43 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[Cribbian]

 

No details yet

[ObserverStatus]

The last Shadowrun didn't make enough money to cover the development of the next one? What a pity...

[Fast Jimmy]

The last Shadowrun didn't make enough money to cover the development of the next one? What a pity...

Which is why no one should give money to this Kickstarter if it looks even REMOTELY close to hitting its goal.

When Kickstarter's exceed their goals, it means they becomes LESS financially viable. Not only are they giving away more copies of the game to otherwise customers for cheaper than full retail price, but they also are now expected to spend that money on new features and items. Less revenue per customer AND increased project cost? Who would want to do that?

This will have no problem meeting its target. Do everyone a favor: save your money for the actual game when it's released and be good fan - give the company money in a way that will actually result in a profit.

[ObserverStatus]

Which is why no one should give money to this Kickstarter if it looks even REMOTELY close to hitting its goal.

When Kickstarter's exceed their goals, it means they becomes LESS financially viable. Not only are they giving away more copies of the game to otherwise customers for cheaper than full retail price, but they also are now expected to spend that money on new features and items. Less revenue per customer AND increased project cost? Who would want to do that?

This will have no problem meeting its target. Do everyone a favor: save your money for the actual game when it's released and be good fan - give the company money in a way that will actually result in a profit.

You make it sound like Cloud Imperium is so screwed once Star Citizen has gone gold.

[Fast Jimmy]

You make it sound like Cloud Imperium is so screwed once Star Citizen has gone gold.

 

No, Observer. 

I'm saying when the time comes... you won't have to.

 

 

 

I'm totally aware that Matrix reference didn't really make sense here.

[Fast Jimmy]

We don't actually know that the previous amount didn't fund this one. All we know is they're doing a kickstarter to get money for the game.

 

Fair enough. My rant was more on Kickstarters in general, not just this one.

 

 

 

And your point about giving away copies for cheaper--unless Kickstarter has a mandatory $10 package clause, this isn't necessarily always true.

 

I'm sorry, but this is always true. I have yet to see a game Kickstarted that didn't have a cheaper pledge or pre-order price than upon release. Not one.

 

But even if that weren't true, you still are cannibalizing a sale. A sale that could have been profit revenue, after costs and is, instead, giving money to be used for the project (as per Kickstarter bylaws or whatever) and not for anything attributable to profit.

 

 

And you talk about new features and items like that's a bad thing. it's not. It can expand the scope of a game beyond some particular subset of features into something that's more broad, more accessible, more successful. So it's hardly a universally bad thing. It's a mixed bag at absolute worst, dependent upon the individual game and how the developers use the additional resources. "New features" doesn't automatically mean feature creep.

 

Let's take a look at some of the bigger name Kickstarters and where their stretch goals have gone.

 

Project Eternity:

 

 

Now, some of these truly add to the game and, in fact, the gamer base in general. Expansion to Linux and Mac, as well as more languages, are a big help in widening the game's appeal. The rest? Since when has having a player house made or broke a game? Do extra races and companions really mean more than the project not making enough money in profit to pay everyone dividends on their time and investment AND have enough to start a new project? Not when the base game had four races and it was bumped up to six - that's adding variety for the sake of variety, not improving core gameplay or implementing features which would make or break a sale for the vast majority of potential buyers.

 

Elite: Dangerous:

 

Having the honor of being the highest base goal of any successful Kickstarter to date, it surpassed its original $1.25 million dollar goal to make it to $1.5 million. At $1.3, Mac version were included (see above as being pretty acceptable) but the increase of an addition $200K - more than most Kickstarter budgets in general - saw the addition of 10 new ships. Again, not a huge bulk of "oh, I must play this game now because of this stretch" type of stuff going on. And increasing the budget by $200K to only add 10 more ships says the team is eating up backer money to forgo future customer profit. That's not a good move to make, but one which the Kickstarter model encourages.

 

Shroud of the Avatar:

 

 

 

Pets! More pets! Masks and Costumes! Virtual Reality! While there are some legitimate new gameplay features, the amount of silly ones just shows the type of glut seen on Stretch Goals.

 

Torment: Tides of Numeria:

 

While some items on here can widen fan appeal, such as " increased story" (that's nebulous) or gender selection, the vast majority are "we can afford a guest/cameo writer!" Guys, make a game that sells a million copies - then you can afford to contract out all your famous video game writer friends in the next game. If you come back in three years asking for my money again to make the sequel because you spent the money hiring people to make novellas, I'm going to be very disappointed.

