169 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
The same difference between reading a novel and readin the cliff notes.

Or watching a football game versus just being given the scores at the end of each quarter.

The experience.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm not saying that one shouldn't play these games. I'm saying that functionally, the way the save is imported is via a checklist. That's how it works. It seems the complaint here is that if Bioware doesn't imported saves, then they'll skimp on the checklist and not include the "minor" choices. 

[Plaintiff]

MerinTB wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...
Once BioWare has information to share, they will share it in plenty of time for you to make any console purchasing decision you want to make. Them telling you any information now won't make a new console come out any faster, or make DAI release any quicker. You have lots of time to consider whether you want to purchase a new console, if the new game is announced for new consoles.

Meanwhile, over at all the Kickstarter games, we get regular updates all the time.

Better business model, IMO.  Though I know this isn't entirely BioWare's call at this point, the holding back of information never benefits.

Like with movies, not screening to critics and not doing any early screenings only makes it seem like you are hiding something bad--whether you are or not.

That consumers might prefer Kickstarter doesn't make it a better business model. A good business model is one that a company can reliably use to succeed, not necessarily one that involves all your customers loving you unconditionally.

Putting aside for a moment that in crowdfunding models, even getting funded at all is a total crapshoot, it has several of the same downsides as regular business models, such as missed deadlines (about 75% of crowdfunded projects miss their projected deadline).

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 juin 2013 - 02:50 .

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
The same difference between reading a novel and readin the cliff notes.

Or watching a football game versus just being given the scores at the end of each quarter.

The experience.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm not saying that one shouldn't play these games. I'm saying that functionally, the way the save is imported is via a checklist. That's how it works. It seems the complaint here is that if Bioware doesn't imported saves, then they'll skimp on the checklist and not include the "minor" choices. 

That is different.

I'd still argue that there is something compelling to playing through a game to get the results you want (the character, if you will) for the next game...
that is far more satisfying than going through a checklist at the start of a game.  End results the same or not, the experience is different.

It's like ME2 and ME3 having Genesis.  Those are great for people who didn't / couldn't play the previous game, no doubt, but I want to do a run-through with an Engineer (haven't done that yet) and when I last tried it (a couple years back) I found ME1 hard to play as I played it too many times (3 prior plays.)  Recently I considered just picking up from ME2, and created the Engineer with Genesis.  By the end of the comic, however, it felt really cheap and unfulfilling.  Other's experiences may vary, but going through that didn't give my character life or weight, even though I had (in my head) more or less preplanned all the decisions I would have been making anyway years earlier.

You could say "Well, what if you played ME1, but to "import" you character you just answered questions (effectively a motion-comic version of entering those long codes from Nintendo games to import saves) what's the difference?"  The difference, and again this might not matter to many people...
is that I won't have had to play the previous game to answer those questions.

Yes, there are programs where you can just set plot flags.  Yes, in the past you could use a gameshark or magazine (or BBS's, user groups, etc, up to web sites when the WWW emerged) to get the codes without playing the game.  But that's going around how the game is played.

It's nuance.  It doesn't matter to everyone.  But it matters to some.

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...


Like with movies, not screening to critics and not doing any early screenings only makes it seem like you are hiding something bad--whether you are or not.

But at the earliest we are 5-6 months out from the release of the game. Its not coming out Tuesday.

The devs were pretty clear with the whole "show don't tell" thing. Maybe we should just wait till they actually start showing something and if they never do or wait till the week before release then I will be the first to pick up their pitchfork and start hammering on the gates.

[MerinTB]

Plaintiff wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Meanwhile, over at all the Kickstarter games, we get regular updates all the time.

Better business model, IMO.  Though I know this isn't entirely BioWare's call at this point, the holding back of information never benefits.

Like with movies, not screening to critics and not doing any early screenings only makes it seem like you are hiding something bad--whether you are or not.

That consumers might prefer Kickstarter doesn't make it a better business model. A good business model is one that a company can reliably use to succeed, not necessarily one that involves all your customers loving you unconditionally.

Putting aside for a moment that in crowdfunding models, even getting funded at all is a total crapshoot, it has several of the same downsides as regular business models, such as missed deadlines (about 75% of crowdfunded projects miss their projected deadline).

