|
Ddraig posted:I know it's very worrying, people paying for a product they want. What's next, literally giving handouts with no expectations in return? That way lies madness Speaking of which, the project already has a 10k donator. Two out of three left!
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
emoticon posted:Nethack is a 100+ hour game made with a budget of $0. Zero. This is a funny little echo of film geeks arguing that Its fun to talk about outliers but generally speaking in any collaborative effort people will expect a wage for their work. Some short films are shot for cab fare by a kid calling in favors from friends. Some short films have a budget of $50,000 usd and run over budget because the camera jib broke and the crew got to bill and extra days pay at union scale and there's a literal world of factors outside the budget informing why that is. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:This is a funny little echo of film geeks arguing that Desperado was shot for the cost of a car, Blair Witch was shot for the cost of a pizza, etc. These are also hotly contested. El Mariachi (Desperado was the "we have a budget" followup) was supposedly shot for $7,000, but that number leaves out a lot of details, such as Rodriguez calling in lots of favours, skirting the law by shooting without a permit, and getting a lot of stuff for free. Getting the stuff he shot even developed would have run him more than $7,000. As for Blair Witch? The lowest production budget estimate of that comes in at $20,000 and doesn't include any of the post-production costs that go into making a film. They're not even outliers by the standard of small indie films, only outliers in the fact that they got noticed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Ludicrous G. Gibs posted:I'm not saying anybody's going to run off to Cancun with the money. I'm saying it seems like a pretty irresponsible thing to do. Maybe not so much if it's $10 or $15 and you really believe in whoever's hosting your game so you're willing to skip a McRib or ten, but there are folks out there who will drop $500 on someone just because they asked. It's worrisome. There is no other way of funding some of the niche games another way. Capiche? Nobody will pay for a dev's work on a personal project that people WANT to buy. You would like to buy Shadowrun at Gamestop - this will NEVER happen because no publisher will pay for the development.There were thousands of kickstarters in many different fields completed this way bringing quality products that wouldn't be developed AT ALL otherwise. This is thanks to this particular economical model. How hard is this to understand. Palpek fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
The best part of Shadowrun has nothing to do with the graphics. They could make a REALLY great RPG with minimal graphics, I hope this project succeeds, but I certainly won't donate to it.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Palpek posted:There is no other way of funding some of the niche games another way. Capiche? Nobody will pay for a dev's work on a personal project that people WANT to buy. You would like to buy Shadowrun at Gamestop - this will NEVER happen because no publisher will pay for the development.There were thousands of kickstarters in many different fields completed this way bringing quality products that wouldn't be developed AT ALL otherwise. This is thanks to this particular economical model. How hard is this to understand. That and these new Kickstarters are participating in the Kicking It Forward movement: http://kickingitforward.org/ Basically they donate 5% of their profit back to Kickstart other projects. quote:The best part of Shadowrun has nothing to do with the graphics. They could make a REALLY great RPG with minimal graphics, I hope this project succeeds, but I certainly won't donate to it. The best part of Shadowrun was forcing an rear end in a top hat vampire to give you what you wanted after you had slaughtered his guards, hacked his bank accounts, and threatened him with a stake and strobe light. And then stabbing the lying rear end in a top hat anyway because he had the nerve to try and lie to you again after all that. gently caress that guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
I never really liked the Shadowrun setting, really. I always thought it was pretty irritating, probably because I was sick of fantasy tropes back then. But then I played the Genesis SR game, and I think it converted me. It was so enjoyable, I actually started to really look forward to the inevitable sequels that excellent game would clearly lead to. Yeah, that worked out well. Anyway, I will throw them some cash. It can't be worse than last time. kuddles posted:I literally would kill to have the original Sir-Tech guys get back together and make a proper Jagged Alliance or Wizardry sequel. So very much killing. I keep hoping it will happen. Its a drat shame Steroids' VA died, he was my favorite. Ludicrous G. Gibs posted:I would rather just walk into a store, give someone money and receive a product in exchange for my money. Not a huge fan of pre-ordering. Could be why I don't really buy into Kickstarter. Yeah, but this is being able to pre-order a game that might not exist (ever) unless you do. So, kinda different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Ludicrous G. Gibs posted:That's the thing - people gave Double Fine $3.4 million just because they asked for