|
Young Freud posted:Technically, wasn't Smith & Tinker run by Weisman?
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:21 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 21:50 |
|
|
signalnoise posted:You know, I originally just instinctively hit 100 dollars as my pledge, but then I backed down to 15. The reason is because I remember Mage Knight. It was a decent game honestly, and it was created by these same guys. I played the Mage Knight DS game, and it was a faithful translation of the tabletop game with some story behind it. It honestly wasn't bad. But I would not put tons of money on it. 15 maybe. Man, I thought Mage Knight and Heroclix were two of the best designed miniatures games ever made. Heroclix especially (slightly simpler and a great license) had fantastic sales figures. e: I think companies will eventually realize that the most successful kickstarters show off some kind of working beta or prototype. This one does seem a bit half-baked, and coming out in a saturated startin' season, so I can understand some of the criticism. That said, it's a really, really good concept that I'm very happy to help fund. Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at Apr 4, 2012 around 17:27 |
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:23 |
|
|
I knew if I didn't make the thread there would be booing and much gnashing of teeth  Moai doesn't look like anything special as a SDK, but they are making 1) a turn-based game, 2) a 2D game. You cannot seriously expect it to suddenly use half the shaders in your GPU. You cannot either expect this to be an AAA production, because it isn't -- just watch the video for their company's tiny, cramped office. You can, however, expect an interesting strategy game on a really fun and absurd setting. Elf Bikers! Dragon Presidents! If you keep the former points in mind, your expectations can't be ruined. This is a good project with people who know what they are doing. If the project sounds in any way interesting, throw it a bone and pre-order it at least. You are not required to throw in $100 or more, and this isn't the Tacticlol Shooter whose funds we don't even know what they will be used for.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:23 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Man, I thought Mage Knight and Heroclix were two of the best designed miniatures games ever made. Heroclix especially (slightly simpler and a great license) had fantastic sales figures. I agree but I was talking about my experience with the game on a mobile device. I spent way too much money on Clix. Monte Cook was part of the design team for that, too.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:24 |
|
|
Geight posted:I'm in the minority when it comes to actually liking the last Shadowrun game, because to me it felt a lot more like CS with magic, which was a fun combination. I loved it too, to the point where I ended up eventually buying another couple copies at bargain bin prices so I could get multi-player games going with my friends and family when we had multiple xbox consoles. It really had a ton of fun things going for it and got sunk by the lack of funding and the retarded design decisions branching from letting PC and console players fight against each other. If they'd had the funds to add in a single player campaign it could have been a fantastic franchise 
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:25 |
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:This is, I think, the biggest flaw in the argument. It implies that there is a limited pool of people that are contributing to every project, and that's just not the case. Do you think Kickstarter was invented by DoubleFine? It has existed for years. There is no limit to the amount of people that can find out about a project on Kickstarter and chip in money. It is not limited to any kind of community. There are people chipping into the Shadowrun kickstarter that probably don't even know what Kickstarter is, or who Doublefine is. They just really love Shadowrun and want to see it return. If Kickstarter required the same pool of people incestuously funding every project to stay afloat, it wouldn't exist. I am not really making much of a point when I re-read this. Maybe I am just being super idealistic and I want to see my nostalgia preyed upon as much as possible as long as it results in good games. I think we're still too far away to see the results of the first series of big gaming kickstarters and it's a particularly anxious time.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:26 |
|
|
Rascyc posted:
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:26 |
|
|
And right on cue, there's another one. Don't get me wrong, if this game is funded and eventually comes out so I can actually receive a product and be assured of its quality beforehand, I'll glady pay up. Shadowrun is great. But I can't give someone money for a wish, no matter how big their name is. Maybe when I see how some of these Kickstarter games actually turn out I might be more willing to "donate" or "invest" or "pre-order" or whatever you do with these things.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:27 |
|
|
surc posted:Uh, what do you think happens when a company makes a game with a publisher and it tanks, or doesn't have enough fans? It'll be like that, but, you know, without the publisher also taking their cut. It gestates for over a decade and we get Duke Nukem Forever.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:27 |
|
|
surc posted:Uh, what do you think happens when a company makes a game with a publisher and it tanks, or doesn't have enough fans? It'll be like that, but, you know, without the publisher also taking their cut.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:30 |
|
|
Rascyc posted:Right and we'll (consumers and developers) be back at being at the mercy (for lack of a better word) of publishers if the same happens with a number of these high profile kickstarter games. I like the current direction and I want to see kickstarters work hard to go in that direction. That's all I am saying. The worst thing is if the final product sucks. I know games and a ton of games suck. When I was a kid I saw previews for Turok 64 in magazines and was like "Holy poo poo! This game will loving rule!" Then I got it. 