Any deficiency that you point at that is "just the business of making games, period", like projects not being completed or how hard it is to get funding, is tangential to the point of being able to share information vs. keeping it hidden.  I'm curious where you get the 75% number (I saw a CNN study that found 84% shipped late) but missing a deadline is pretty much de rigueur for any project.  Few things get done on time for budget, crowdfunded or no.  But, again, this is digression.

Hiding stuff (not talking about story content here) never helps.  For example, most critics and movie business analysts believe that the attempts to keep John Harrison's real identity a secret helped keep Into The Darkness's numbers lower than anticipated.

The "hush-hush until the scheduled reveal" is a stupid marketing ploy.  Most marketing ploys are stupid, actually, but that is also beside the point.  With the information being constantly released, and constantly taking in your customer bases's feedback, you avoid the majority of nasty surprises.

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 juin 2013 - 03:12 .

[MerinTB]

addiction21 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Like with movies, not screening to critics and not doing any early screenings only makes it seem like you are hiding something bad--whether you are or not.

But at the earliest we are 5-6 months out from the release of the game. Its not coming out Tuesday.

The devs were pretty clear with the whole "show don't tell" thing. Maybe we should just wait till they actually start showing something and if they never do or wait till the week before release then I will be the first to pick up their pitchfork and start hammering on the gates.

Movies have trailers and teasers often before the film is finished, and definitely months before a release.

Kickstarter games get their pitches and such up front, to the public, before they are funded.  (Granted, this is kind of a necessity of the buisiness model.)  But they are releasing updates VERY EARLY in the process, and make adjustments based on feedback.

The way BioWare is, unfortunately, going to release information - they will get feedback on the current game way too late in the process to actually implement most of it.  You get Extended Cut fixes.

Grabbing one game at random, Shadowrun Returns first development update - arguably you could call stretch goals updates on development, but let's pick one post-funding complete.  Let's call it this one - when an additional city was decided to be include - http://www.kickstart...ns/posts/231780 - based on a backer survey.  That's more than 5-6 months before release.

Just one example.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
That is different.

I'd still argue that there is something compelling to playing through a game to get the results you want (the character, if you will) for the next game...
that is far more satisfying than going through a checklist at the start of a game.  End results the same or not, the experience is different.

The issue comes in when you're very familiar with the game. It's one thing to replay DA:O and have different origin and different choices. It's another if you want largely the same PC, for example, who just so happened to save the Anvil for Bhelen. 

There comes a point when, after having replayed for about the 20th time, when small variances like that to create different worldstates just become maddening. 

It's like ME2 and ME3 having Genesis.  Those are great for people who didn't / couldn't play the previous game, no doubt, but I want to do a run-through with an Engineer (haven't done that yet) and when I last tried it (a couple years back) I found ME1 hard to play as I played it too many times (3 prior plays.)  Recently I considered just picking up from ME2, and created the Engineer with Genesis.  By the end of the comic, however, it felt really cheap and unfulfilling.  Other's experiences may vary, but going through that didn't give my character life or weight, even though I had (in my head) more or less preplanned all the decisions I would have been making anyway years earlier.

Genesis is isn't a good recap of ME, however, and excludes a lot of choices that are carried forward by the save import. 

But imagine that you use the gibbed editor to just click the states. You'd get the same outcome. 

As for me re: character life or weight, I just don't have that problem. I can't play a character unless I strongly relate to him or her, so getting to the point where I have a character already means I'm fully invs

You could say "Well, what if you played ME1, but to "import" you character you just answered questions (effectively a motion-comic version of entering those long codes from Nintendo games to import saves) what's the difference?"  The difference, and again this might not matter to many people...
is that I won't have had to play the previous game to answer those questions.

Yes, there are programs where you can just set plot flags.  Yes, in the past you could use a gameshark or magazine (or BBS's, user groups, etc, up to web sites when the WWW emerged) to get the codes without playing the game.  But that's going around how the game is played.

It's nuance.  It doesn't matter to everyone.  But it matters to some.

I'm not saying that this isn't totally understandable. It's just different from save import is a technically superior choice vs. checlist, instead of just being about subjective preference. 