it. That doesn't at all concern you? Tell me more about how other people spend their money is worrisome. I didn't think that Double Fine Adventure was worth $10,000, even if I had that much spare cash to throw around, but if someone wants to piss away that much money who am I to judge them? If someone makes a living banking on their reputation I'm confident that they will deliver that thing they are trying to Kickstart based on their reputation. How much that thing is worth to me depends on what the property is and what the Kickstarter reward tier is but the people dropping huge sums of money (hopefully) aren't racking up huge debts to throw money away foolishly. I gave Tim Schafer money because I enjoyed his other adventure games and he's saying he wants to make another one of those. I'm giving Jordan Weisman money because I thought Shadowrun was cool and he's saying he wants to make another one of those. I'm not seeing what's so wrong about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Palpek posted:There is no other way of funding some of the niche games another way. Capiche? Nobody will pay for a dev's work on a personal project that people WANT to buy. You would like to buy Shadowrun at Gamestop - this will NEVER happen because no publisher will pay for the development.There were thousands of kickstarters in many different fields completed this way bringing quality products that wouldn't be developed AT ALL otherwise. This is thanks to this particular economical model. How hard is this to understand. Its not that he doesn't understand it, its that people who presumably are not banks are throwing nontrivial sums of their own personal funds to get games they want to play developed because publishers run by nongamers are almost totally ignorant of their market. Crowdsourcing initial capitalization is a concept to give any self-respecting banker a stroke on the spot. Its easy to understand, its just loving weird that the gaming industry has gotten so goddamned dysfunctional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Grimdaddy posted:I never really liked the Shadowrun setting, really. I always thought it was pretty irritating, probably because I was sick of fantasy tropes back then. But then I played the Genesis SR game, and I think it converted me. It was so enjoyable, I actually started to really look forward to the inevitable sequels that excellent game would clearly lead to. The trick to really enjoying PnP Shadowrun was discarding the futury cyberpunk swear words which were there only so FASA could sell sourcebooks to teens and just assuming that in 2060 everyone just prefers archaic profanity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Its not that he doesn't understand it, its that people who presumably are not banks are throwing nontrivial sums of their own personal funds to get games they want to play developed because publishers run by nongamers are almost totally ignorant of their market. The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
The doublefine kickstarter wasn't based on an old concept or a sequel to another game. It was a pitch for a type of game that gets almost zero funding these days, made by a veteran of the genre, funded by the people who wanted it. Even the new Jane Jensen one is supposedly an entire new game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The trick to really enjoying PnP Shadowrun was discarding the futury cyberpunk swear words which were there only so FASA could sell sourcebooks to teens and just assuming that in 2060 everyone just prefers archaic profanity. Shadowrun slang was the best though
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:34
|
|
Zoolooman posted:The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done. Now you're just trying to find reasons to view this trend as bad, whether these reasons exist or not.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Now you're just trying to find reasons to view this trend as bad, whether these reasons exist or not. Ah yes, someone finally called me a Negative Nancy. You can dismiss everything I said folks, turns out I'm just trying to find reasons.  Seriously, Lurdiak, the biggest Kickstarters so far are for new additions to existing franchises. Does this not suggest that the audience will pay heavily for franchises? Isn't this widely considered problematic to the development of the gaming industry? This isn't a twisted leap of logic. Zoolooman fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
kaptainkaffeine posted:Also, I kind of wonder what this means: In the video, Jordan is careful to say that 'we have secured the rights to do a role-playing game for tablets and PC.' I get the impression that that's the total extent of the licence they have. Maybe publishers aren't interested unless they can get it on consoles too, which Microsoft (or whoever the gently caress has the license, who knows at this point) doesn't want to sell back yet? Maybe the licence is solely for a turn based RPG, and publishers think that only action RPG's will sell? This is pure conjecture, but I think they just have a very limited amount of elbow room in regards to the type of game being made, and maybe MS only gave them the rights because they figured noone else would possibly want them. Probably gonna be in for 30. Haven't pulled the trigger yet, need to check out the financial spreadsheet when I get home. Totally worth it, <3 Shadowrun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