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:31 |
|
|
Ludicrous G. Gibs posted:And right on cue, there's another one. So what? This is the Shadowrun thread about the Shadowrun Kickstarter. If you have a problem with Kickstarters in general like you seem to just complain about it in the general thread about it. Posting other Kickstarters as if that proves some point is silly. quote:It gestates for over a decade and we get Duke Nukem Forever. Considering what we ended up with there. Yea, it would have been better if that studio just kicked the bucket and we had a Kickstarter Duke Nukem FPS instead.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:32 |
|
|
Rascyc posted:Obviously when I say the kickstarter community, I mean the gaming community that has rallied behind the social media cry that Double Fine created. And like all things related to social media, it begins as a trend and eventually fades away as well. You need some amount of critical mass to get the level of games that I think some people are expecting. It's in everyone's best interest to maintain that critical mass for as long as possible, so developers really want to keep gamers happy when it comes to investing in games. I think the term "gaming community" is nebulous and I stand by my comment that people will chip into this site that have never heard of Doublefine, simply because they live and breathe Shadowrun. And that's why I don't see this kind of thing fading, because it's always going to be a case by case basis. It's not like all of the Doublefine supporters are supporting Shadowrun. These Kickstarter projects have spread across a lot of clashing genres and properties. There are people supporting Shadowrun that didn't WANT to support Doublefine because they don't care about adventure games.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:35 |
|
|
Makes sense and I mostly agree. Anyway, to go back to the topic itself: The one cool part about this one is that they seem to be pitching a level editor. So even if the main game sucks, perhaps we'll get a nice Shadowrun community going that can create some great campaigns and such.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:35 |
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:but there have been plenty of 4 and 5 figure projects paid and accounted for. If it has an audience, they'll find it and support it. Can you link some of these games that were Kickstarter projects, finished and released, and met expectations?
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:37 |
|
|
I'd like to know if this project will look anything like their Crimson Skies iPhone game.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:40 |
|
|
I said come in! posted:Can you link some of these games that were Kickstarter projects, finished and released, and met expectations? Cards Against Humanity. I've been backing kickstarter projects since the launch in 2009 and I don't regret a single cent (8 projects backed and none of them are finished yet, but that's because making poo poo takes a long time yo). Kickstarter has only been around for a few years and games tend to take a few years to make.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:41 |
|
|
At this points kickstarter is pretty much. Pay us for the game if you want us to make it, if enough people want it you will get it. The only downside here is that if enough people want it, and it turns out to be poo poo, you're still out your money. It's not like pre-ordering because the money goes directly to the development of the title. I'm actually really into the whole idea, plus 15$ isn't going to break the bank, and I can support the games I like directly. Plus no DRM, no loving hassles, download and play. This is nothing but a good thing. I think the only downside as was mentioned before is that so many studios are going to do it, that people are going to be skeptical simply because it's a popular business model. Which is pretty silly. Until the projects pay off we won't really know, but I think the negativity associated with the popularity of kick starter doesn't really have any basis in logic. If you like the idea of what they're making pay them, who cares if thousands of others want you to do the same thing, you only support what you want.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:41 |
|
|
It's kind of absurd to view kickstarter as 'begging'. These are games that people have wanted to play for a long, long time. Only it wasn't enough people for the people holding the purse strings to justify making them. Now, the developers people trust are asking people to put up or shut up. I didn't really care about the Double Fine adventure enough to put up, but I"m happy it's getting made and I'll probably play it. I want this game to happen enough to throw in and I sincerely hope that enough people feel the same way to make it happen. Kickstarter is a great way to measure interest to insure the dev isn't wasting the time and resources that could kill a small company if they gauge wrong. To say that if they "really really wanted to, they could dig deep and find the money" is stupid and naive.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:41 |
|
|
kaptainkaffeine posted:Kickstarter is a great way to measure interest to insure the dev isn't wasting the time and resources that could kill a small company if they gauge wrong. To say that if they "really really wanted to, they could dig deep and find the money" is stupid and naive. It's not really naive. Depending on the size of the studio and the cost of the project, if the gap is too big, asking for money seems like you may not be 100% sincere in wanting to make this game as badly as you want to. I think this is partially what happened with the double fine kickstarter, and then when they went on to collect a poo poo ton more money then the goal it made the whole thing even weirder. Personally like I said before, I'm for it. Just don't dress it up by saying "We really want to do this thing, but we can't because we're too poor, and there's just no way to do it." Straight up come out and say "If you want this game, we are good at making games like this, we have an interest in making a game likes this, now pay us to make it."
