Kickstarters: Why do they work?

[The Twilight Mexican]

When I first heard of this idea, I was very sure one thing would happen: People were going to take one look, roll their eyes at video game developers begging for money to fund a game that may never see rhe light of day anyway, and then never purchase one of their products again.

Clearly, that hasn't happened.

It seems like a new kickstarter project pops up every other day, often with respected names from the industry attached. What happened here? Both from the developer's perspective and the consumer's?

Obviously this offered developers an opportunity to pursue passion projects that shareholders couldn't be talked into, but why would consumers actually latch onto this idea like fleeing a sinking ship?

Has the market become so saturated with formulaic, uninspired crap no one wants to play that gamers are actually willing -- often eager -- to fork over their hard-earned cash (in this economy!) for the very possibility of getting to play games that would interest them but may still face the same development hurdles they would anywhere else (and not actually see release)?

 

[Cthulhu]

Well, they pop up by the billions, yes, but I seriously wonder if any of the games actually end up seeing the light of day. Anyone have any statistics on that?

 

[Cat Rage Room]

There are a lot of Kickstarters that are really popular and great games, but there are a lot of Kickstarters that fail too.

The idea behind Kickstarters is simple; why should being able to create a game be limited to a giant game corporation?

 

[Cthulhu]

The idea behind Kickstarters is simple; why should being able to create a game be limited to a giant game corporation?

It's not, it's just hard for someone to give up their day job and try and build something without external funding, and it's hard to get external funding; the crowds that donate some of their money into Kickstarter campaigns do so with much less risk than, say, a bank giving someone a loan to start a company (or a large game publisher funding development of a game).

The idea is valid and just, but, it's misused frequently as well, there have been a few scams where a Kickstarter page meets its goal, the starter gets paid out by Kickstarter, then... nothing.

 

[Keveh Kins]

People like to feel like they're a part of the creation process of something, that they had some input into it. A lot of Kickstarter campaigns shill themselves on the mantra "By gaming fans, for gaming fans" or something to that effect. Some of them are legitimate about it, others aren't.

The big advantage of Kickstarter and Indie games development in general is that they don't have any limits placed upon them in terms of the creative process. Indies are where some of the best experimentation in gaming is going on, because they can afford to be different. I think there is something to the notion of people being dissatisfied with tried and true formulas put out by big devs. Big Triple A titles put out by big game devs have huge budgets to earn back, so they tend to go with formulas that are safe and generally succeed. Kickstarter campaigns just capitalise on the dissatisfaction arising from this by offering gamers a medium to see something they want to be made, made.

Some of those Indie games become very successful and at some point down the line we'll probably see a lot more of Triple A titles using mechanics that were first introduced in Indie games and Crowdfunded games. It has great potential and that attracts people, it's just that a lot of the time that potential is squandered, unfortunately

 

[X-SOLDIER]

I fund... a good number of KickStarters, and here's a few reasons why I think that they appeal:

- It lets people contribute to what they WANT to see, and not what some rich bank/producer/etc. is telling them that they want to see. It cuts out that shitty "well we were making this awesome thing one way, but then the producer said, 'bla bla bla' and now there are some different things." This is especially because the projects have very open visibility to all their backers. It lets the consumer dictate what makes it to market and what doesn't BEFORE it gets to the point of being made.

- It lets them have a direct interaction with their target audience, so it functions as its own marketing even during development.

- If it fails to fund - you lose nothing.

- If it funds, but still isn't a big commercial success - you still got what you (as a backer) wanted, especially considering smaller Indy-style games and things.



X

 

[Ite]

There's also the "if it doesn't get fully funded you get your money back" thing.

It makes about as much sense as pre-sales, or buying a new game in a store. You don't 100% know what you're getting but you trust that the product will be good.

And the developers don't need to sell out to mega-corp producers, which means they make games they are passionate about, which are typically better.

Kickstarter is win-win.

 

[Yuri Lowell]

Probably the best non FF thread I've seen on the whole site tbh, amazing post Squall.

edit: I should think the reasons for it working are fairly oblique and do not warrant being repeated since a lot of others itt did it before me ... it's more interesting you were sceptical about it not working. Why in particular did you think potential funders would view it as an affront to them as customers or, what's your social reasoning as to why you didn't think they'd do it?

 

[Octo]

What if it gets funded, but for whatever reason the project stalls? eg: If The Last Guardian had been kickstarter It would have got funded in a day, but now how many years down the line are we? Is there a time limit imposed on devs to deliver the goods?