[Jaronking]

This is crazy my OP was That the 2014 release was for the next gen consoles because they will not be release until the of this year but a 2013 release for current gen because they are all ready out. who said That they would make DA3 be a exclusive That's just stupid even if it is They can just release the first two games for next gen consoles like they did mass effect for the playstation 3

[In Exile]

But regarding Kickstaters, it's important to appreciate that the product only exists at all because it was funded by a large number of pre-orders. Release of information isn't about marketing at that point - it's about keeping the entire funding audience up to date on a project that exists only because of their financial investment (of sorts).

Whereas a company like Bioware has to promote the game to a new audience, the Kickstarters have their promotional pitch video early on and then just keep the purchasers updated on a project they are (by and large) already passionate about.

Totally different dynamics. 

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I'd still argue that there is something compelling to playing through a game to get the results you want (the character, if you will) for the next game...
that is far more satisfying than going through a checklist at the start of a game.  End results the same or not, the experience is different.

The issue comes in when you're very familiar with the game. It's one thing to replay DA:O and have different origin and different choices. It's another if you want largely the same PC, for example, who just so happened to save the Anvil for Bhelen. 

There comes a point when, after having replayed for about the 20th time, when small variances like that to create different worldstates just become maddening. 

Sure, and I don't say people are wrong for wanting to do this.  I also don't begrudge those who play the game once, then go to YouTube to watch the other endings.  It's not something I'll do, but I understand peoples' motivation for doing such.

In Exile wrote...
I'm not saying that this isn't totally understandable. It's just different from save import is a technically superior choice vs. checlist, instead of just being about subjective preference. 

Are people actually arguing that save imports as technically, as in mechanically, superior?  I'm not.  I'm fairly certain most of the arguing is about subjective preferences.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
Sure, and I don't say people are wrong for wanting to do this.  I also don't begrudge those who play the game once, then go to YouTube to watch the other endings.  It's not something I'll do, but I understand peoples' motivation for doing such.

I can relate to that. I'm not sure how often you replay games, but for me, I wasn't kidding when I said "20th time" for DA:O. 
 

In Exile wrote...
Are people actually arguing that save imports as technically, as in mechanically, superior?  I'm not.  I'm fairly certain most of the arguing is about subjective preferences.

I would say that the argument that the save import will make it more likely for Bioware to potray "minor" choices in game vs. a checklist isn't an argument about subjective preference, but an argument about technical merits. 

I suppose whether those small choices should be in at all is a subjective argument, but taking about which of the two implementations would be better at doing it seems to be about design to me. 

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
But regarding Kickstaters, it's important to appreciate that the product only exists at all because it was funded by a large number of pre-orders. Release of information isn't about marketing at that point - it's about keeping the entire funding audience up to date on a project that exists only because of their financial investment (of sorts).

Whereas a company like Bioware has to promote the game to a new audience, the Kickstarters have their promotional pitch video early on and then just keep the purchasers updated on a project they are (by and large) already passionate about.

Totally different dynamics. 

In a sense.

But something else I wanted to add that goes with this -

the way BioWare is doing it STILL has an audience that is seeing the game as it is being made and giving input to change it - those who provide the money, basically the producers or investors or whatnot.  It's not a one-for-one comparison with Kickstarter crowdfunding...

but the important difference is, I believe, this...

with the crowdfunding, the people giving the money WANT the developers to make their vision, and yes want input, but are onboard because they want to enjoy the game....

whereas the investors/producers give the money because they want the game to SELL to as many people as possible, and they want to make money.

Both models get feedback as the game is being developed.  The motivation of the feedback, however, is critical.  And in the Kickstarter model, the people whom the game are being made for will be far less likely to get some very unpleasant surprises.

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

But regarding Kickstaters, it's important to appreciate that the product only exists at all because it was funded by a large number of pre-orders. Release of information isn't about marketing at that point - it's about keeping the entire funding audience up to date on a project that exists only because of their financial investment (of sorts).

Whereas a company like Bioware has to promote the game to a new audience, the Kickstarters have their promotional pitch video early on and then just keep the purchasers updated on a project they are (by and large) already passionate about.