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:47 |
|
|
Javaman98 posted:but I think the negativity associated with the popularity of kick starter doesn't really have any basis in logic. Saying that people are against this because it's popular, isn't understanding the skepticism at all. Rascyc has brought up some valid points without bringing the popularity into it at all. People want to be reassured that this trend can actually work. So far there have been no kickstarter game projects that have gone from funded, all the way to release, while meeting expectations and promises from the developer.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:48 |
|
|
Javaman98 posted:I'm actually really into the whole idea, plus 15$ isn't going to break the bank, and I can support the games I like directly. Plus no DRM, no loving hassles, download and play. This is nothing but a good thing. Seriously. I was never really into Shadowrun, although I think our high school D&D group messed with it a few times. But a turn-based RPG made by the original developers pushes all the right buttons, and $15 is only slightly more then what I spent to grab my wife and I breakfast out this morning. Plus it's not like you have to back the project to get the game. If you think it's sketchy or whatever wait until it comes out and you can read the reviews, chances are it's going to be 19.99 or something on Steam anyway.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:50 |
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Seriously. I was never really into Shadowrun, although I think our high school D&D group messed with it a few times. But a turn-based RPG made by the original developers pushes all the right buttons, and $15 is only slightly more then what I spent to grab my wife and I breakfast out this morning. I was going to mention that too. If you are really paranoid about losing your $15 and getting burned because you simply don't trust the Developer or the Kickstarter project methodology, you can always wait until after the game is made to put your money into their pockets. The thing is, putting your money in now helps insure the game is made and improves the game with enough additional capital. So its win/win for you either way.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:52 |
|
|
People who think kickstarter boggle my mind. In the past, here is how you got funding for games: -Reach deep into your own pockets, take out loans and credit cards, live on ramen for months. Release something and hope the market finds it and gives you enough money to make up for the costs of development. -Go to a publisher. Pitch your idea and budget. Publisher takes a look, either outright dismisses you, wants an incredible amount of changes made, doesn't want to give you full funding or a combination of the three. Release the game and hope the market finds it and gives you enough money to make up for the costs of development. Both systems have one major flaw: Success is not guaranteed, and you won't find out if you're successful or not until the money has been spent and is long gone. With kickstarter, you are actually reaching out to your audience and going "Hey, I have this idea. If it sounds good and if enough of you commit to paying for its development we'll make it." Most businesses dream of being able to get funding directly from their customers for long term projects. Kickstarter just made it reality.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:54 |
|
|
That said, once some of the hype and newness wear off, I wouldn't be surprised if most projects had to self-fund for a couple months to be able to show off some alpha assets and concept art before starting their Kickstarter. "Here's a good idea and a charming video" may not cut it forever. They may have to start showing some actual goods to get backers as time goes on.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 17:59 |
|
|
This is how these projects should be done; http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...hreadid=3442852 This isn't a "Kickstarter.com" project, but it's a similar idea. You pay in advance, but the difference here is that you get the product right away; starting with the alpha builds, all the way up to retail release. That's the only way I could accept this. Asking customers to give money and then wait 2 - 3 years with the possibility of a canceled game will never sit well with me. Not only that, this developer actually had content to show off ahead of time, including video and in-game screenshots. Their studio is not much bigger than these other kickstarters as well. Plus the fans get input into the entire thing.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:00 |
|
|
400k for an RPG is a pipe dream. Content production takes time and manpower. Let's say you hire people for what, 30k a year? Less? Don't even think about offices, equipment, and other costs yet. How many do you think they can hire to work on this game? How long could they pay them? And on top of that, it's going to run on iPad, Android and PC? That's more manpower. RPGs are asset intensive as well. Costs will be higher than they might otherwise be if the game was a different genre. Furthermore, they're expecting to spend a great deal of effort on valueless custom content for a handful of contributors. Unlike Wasteland, they've made this content EXCLUSIVE, so that any development time spent on it will have no return. Kickstarters are very strange investments (and they are investments, but worse, because they don't fit into a clear business plan or guarantee payout to the investors unless they finish the project). This one seems especially unrealistic. The promises are high and the capital would be scarce even if they surpassed their goal. I wouldn't spend a cent on this one.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:01 |
