...the big publishers are right, I have backed up both old school proyects by inXile and Obsidian but the numbers dont lie, look at how many backers they got hey 60,000 plus backers is nothing to sneeze at but honestly how many off the street buyers can they find? I would say that if they sell 500,000 copies for a non console game it would be tremendously succesful, but I get what the big time publishers thought off when denying their backing to InXile (in that hilarious Fargo video).
The good thing is that these games are pretty good bets to beign exaclty what he old school gamers who ponnied up their money hope for, and if they are succesful I hope Kickstarter projects continue to give these "niche" efforts a viable option for getting made at alll....cuting the middle man might prove to be the best thing to come out of this...plus I have read some very interesting atricles that the age of the AAA game are coming to and end...not that they would dissapear but the current publisher-distributer-developer model would need some serious reimagining to remin viable
Now if only someone would come up with a Darklands Kictstarter update....

I think it's pointless. If you have to ask your would-be customers to fund the game you're wanting to make, then you probably shouldn't bother making the game. "Old school" style games are much easier to make these days and should, imo, be done by independent developers. Age of Decadence has the right idea.

What? Most companies can't afford to make/publish their own games so they seek a developer. What's wrong with turning to the public instead? Developers have been having a huge influence in how games turn out and the interference is getting to be too much, not to mention a noticeable degrade in quality(New Vegas for example)

Some people would rather let their game die than get the foul taint of a developer like EA infect it. But why let it die when you can get it supported?

Because these games are already overpriced as it is, and now they want donations before the game even begins development? [censored], please. I'll settle for letting whatever it is die. I wouldn't even donate for a Xenosaga 4, as much as I want that game to happen.

Besides, it's inexpensive to develop these games nowadays, unless they want to hire celebrity voice actors and use fancy graphics (in which case, it's hardly "old school" anymore).

Leave the easy, outdated stuff to the indie developers. It's what they excel at.

Uhhh...aren't the people who are donating getting a free copy of the game anyways?

Yes, of course. They're all handing out a million dollars of Monopoly money.

You know what donating to a game that isn't even being made yet says to me? "I'm a simpleton and/or hypocrite who likes to gamble with my money and assumes a game made by this company will be great, even though I have sworn off 'biased' internet reviewers and have such high standards for my video games. Furthermore, if this game ends up being terrible, I will either blatantly deny it while dying inside or condemn the developer until their next game announcement where I'll end up doing this again anyway."

EA games is like that pedophile you don't want to let your games kids hang around.

Come on. If you're choosing to back a project, you're doing that at a gamble, yes. You're doing it because you trust the developer involved and want to see the game made. It's that simple. There's no reason to insult the people who show that faith and trust for these companies. I fully understand not wanting to donate yourself, and I, personally, am not keen on doing it with reckless abandon, but Kickstarter is no skin off your back, and you have no place being judgmental about people who donate. Keep that condescending attitude to yourself.

Forever the pessimist.

Developers get to make the game they want without an overbearing publisher. Backers get to put faith in a developer they like in the hopes they get a product they like. Pledging any amount is optional. Everyone's happy.

If backers are unhappy with the products they receive for the amount they gave, they'll stop pledging and crowd-funded gaming will fail. That's the only objective criteria for whether or not the idea is a good one. Why cry about it until that happens? It's a self-correcting system.

Oh god, what if it is one of those backers who donates 1K+ dollars is unhappy. thats why i don't do kickstarter, IDK what ima get my bang for my buck.

Alternatively, it says that what they've seen about the game looks good and they're hoping this will be true, much like basically everyone who has ever bought any game they haven't already played before, ever.

Then don't spend $1,000. See how convenient the system is?

It makes a certain kind of statement towards other game companies when people come together and donate money to have a game company create a game based on promises that cater to a model that the larger game companies have abandoned under the idea that the game model would not sell well. You might even call it a form of passive aggressiveness towards those companies.

Let's look at some of the promises they say they wish to keep.

- Having a game that is deep taking care to develop complex characters and engaging storylines placing an emphasis on other things than graphics, gimmicks and brand names.

- Making a game with hard, non streamlined choices that matter in the long term for your character and the story. Encouraging players to think rather than breeze through easy linear content with little depth or impact to it.

- Making a game for the PC, sacrificing nothing to bring it to the consoles which have become the main platform for many game companies as DRM proves ineffective to keep their games from getting pirated.

- And one of the more mind blowing things for me that they seem to be thinking about. Making the game DRM free. Removing all of the frustration that often comes with actually buying games over just pirating them which quite frankly can make up for a more enjoyable experience for some games.