The thing I don't understand about video game kickstarters is that for donating the maximum $10k, you can go hang out with some sweaty fuckin nerds and/or some sweaty fuckin nerd will come to your house and hang out with you and your friends. I'd much rather have an ingame statue of my dick or whatever than have Mike Mulvihill show up at my place. Unless he had a van full of hookers and blow or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:38
|
|
Zoolooman posted:Ah yes, someone finally called me a Negative Nancy. You can dismiss everything I said folks, turns out I'm just trying to find reasons. Look, your other points might have merit, but that last post is bollocks. There are quite a few non-remake video game kickstarters that are doing quite well. More to the point, the industry already IS banking on name recognition "remakes" made in the safest AAA mold possible. The idea that an indie dev's pet project sequel to an extremely old niche product succeeding could somehow make the currently abysmal state of mainstream publishing worse is ridiculous.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
Zoolooman posted:The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done. Publishers have been pushing the whole sequel/franchise thing into the ground for years and years. This is different because it isn't just a brand, its a genre and a archetype(adventure, top-down 2D, isometric, etc) that isn't part of the in vogue trend expected net profit for these aren't in the tens of millions like the Publishing houses really want. Just look at the attempts to rekindle the Shadowrun franchise as an FPS or the X-Com as an FPS. Yea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Zoolooman posted:The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done. It's not like publishers now suddenly want to make point and click adventures, due to Doublefine's success. The only message the publishers are getting is that there is a way to make them (at least a little bit) irrelevant. The 7th Guest fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Its not that he doesn't understand it, its that people who presumably are not banks are throwing nontrivial sums of their own personal funds to get games they want to play developed because publishers run by nongamers are almost totally ignorant of their market. Yes! It's just hard to understand how the hell the system works anymore. Is gaming a business? Is it now a charity instead, or maybe a hybrid of the two? When I give money to a Kickstarter am I donating or investing? And with that in mind, what happens to the money when they make the game and sell it? Do I get my investment back (if it's an investment, since that's how investing works?) Is it really wise to give someone money for a promise? How about if I don't follow gaming closely enough to know any of these people's names (I actually had to look up who Chris Avellone and Jordan Weisman were)? If it is and I can trust they do good work, which promise am I buying into - that there will be a game, or that there will be a good game, or that there will be a good game that fits my idea of what I want to play? I know there's a variety of Kickstarters to choose from but honestly a lot of the time you're not given enough information to determine if it's really something you want aside from a basic idea. I love Shadowrun and I love RPGs and what I really want and might donate for is another game just like the Genesis one. But who knows if that's what I'd get here? We've got a concept and a snappy video, that's all. It's an incredibly bizarre concept that I haven't seen happen in other industries. This is the kind of business model you'd expect from, well, non-profit organizations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
physeter posted:The thing I don't understand about video game kickstarters is that for donating the maximum $10k, you can go hang out with some sweaty fuckin nerds and/or some sweaty fuckin nerd will come to your house and hang out with you and your friends. All I know is if I was a rather respected developer/designer and some dude paid a vast amount of money to have me come visit his house I would go in heavily armed because I'm expecting some sort of Misery-style scenario to play out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Zoolooman posted:The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done. And here I thought internet gamers were against this sort of thing, only wanting new I.P.'s. Now all of a sudden they are all for it! I get so confused sometimes over what i'm suppose to be for and against, when it comes to the game industry. Basically i'm agreeing with you here. I don't think you're being a negative nancy at all. Quest For Glory II posted:I understand what you're saying but I don't think there is anything here for publishers to learn, other than that the middleman can always be cut out. We've seen Kickstarters that are sequels and Kickstarters that are for new IPs. The common link between them is that crowdsourcing is the only way for them to be made, because no one will take them in. If anything comes from this, it's that I hope some of the big publishers do sweat a bit and get nervous. Realizing that they can be easily removed, I think is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:All I know is if I was a rather respected developer/designer and some dude paid a vast amount of money to have me come visit his house I would go in heavily armed because I'm expecting some sort of Misery-style scenario to play out. I think they would have even better luck if the $15 dollar category had a chance that an RPG developer MIGHT show up at your house with a gamemaster screen. Make it $25, and we promise he won't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