|
|
I said come in! posted:Can you link some of these games that were Kickstarter projects, finished and released, and met expectations? Pirate Kart V ($4,718) Coupon Quest ($3,901) Fara ($5,930) No Time To Explain ($26,068) Cthulhu Saves the World for PC ($6,898) Just to name a few. There are plenty more. Additionally there are projects that are in development but should be released this year like Against the Wall ($8,416), Blade Symphony ($19,058, in beta), and I'm getting too lazy to scroll down the Kickstarter list and finish this post. You get the idea. You mentioned immediate access to beta on donation and that's what Blade Symphony did. Unless I'm mistaken I'm pretty sure Doublefine is giving access to betas once they're available as well. It's not what everyone does, but some developers will do that, especially if their game has a multiplayer component to it. Quest For Glory II fucked around with this message at Apr 4, 2012 around 18:04 |
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:01 |
|
|
Every day the kickstarter train gets more awesome and more people give more money and yet there is so much hate for the process. Im sorry kickstarter proved objectivism wrong.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:02 |
|
|
Games have been dumbed down and stagnant for a long time thanks to the inability for talented developers who want to make complex, innovative games to get the funding they need to get their projects off the ground. Even if half the really promising Kickstarter funded projects we've seen of late end up sucking, this is an extremely good thing for PC gaming and gaming in general. It's not perfect, but it's one hell of a step in the right direction.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:02 |
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:I can't speak for expectations because outside of reading the comments section of kickstarters I don't know how you would find those. Here are some successful projects that made release in recent months: This is what I was looking for, and is the most constructive pro-kickstarter post so far. Thanks! It's good to actually see some success, this is how you change peoples minds about this sort of thing. Even the best intentions, and best developers who know what they are doing, stumble sometimes. All of these guys are going into unfamiliar territory more or less, only making promises. Quest For Glory II posted:You mentioned immediate access to beta on donation and that's what Blade Symphony did. Unless I'm mistaken I'm pretty sure Doublefine is giving access to betas once they're available as well. It's not what everyone does, but some developers will do that, especially if their game has a multiplayer component to it. And even if it's at a later date, that's fine too. Even the big developers and publishers are doing this.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:04 |
|
|
Zoolooman posted:400k for an RPG is a pipe dream. Content production takes time and manpower. Let's say you hire people for what, 30k a year? Less? Don't even think about offices, equipment, and other costs yet. How many do you think they can hire to work on this game? How long could they pay them? And on top of that, it's going to run on iPad, Android and PC? That's more manpower. If Frictional Games can make Amnesia for peanuts (I doubt they even had 200K) then why can't someone make an isometric RPG? If Fallout's budget was 3 million and it was an amazing 50 hour game, why can't this RPG be a very good 20 hour game? When did "AAA" become the only way to make games?
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:09 |
|
|
Holy poo poo, first thing I get to the office and I already see a thread on this. Your guys' enthusiasm really brings a smile to me. Thanks, all of you. I'm currently working at Harebrained Schemes as a Tools Engineer / UI programmer. So it is likely I'll be working on the level editor. We're really excited about this project and I'm glad people are really positive after a ton of kickstarters already up. We worked really hard on the proposal which is why we waited so long after the initial wave. Also I give so much poo poo to Mitch, my producer boss who was the executive producer on Shadowrun 2007, it's awesome. Also working with Jordan is always exciting. He pretty much funds our small company out of his pocket mostly unless we have some small contract publisher deals so we owe a lot to him.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:09 |
|
|
endlosnull posted:Holy poo poo, first thing I get to the office and I already see a thread on this. Your guys' enthusiasm really brings a smile to me. Thanks, all of you. Can you convince your bosses to give us more actual game design information, such as how much the tablet is going to influence the PC version of the game?