And then there are many more points but I don't need to recite them all to make my point here. I threw in 80$ to support this, not because I know that it will be the best game ever, but because I have hope that with the freedom that comes from being funded by the players themselves they will be able to keep their promises and to make my own statement that I support projects such as this one.


Indeed, I encourage people to state their own opinion and make their own arguments. I know I wouldn't have made my post here if that albeit rude post had not incited me to write it.

Whoa...I never expected to read a response like that...I thank you for your comments; I might not agree with them but it is great to see something from a completly different perpective, this is what enriches topics like these...
Maybe Kickstarter is a crapshoot, but then again even the concept is old school; back whe I was a kid playing these old school games like Bard′s Tale there was no internet or game reviews as we know them now, so you had to trust the game you saw on the store or was recommended by your buddy might actualy be worth it. It is something like following the artist, writer or player rather than the team, band or company...
I trust the kind of game Brain Fargo made in the 80s and early 90s that is why I rather give hm my money than taking a blind chance on something off the shelf....
I didnt hate EA after seeing what they did to Origin (self caused too) but seeing what they have done to their sport franchises and especially now transforming Bioware into a kiddie freindly company has lead me to really mistrust anyhting that comes out of them, I rather pay $35 diectly to the developer than a focus group, "whats trendy" developer...might high hinking since I own a company that comes up with those "teenage girls like vampires, lets add them" market research company

Exactly my thoughts. Especially how video game rental stores are obsolete now, you are almost always buying a game without ever knowing whether its good or not, so theres no difference in throwing 20 bucks at a kickstarter game then buying a game at the store not knowing if its good or bad.

I am happy to be able to tell a developer what I like, rather than having a publisher tell them what I ought to like.

Another point is that copies of the game can usually be had for much less than the probable release price -- in the case of Obsidian, they're offering digital ones for $20, which is effectively a 66% discount for pre-ordering. Given that you'd usually have to wait at least months before a game hit that pricepoint (even with Steam discounts, you'll tend to be waiting a while), so it does work out favourable .

I suppose my point is that one isn't paying full price, so it's less of a problem even if the game ends up cruddy.

[censored]. The average programmer alone gets $95,000 a year. How many programmers does it take to make a game? How long? 30-50, 1-5 years that's excluding most overhead, games takes MILLIONS to make.

False. In this day and age, we have numerous ways to see precisely how a game functions and plays, and if it looks to be any good. Sure, back then buying a game was a gamble, but this argument doesn't hold up anymore. I can easily find out if a game is worth my time (Usually through YouTube videos and looking over the features listed in reviews), unless it isn't being developed yet and I have absolutely no way to tell how good or bad it will be. Putting money on that? No thanks.


I prefer to call it brutal honesty.


[censored]. If you feel the need to hire 30-50 programmers for some game whose only complexities lie in its character development and number charts, you are doing it wrong.

It's not honesty, though. It's worst-case pessimism. Honesty would be admitting everything can (and probably will) work out okay. And if it doesn't, you get your wish and crowd funding goes the way of the dinosaurs.

If you aren't comfortable with the system, don't use it. Others who are comfortable will use it, and that dichotomy will determine the system's success or failure.

True, consumers have the ability to see, with some precision, if a game is worth their time explicitly. If that is how you choose to make purchases, that's fantastic, and a smart way to spend your money. I do the same. Nevertheless, when a game is being made by some of my favorite developers, developers whose vision I trust and align with, and they can't see their vision come to pass without financial backing, I will make some contribution. Because I choose to. Because I have faith in what the developers want to do. I don't get the people who donate over 100 dollars to any of these, but that's their choice. I am not about to judge their benevolent zeal.

Your opinion is brutally honest, yet condescending. You are looking down people based on hasty judgement and generalization. It's insulting.

Not to be a dike, but based on that criteria, I'd call his opinion justified.

I actually meant that SubTonic's looking down on people is hasty judgement and generalization, again I pass no judgement onto the people who are donating.

EDIT: It's fixed

Look, I apologize for being insulting. In addition to being a bit too passionate about games for my own damn good, I've been in a really bad mood for a while and I'm taking it out on people who don't deserve it. You're right, Kickstarter doesn't affect me whatsoever if I choose not to participate. It's the principle that bugs me, though, not necessarily the money. However, I don't wish to take this any further. Again, my apologies for flamebaiting like that.

No worries. Sorry about your bad mood, too. I definitely understand your views, and it's that same passion that really drives people to participate in things like Kickstarter.