Totally different dynamics. 

Or, to put it another way, trading 100 publishers for 10,000. 10,000 people with different points of view on what should be done, over what is done. They have to keep gamers in the loop because they gave them money and have an investment. We didn't give BioWare direct funds to make Inquisition. If we had the chance to i'm sure it would be nice, but instead BioWare is reporting progress directly to their main backers, the publisher themselves.

[MerinTB]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]MerinTB wrote...
Sure, and I don't say people are wrong for wanting to do this.  I also don't begrudge those who play the game once, then go to YouTube to watch the other endings.  It's not something I'll do, but I understand peoples' motivation for doing such. [/quote]

I can relate to that. I'm not sure how often you replay games, but for me, I wasn't kidding when I said "20th time" for DA:O. 
[/quote]

3 full plays of DA:O.  1 half play, and a few partial plays.  3 full plays of DA2.

3 full playsof ME1 and 2.  A couple partial plays of 1.

At least a dozen plays of Icewind Dale (I played that game three times in a row with no other games inbetween.)

At least a dozen plays of Freedom Force, not counting mods.

I do replay games often.  Though I can't say I've played any lengthy RPG 20 times, I have too many games I like (even though I tend to have a fairly narrow range of interest IMO) to have the time in life to play any one 40+ hour game twenty times, honestly.  Not judging, just stating my prerogative.  

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Are people actually arguing that save imports as technically, as in mechanically, superior?  I'm not.  I'm fairly certain most of the arguing is about subjective preferences.
[/quote]

I would say that the argument that the save import will make it more likely for Bioware to potray "minor" choices in game vs. a checklist isn't an argument about subjective preference, but an argument about technical merits. 

I suppose whether those small choices should be in at all is a subjective argument, but taking about which of the two implementations would be better at doing it seems to be about design to me. 
[/quote]

Well, some probably prefer the illusion that ALL their choices matter.  Going through a checklist totally destroys that illusions, unless you are good at lying to yourself.

I just recently had my illusion of "dominant tone" destroyed for DA2.  It makes the game far less enjoyable for future plays for me.

[MerinTB]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Or, to put it another way, trading 100 publishers for 10,000. 10,000 people with different points of view on what should be done, over what is done. They have to keep gamers in the loop because they gave them money and have an investment. We didn't give BioWare direct funds to make Inquisition. If we had the chance to i'm sure it would be nice, but instead BioWare is reporting progress directly to their main backers, the publisher themselves.

I did address this a bit above, but here's another difference...

producers / investors actually have power over the developers that pledgers / donators don't.

Most pledgers know they are pledging to the developers vision and want what the developers want, and will give suggestions on the edges.

Investors and producers MAY want a good game, but that is irrelevant here.  Their bottom line is the bottom line, making a game that sells to as many people as possible for as much profit as possible.

If you are looking to make money, if that's the measure of which model is better, the latter sure looks better.

If you are looking for players getting the kind of games they want, and developers getting far more control over what games they make, the former is excessively more ideal.

---

The pledgers are not producers.  They are investing because they want the developer's game to be made.  And they have no real control.

Producers are not pledgers.  They invest because they want a return on their investment.  They give money to a developer because fo their reputation, skill, previous successes - not because of the particular project is one they want to see exist.

The two are like water and vinegar.

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 juin 2013 - 03:40 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
But something else I wanted to add that goes with this -

the way BioWare is doing it STILL has an audience that is seeing the game as it is being made and giving input to change it - those who provide the money, basically the producers or investors or whatnot.  It's not a one-for-one comparison with Kickstarter crowdfunding...

The capital markets stuff is totally different. Lots of reasons, but the basic one is that the entire point of the system is to separate management from ownership. The investors, i.e,, the shareholders, don't actually have anything to do with the day-to-day running of anything. As a matter of corporate governance, they're essentially writing a blank check and hoping for the best (even when you look at progressive boards with good governance regimes or institutional investor shareholder activism). 

Bioware does have lots of oversight, but that's really through the senior management of EA. The Board does something totally different. 

with the crowdfunding, the people giving the money WANT the developers to make their vision, and yes want input, but are onboard because they want to enjoy the game....