 

 

Wasteland 2:

 

Wasteland 2 was a bit more humble - they had no idea what to do once they got past their original goal (which they thought was lofty, even though they exceeded it by $2 million, more than three times their original goal). They added Mac and Linux support shortly after, then promised Obsidian as a publisher after the $2 million dollar mark. So this is a good example of limited stretch goals, but at the same time, the team got over three times their original goal in funding, still was over a year late in release. Bloat the budget and you bloat the game, in my opinion. Wasteland 2 made a big splash with it making $1 million in revenue the first week... however, considering it took $3 million to make, how much of the total profits do you think will be eaten up trying to make another game of the same scope (if not higher)? If your answer is "almost all of them" then I'd say you are right. Unless, of course... they do another Kickstarter...

 

 

 

I get that developers want to project as low as possible in their original goals just to make sure something is funded, then want to use the money to flesh out the game more, but that's a good way to crowdfund your market to a fraction of what it would be. Just my two cents, that is.

[In Exile]

Fair enough. My rant was more on Kickstarters in general, not just this one.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but this is always true. I have yet to see a game Kickstarted that didn't have a cheaper pledge or pre-order price than upon release. Not one.

 

But even if that weren't true, you still are cannibalizing a sale. A sale that could have been profit revenue, after costs and is, instead, giving money to be used for the project (as per Kickstarter bylaws or whatever) and not for anything attributable to profit.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's take a look at some of the bigger name Kickstarters and where their stretch goals have gone.

 

Project Eternity:

 

 

Now, some of these truly add to the game and, in fact, the gamer base in general. Expansion to Linux and Mac, as well as more languages, are a big help in widening the game's appeal. The rest? Since when has having a player house made or broke a game? Do extra races and companions really mean more than the project not making enough money in profit to pay everyone dividends on their time and investment AND have enough to start a new project? Not when the base game had four races and it was bumped up to six - that's adding variety for the sake of variety, not improving core gameplay or implementing features which would make or break a sale for the vast majority of potential buyers.

 

Elite: Dangerous:

 

Having the honor of being the highest base goal of any successful Kickstarter to date, it surpassed its original $1.25 million dollar goal to make it to $1.5 million. At $1.3, Mac version were included (see above as being pretty acceptable) but the increase of an addition $200K - more than most Kickstarter budgets in general - saw the addition of 10 new ships. Again, not a huge bulk of "oh, I must play this game now because of this stretch" type of stuff going on. And increasing the budget by $200K to only add 10 more ships says the team is eating up backer money to forgo future customer profit. That's not a good move to make, but one which the Kickstarter model encourages.

 

Shroud of the Avatar:

 

 

 

Pets! More pets! Masks and Costumes! Virtual Reality! While there are some legitimate new gameplay features, the amount of silly ones just shows the type of glut seen on Stretch Goals.

 

Torment: Tides of Numeria:

 

While some items on here can widen fan appeal, such as " increased story" (that's nebulous) or gender selection, the vast majority are "we can afford a guest/cameo writer!" Guys, make a game that sells a million copies - then you can afford to contract out all your famous video game writer friends in the next game. If you come back in three years asking for my money again to make the sequel because you spent the money hiring people to make novellas, I'm going to be very disappointed.

 

 

Wasteland 2:

 

Wasteland 2 was a bit more humble - they had no idea what to do once they got past their original goal (which they thought was lofty, even though they exceeded it by $2 million, more than three times their original goal). They added Mac and Linux support shortly after, then promised Obsidian as a publisher after the $2 million dollar mark. So this is a good example of limited stretch goals, but at the same time, the team got over three times their original goal in funding, still was over a year late in release. Bloat the budget and you bloat the game, in my opinion. Wasteland 2 made a big splash with it making $1 million in revenue the first week... however, considering it took $3 million to make, how much of the total profits do you think will be eaten up trying to make another game of the same scope (if not higher)? If your answer is "almost all of them" then I'd say you are right. Unless, of course... they do another Kickstarter...

 

 

 

I get that developers want to project as low as possible in their original goals just to make sure something is funded, then want to use the money to flesh out the game more, but that's a good way to crowdfund your market to a fraction of what it would be. Just my two cents, that is.

 

You're right in principle, but Kickstarter is clearly not profit driven in the same way that other industries are profit-driven, because they can presell their entire inventory. It's basically pushes back the production cycle back on rung, because the initial investments comes from the revenue of the future release (rather than the future release funding the next release). The company will presumably still pocket some portion of the cost (since it's for-profit and the owners will presumably want $$), but the funding model has changed. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I see your point. Ultimately, I think I would say that the "All money must be used for development" clause or whatever is a bad idea, and changing that would allow some sense of profit. Of course that might necessitate even closer overwatch...but I don't know. That's where I think the issue lies.