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:10 |
|
|
Fintilgin posted:That said, once some of the hype and newness wear off, I wouldn't be surprised if most projects had to self-fund for a couple months to be able to show off some alpha assets and concept art before starting their Kickstarter. I really hope this is where it *will* go eventually. Though I definitely could see myself donating to a game that has not yet started actual development, I definitely hope we will see more well thought out pitches in the future, real design docs that really show us exactly what they are aiming for gameplaywise. I still support these projects now though because I think it's a model that desperately deserves the attention it gets. Will there be failures along the way? Bad games? I'm sure! I'm sure there will be projects that will flat out crash and burn. But it's worth it to show that there is indeed support for many of these types of games that typically don't gets developed anymore. 15 bucks isn't a huge deal for me personally. But yes, hopefully the pitching aspect of it will be improved as it goes on.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:11 |
|
|
endlosnull posted:Also I give so much poo poo to Mitch, my producer boss who was the executive producer on Shadowrun 2007, it's awesome. The Xbox 360/PC game? That game was cool, I don't think to many people liked it though, but I was one of them who did. 
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:11 |
|
|
I said come in! posted:This is what I was looking for, and is the most constructive pro-kickstarter post so far. Thanks! It's good to actually see some success, this is how you change peoples minds about this sort of thing. If that Doublefine tier of success didn't exist, I think Kickstarter would still be a fine place to get your project off of the ground if you were developing an iPhone game, an indie PC title to distribute to Steam/Desura, or maybe an XBLA/XBLIG pitch. iPhone games tend to get funded the most often, as well as physical traditional board games and card games. But like my list showed you do sometimes see some PC releases funded as well. Personally I can't wait for Octodad 2.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:13 |
|
|
Javaman98 posted:It's not really naive. Depending on the size of the studio and the cost of the project, if the gap is too big, asking for money seems like you may not be 100% sincere in wanting to make this game as badly as you want to. I think this is partially what happened with the double fine kickstarter, and then when they went on to collect a poo poo ton more money then the goal it made the whole thing even weirder. I guess that's fair, but the last two quotes seems kind of tomato-tomahto. Since they're going straight to the customer, I guess it's up to that customer to decide how badly they think the dev needs the money, and whether he needs as much as he's asking for, etc. I guess that's why there are some folks feeling negative in every game kickstarter's thread. But that's just tone. They're all saying "we want to make this game, but [we're poor/we want to measure interest/we hate publishers/we want to make up for a past failure/etc], so we need your help!" In the end, it comes down to the interest of the customer base. And it should! The Jane Jensen kickstarter looks interesting to me and I might throw in, since I loved Gabriel Knight. The Al Lowe Leisure Suit Larry kickstarter doesn't interest me a bit since it's just a straight remake. But I honestly hope they all get funded, because I don't want anyone to be disappointed. Maybe there really is enough money to go around. anyway, I LOVE SHADOWRUN PLEASE GIVE THIS GUY MONEY edit: Zoolooman posted:Kickstarters are very strange investments (and they are investments, but worse, because they don't fit into a clear business plan or guarantee payout to the investors unless they finish the project). This one seems especially unrealistic. The promises are high and the capital would be scarce even if they surpassed their goal. I wouldn't spend a cent on this one. drat, you negative. I understand and more or less agree with what you're saying, but the alternative is that this game literally never gets made by anyone, ever. Sure, it may be a little speculative, but not everyone has to read glowing reviews before throwing down their money. I am a person that usually does, actually, but there are a few things that open my wallet and Shadowrun with the original pnp/16-bit team is one of them. kaptainkaffeine fucked around with this message at Apr 4, 2012 around 18:22 |
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:14 |
|
|
While Kickstarters are doing a great job of bringing attention to genres and styles that have fallen out of financial favor, and yet still have crowd pleasing potential, there is something inherently naive about the entire concept. Anyone who's seen the angry end of the community response towards Minecraft should understand why Kickstarters might end up bursting bubbles: When outspoken internet nerds pay for in-production games, many of them tend to feel like they have a right to verbally dictate the course of production, because they feel like a special "early investor". When the game deviates from where they thought they game was going, suddenly you have an extremely angry group of very vocal, juvenile people, and I can't imagine that those same people will ever invest in a Kickstarter again. I suppose my main curiosity comes from how large an impact it makes when that group of people disappears. Will there be enough level-headed nerds who want a Shadowrun sequel and are completely okay with throwing their money at the project without expecting a short-term payoff? What percentage of people who fund Kickstarters actually understand what their money is being used for? I guess we'll see in a year or two when the honeymoon phase dies off, but either way, it's an experiment worth conducting.
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:19 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 21:50 |
|
|
signalnoise posted:Can you convince your bosses to give us more actual game design information, such as how much the tablet is going to influence the PC version of the game?
|
| # ? Apr 4, 2012 18:19 |
|