They're pre-orders. They're just pre-orders from a particularly dedicated fanbase, and right now they're pre-orders from a dedicated fanbase that feels neglected and is paying on the basis of a personal relationship.

It's just a super, super unique model. 

whereas the investors/producers give the money because they want the game to SELL to as many people as possible, and they want to make money.

Well, it's a product. They treat it like making kitchen stoves, because video game executives don't understand the business they're part of, IMO. 

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

In Exile wrote...
But regarding Kickstaters, it's important to appreciate that the product only exists at all because it was funded by a large number of pre-orders. Release of information isn't about marketing at that point - it's about keeping the entire funding audience up to date on a project that exists only because of their financial investment (of sorts).

Whereas a company like Bioware has to promote the game to a new audience, the Kickstarters have their promotional pitch video early on and then just keep the purchasers updated on a project they are (by and large) already passionate about.

Totally different dynamics. 

with the crowdfunding, the people giving the money WANT the developers to make their vision, and yes want input, but are onboard because they want to enjoy the game....

whereas the investors/producers give the money because they want the game to SELL to as many people as possible, and they want to make money.

Both models get feedback as the game is being developed.  The motivation of the feedback, however, is critical.  And in the Kickstarter model, the people whom the game are being made for will be far less likely to get some very unpleasant surprises.

Well, I have been ignored then, since my attempts to voice my concerns regarding Project Eternity have been met with deaf ears by the majority. I regret even buying into the project because of the direction they are taking the game, each update makes it more disconcerning, but well see in the end how the final product goes. 

The motivation for the kickstarter model is the same as the publishers in spirit over cause. Crowdfunding wants them to make their vision of a product, and want their input to be respected, yet that is not going to happen for many backers in the long run because its impossible to cater to everyone. Publishers want to make money and will cater to general markets most of the time, again limiting what is right for everyone.

So really, the cause may be different, but the effect will likely be the same. We have no guarentee that Project Eternity will be a good game, even for the backers intimately involved in its process. 

[BlueMagitek]

When people say "checklist" they mean a set of variables (flags) which are either boolean (True/False) or enumerations(LELIANA_DEAD,LELIANA_LOTHERING, LELIANA_ALIVE, etc) which specify which choice the Warden or Hawke took when the player played through the game.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
I do replay games often.  Though I can't say I've played any lengthy RPG 20 times, I have too many games I like (even though I tend to have a fairly narrow range of interest IMO) to have the time in life to play any one 40+ hour game twenty times, honestly.  Not judging, just stating my prerogative.  

No, it's totally fair. I have a very narrow range of games I really love, and a lot of other games that I essentially have around to play once, enjoy, and shelf. 

A big difference between us two (recalling previous discussions) is that the actual story portions (and party dialogues, etc.) aren't as tedious for me. I recall that being one of the reasons you like to create-your-own party. 

Well, some probably prefer the illusion that ALL their choices matter.  Going through a checklist totally destroys that illusions, unless you are good at lying to yourself.

I just recently had my illusion of "dominant tone" destroyed for DA2.  It makes the game far less enjoyable for future plays for me.

That's interesting. As the player, I can't help but be able to see through the game and tell a lot about the design, so I just never really actually have that impression (though obviously it's different when RPing). 

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

I did address this a bit above, but here's another difference...

producers / investors actually have power over the developers that pledgers / donators don't.

Most pledgers know they are pledging to the developers vision and want what the developers want, and will give suggestions on the edges.

Investors and producers MAY want a good game, but that is irrelevant here.  Their bottom line is the bottom line, making a game that sells to as many people as possible for as much profit as possible.

If you are looking to make money, if that's the measure of which model is better, the latter sure looks better.

If you are looking for players getting the kind of games they want, and developers getting far more control over what games they make, the former is excessively more ideal.

---

The pledgers are not producers.  They are investing because they want the developer's game to be made.  And they have no real control.

Producers are not pledgers.  They invest because they want a return on their investment.  They give money to a developer because fo their reputation, skill, previous successes - not because of the particular project is one they want to see exist.

The two are like water and vinegar.