I hate to bring up Star Citizen as an example of a good KS/crowdfunded program, but because they're running their funding on their own, they don't have to adhere to that. They already have enough profit to keep the company soluble for years, and producing content (though I've never understood the concept of producing free content for a game that isn't generating any sustained revenue).

 

I feel like this might make sense for video games, but for nearly any other form of Kickstarter, this is a nightmare. Imagine someone who sets up a project to make a video series and vastly exceeds their goal, but who could just pocket all the excess money as profit instead of being required to develop or create more content. There's so many projects out there that could be open to abuse without the caveat that the pledged money must be deovted to the project at hand. Developers would just be wise to shut down the Kickstarter once the original goal is hit, or at least have a reasonable end to when the stretch goal amounts should stop. A wildly successful Kickstarter is a good thing, but greatly goals that are greatly exceeded fall into the realm of "a little is good, more must be better' mentality.

 

You're right in principle, but Kickstarter is clearly not profit driven in the same way that other industries are profit-driven, because they can presell their entire inventory. It's basically pushes back the production cycle back on rung, because the initial investments comes from the revenue of the future release (rather than the future release funding the next release). The company will presumably still pocket some portion of the cost (since it's for-profit and the owners will presumably want $$), but the funding model has changed. 

 

See, I'm not sure this is true. Sure, the dev team often pays themselves a salary and such, but if the project did not sell a single unit outside of the pre-orders made during the Kickstarter, the team would not be able to just pocket any money they had left over in the budget. Profit can only come from sales made outside of the Kickstarter pledge - at least, that is my understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

One thing to consider is that even though Kickstarter funds the entire game and, therefore, anything sold "retail," so to speak, is profit, this doesn't take into account the costs of making a future game. This might not be the goal of every devleoper, no doubt, but sustainability has to be the goal for at least SOME. I have doubts that a studio could legitimately get away with doing a Kickstarter/crowdfunding for every game here in, say, five years. Especially if the prior games were shown to make some profit, which the developers would obviously be keeping for themselves (even if said profit wasn't enough to fund another game without outside funding help).

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Pay the 250,000$ you losers! I want a stronghold!

[Cribbian]

The Kickstarter is LIVE and the goal already reached. They have funded most of the game themselves this time.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Next person to quote Fast Jimmy's long post gets their willy chopped off! (And if they don't have one then they get one surgically attached and then removed - painfully)

 

Strange that they're doing kickstarter again though. I would have thought the funds raised from selling Shadowrun Returns would be enough to develop a sequel on its own considering they are using the same engine. As I understand it's like an expansion really. Given the funds, I suppose it's not as bad as Eternity and Torment which raised millions (and I highly doubt those games will even match their budgets although I expect them to be good).

[Eternal Phoenix]

The fans have been telling them to do a kickstarter for a while. It is also quite different from their last model as they do have some of the funds but they just need a bump.

They probably had one of the best rpgs of last year tho, I donated

 
Well the funds they asked for weren't too extravagant I suppose. The first game IMO matched up to the funds it raised and then some. Given that other games have raised millions on Kickstarter, I suppose their new funding for this game isn't anything when compared.
 

Pillars of eternity, decided to wait until it has been launched and patched. I do not trust obsidian when it comes to implemtation

 

 

Same here. If they release Eternity in a buggy state though, they deserve the ****-storm they get. They had some justification for their other games (I suppose), with limited time, release schedules and funding. They will have no excuse if Eternity releases in a buggy state since they have the funding, man power and time.

[saMoorai]

YES.

 

Damn, I can't get enough of Shadowrun. Nice to see the Kickstarter is going really well.

[Vortex13]

I just stumbled upon the news for Shadowrun: Hong Kong a little while ago, and I am quite excited to see that the initial funding goal has been met along with a good deal of the stretch goals. I am really hoping that the character(s), missions, and gameplay mechanics can make it as well.

 

 

The only thing that I would love to see for any future expansions is multiplayer, and (in an ideal world with unlimited funding and development time) the ability to play as non-human/meta-human beings like A.I.s and free spirits. I know that Shadowrun Online is a thing, but from what I have researched, that game is rather horrible, and I trust Harebrained Schemes to actually implement a working and completed multiplayer function; if they should add it in the future. Being able to have UGC to play with your chummers would make an already awesome game perfect (IMO).

[TheChris92]

Shadowrun Online is also a shooter so it's entirely different game too and not really something I was ever interested in -- I am, however, glad to see more Shadowrun in the future. Still need to finish Dragonfall now that I have the Director's Cut.