But yeah in principle Kickstarter and crowdfunding is a brilliant idea. Why should people wait for products from established companies? In fact this should be a kick in the arse for complacent developers.

 

[Novus]

I've considered making one before, but I doubt I'd appreciate the pressure of working for myself. There is also the public humiliation of not having a project funded when alternately when it is handled on the stock exchange or private investment that humiliation is disguised.

I'm not sure people do get refunded, someone I know still got their money and it was barely a tenth of what the total amount needed.

As for why they work, your conclusion seems fairly apt. People like Jobs and his Apple company, and on the gaming side of things the EA games, have destroyed people's immediate faith in capitalism not becoming a monopoly and getting sub-par insufficient products as a result.

Anyway, like all things economic, I believe it is fleeting. Where there is a demand there will be a supply.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Probably the best non FF thread I've seen on the whole site tbh, amazing post Squall.

edit: I should think the reasons for it working are fairly oblique and do not warrant being repeated since a lot of others itt did it before me ... it's more interesting you were sceptical about it not working. Why in particular did you think potential funders would view it as an affront to them as customers or, what's your social reasoning as to why you didn't think they'd do it?

Thanks for asking.

I guess in the first place, I assume consumers have an antagonistic relationship with IP holders. Though that may not be as true with video game developers as it is with the movie and music industries, where even the paying customer feels, if not vilified, then still treated with suspicion.

I'm glad Octo mentioned "The Last Guardian" because I also felt embarrassing debacles like that and the development of long-anticipated projects that were utter flops (e.g. "Aliens: Colonial Marines") would give gamers a crisis of confidence in where their money was going. When even Square Enix has a game taking almost ten years (May will make eight since Versus was revealed), there's cause for concern -- at least when talking about the Square of yesteryear.

And then there's just the idea of people working for multi-billion dollar companies asking for money that just sounds "off," even when it isn't.

Based on the responses in this thread, I guess kickstarter succees is not as surprising as I thought. Thanks to all for the explanations.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

What if it gets funded, but for whatever reason the project stalls? eg: If The Last Guardian had been kickstarter It would have got funded in a day, but now how many years down the line are we? Is there a time limit imposed on devs to deliver the goods?

Most devs have outlines for all their goals, especially when the project is a game. Most of the backers have varying levels of alpha and beta access as well, so the visibility to those projects is pretty high - very much UNLIKE most other game development.

I'm currently a backer of... Colossal Kaiju Combat, Project Phoenix, HyperLight Drifter, & Unsung Story (which are games that all release updates at the VERY least every couple of weeks to all their backers). The films and book that I've KickStarted also keep/kept pretty regular communication open during development, though they often have a lot less information to share, and communicate less often on account of it. I'm sure that there're some projects that've failed to follow through, but I believe that there are some safeguards in place with the crowdfunding service, though I've yet to have any reason to dig through it.

I'm not sure people do get refunded, someone I know still got their money and it was barely a tenth of what the total amount needed.

Having funded a number of KickStarters that both made it and didn't, I can promise you that you don't get charged if the project doesn't hit funding.

Thanks for asking.

I guess in the first place, I assume consumers have an antagonistic relationship with IP holders. Though that may not be as true with video game developers as it is with the movie and music industries, where even the paying customer feels, if not vilified, then still treated with suspicion.

See, and this is another good reason. It cuts out the bullshit of the companies who lord their products over you "we funded this and can do whatever we want to distribute it to you, so that you don't even really own it (DRM), and bla bla bla" This interface lends itself to something where they're working WITH their backers and FOR their backers, and not just for some faceless "hopefully they'll consume this product we're making in a vacuum" consumer.

And then there's just the idea of people working for multi-billion dollar companies asking for money that just sounds "off," even when it isn't.

Based on the responses in this thread, I guess kickstarter succees is not as surprising as I thought. Thanks to all for the explanations.

Yeah, it only really sounds "off" until you're informed about how that process really works. Hell, if you want to know what makes making films that people want, but companies don't, just look at Vin Diesel's whole fiasco making Riddick to see how fucking obnoxious it is having to develop a product within an industry, despite knowing what your target audience wants WITHOUT crowd funding.

Glad to be of assistance & things.



X

 

[Novus]

Having funded a number of KickStarters that both made it and didn't, I can promise you that you don't get charged if the project doesn't hit funding

X

You're right.

I just checked, I got mistaken with Indiegogo which does do that. Their layouts for the project pages are similar.