually start out at a collectors box and if I really like the project I'll move to a splurge version in the final hours to help reach the stretch goals. Selling out of options in so few hours and then increasing the price makes me personally feel like there is just a little bit of advantage-taking on the good will of supporters. I don't see it as extremely dirty poo, like crowdfunding a publisher project, but it just feels mildly exploitative.

 

Edit: You know what... It doesn't actually matter. Personally I feel like they could acquire some additional funds from people with more options in the $100 - $300 range. However, if they're not interested in money that might be there then who am I to say they must. I stopped at $100 because nothing above that is a compelling reward. So, I maximized my own peace of mind and spread that money to other promising projects I'd like to see.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Luridis

[alanschu]

 

- Such a huge early surge in donations is sure to garner the campaign a lot of media exposure, i.e. attracting a lot of attention and, thus, bringing more people to check out their KS campaign than compared to how many would have done so had it had a slower start.

 

The other games had plenty of media exposure as well.  I'm skeptical that this game has any additional media exposure based on its early success compared to other games.

 

 

 

- Basic psychology × 2. Let me explain: With so many backers coming in early, the limited cheaper tiers will all be (have all been) snatched away pretty quickly. Since the campaign goal has been reached so early, this enables them to add stretch goals, additional rewards to higher tiers etc., which incites people who've already backed the project to
increase their tiers and pledged amounts (this is basic psychology #1 - "I've already pledged to give them some money, might as well increase it 'a bit' now"), very slowly but steadily freeing up a couple spots on the low limited tiers now and then. People who come to check out the campaign after the initial boom will see that all the limited tiers are
taken and some will get hooked to "snipe" for an open spot (basic psychology #2). So not only do they get money from people who've already pledged by inciting them to increase their tiers and pledged amounts, but also from people who wait for an open spot in the limited lower tiers to snatch it away.

 

Eh, this is just a logical construct that may or may not have any actual bearing in reality (as is often the case when solely relying on logic).  Yes, I agree that the points you describe could happen, but I think you're over thinking this at this point (I personally feel that the idea of people hoping to snatch limited lower tiers is overstated by you).

 

There's another "basic psychology" point that, once a project is funded, people will feel less compelled to contribute.  There's also "basic economics," in that people have already contributed to prior things and are waiting to see if this model is an effective use of their money.  There's also "basic psychology" that the concept is no longer novel, and the enthusiasm for jumping onto stuff like this has lessened somewhat.

 

There's also the exceptionally important "empirical data" of other similar projects and I think that it lends itself to being a stronger predictor than most of our logical deductions.