The pledgers are producers in the same way as producers are pledgers, its a binding contract to give money to a developer to develop the game they want them to make. Both want a return on investment that satisfies their needs. The only difference is the need being satisfied, i.e a profit, or a specific style of game.

And if the pledgers know they are investing into the developers vision, then should the pledgers have the right to influence that said vision? Is it their right for them to say that they disagree with the design of that character, or the color scheme of that screenshot, or the graphics of that alpha-build, and they should change it to fit their vision of what the game should look like? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 juin 2013 - 03:46 .

[In Exile]

LinksOcarina wrote...
The pledgers are producers in the same way as producers are pledgers, its a binding contract to give money to a developer to develop the game they want them to make. Both want a return on investment that satisfies their needs. The only difference is the need being satisfied, i.e a profit, or a specific style of game.

Not to super derail the thread, but there's a difference between a different corporation acting as a publisher, and what investors do/want when investing in a publically traded company like EA. It's just a totally different financial kettle of fish. 

And if the pledgers know they are investing into the developers vision, then should the pledgers have the right to influence that said vision? Is it their right for them to say that they disagree with the design of that character, or the color scheme of that screenshot, or the graphics of that alpha-build, and they should change it to fit their vision of what the game should look like? 

Whatever pledgers might feel, they're not entitled to any of that. Of course, whether it's wise for the developers to actually ignore them is a different question. 

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Like with movies, not screening to critics and not doing any early screenings only makes it seem like you are hiding something bad--whether you are or not.

But at the earliest we are 5-6 months out from the release of the game. Its not coming out Tuesday.

The devs were pretty clear with the whole "show don't tell" thing. Maybe we should just wait till they actually start showing something and if they never do or wait till the week before release then I will be the first to pick up their pitchfork and start hammering on the gates.

Movies have trailers and teasers often before the film is finished, and definitely months before a release.

Kickstarter games get their pitches and such up front, to the public, before they are funded.  (Granted, this is kind of a necessity of the buisiness model.)  But they are releasing updates VERY EARLY in the process, and make adjustments based on feedback.

The way BioWare is, unfortunately, going to release information - they will get feedback on the current game way too late in the process to actually implement most of it.  You get Extended Cut fixes.

Grabbing one game at random, Shadowrun Returns first development update - arguably you could call stretch goals updates on development, but let's pick one post-funding complete.  Let's call it this one - when an additional city was decided to be include - http://www.kickstart...ns/posts/231780 - based on a backer survey.  That's more than 5-6 months before release.

Just one example.

And we don't even have a release date at this point. Plenty of time for the trailers. teasers. and more information. I am rather sure a long time ago they confirmed human only and voiced PC and have gotten plenty of feedback about these things.

I just don't see the point of comparing what BIoWare does with Kickstarters. Very different operations and like always I will judge them when I have the final product and all is done and said.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
They're pre-orders. They're just pre-orders from a particularly dedicated fanbase, and right now they're pre-orders from a dedicated fanbase that feels neglected and is paying on the basis of a personal relationship.

It's just a super, super unique model. 

sigh

I really hate every time this argument rears it's head.

Pledging to a Kickstarter is NOT pre-ordering.  Some use it as such, sure, but that's those pledgers prerogative (fault?) for seeing it as such.

If it was just a pre-order of a game, all of the donations to Shadowrun Returns (again, sticking to that Kickstarter for the moment) then all the donations would have stopped at the $15 level, which gets you the game, but that's less than half of the pledges.  If it was just a pre-order, why not wait until the game is funded and THEN pre-order?  Most of these game Kickstarters allow that.  If the pre-order is $15, why did over 6000 people pledge more than $100?  For overly expensive t-shirts?

The "it's a pre-order" is an overly simplistic way to look at Kickstarter.  It isn't entirely inaccurate, especially since many pledgers treat it as such, but most donations on KS are not "reserve me a copy of this" and more "I want to see this exist."

Again, I've donated to Kickstarters for projects I, personally, have no interest in but am backing the people making it.  Ouya - my donation wasn't enough to get me one, and I don't plan on buying one.  Takedown is pretty much EXACTLY the kind fo FPS I don't enjoy playing, so I didn't back him to get that game for myself.  There are many others.