NmareBfly posted:In the video, Jordan is careful to say that 'we have secured the rights to do a role-playing game for tablets and PC.' I get the impression that that's the total extent of the licence they have. Maybe publishers aren't interested unless they can get it on consoles too, which Microsoft (or whoever the gently caress has the license, who knows at this point) doesn't want to sell back yet? Jordan bought the rights back something like 5 years ago, when Microsoft closed down the FASA Studios and disavowed themselves of the property along with other FASA games like Crimson Skies and Mechwarrior. For example, Mechwarrior Online is being done by Piranha Games, but under the license from Smith & Tinker, Weisman's other video game studio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Now you're just trying to find reasons to view this trend as bad, whether these reasons exist or not. You don't need to look very hard to find reasons why consumers needing to fund the means of production before buying the final product is bad. No points on the gross, no company share, if you pony up a significant chunk your yearly salary you can get a mention in the game itself. At best the donor is commoditized into part of the product sold for profit. Kickstarters sound cool and communistic and poo poo until you look past the novelty factor and really see who is getting precisely what. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Zoolooman posted:The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done. Yes... because that's what we want to see made? It's why a faux sequel like Syndicate doesn't have the same fan reception as an actual sequel? You're saying like it's a bad thing. The whole point is that publishers won't fund these games. If this makes them reconsider that, that's a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Zoolooman posted:The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done. Call of Duty 9 and Sony making tons of money on the God of War HD remake, prompting waves of HD re-releases already did this. People like sequels to games they enjoy and playing the games they loved as a kid. I don't think that's so bad, even as creatively bankrupt as I think it is to take those concepts to the extremes they are being taken to. At least it's of something that hasn't been seen in a long time, rather then the exact same game we see churned out every year. New IPs are great too, but so are modern takes on older things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Zoolooman posted:The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done. This is severely reducing the argument because:
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
Sometimes I like to think that when the Wasteland kickstarter went through an 18th century textile magnate sat up in his mausoleum shouting "OH MY GOD ITS SO SIMPLE!" facepalming so hard his forehead caves in and he re-dies out of shock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
As far as I'm concerned all of you in this thread are negative nancies!  I donated to this game because I loved the Genesis game as a kid so I hope all goes well with this one. The REAL Goobusters fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:You don't need to look very hard to find reasons why consumers needing to fund the means of production before buying the final product is bad. No points on the gross, no company share, if you pony up most of your yearly salary you can get a mention in the game itself. At best the donor is commoditized into part of the product sold for profit. At some point of donation the developers really can't give them more actual value and they are reduced to trying to show some form of gratitude for what is obviously a huge "I love you" written in dollar bills. To the point the best they can do is literally take you out on a dinner date and play games with you like old bros from highs school getting back together to hang like you used to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:All I know is if I was a rather respected developer/designer and some dude paid a vast amount of money to have me come visit his house I would go in heavily armed because I'm expecting some sort of Misery-style scenario to play out. Tim Schafer, wake up. I need you to take your medicine and tell me about maniac mansion while I slowly touch my self...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Zoolooman posted:The lessons it teaches are terrible for the gaming market. It's telling publishers that sequels and remakes of old content are so valuable that people will throw money at it to see it done. If it tells them that mechanically faithful sequels and remakes of old content are that valuable, then that's one of the best things that could happen to the gaming market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Its not that he doesn't understand it, its that people who presumably are not banks are throwing nontrivial sums of their own personal funds to get games they want to play developed because publishers run by nongamers are almost totally ignorant of their market. I hate to sound like I'm defending publisher's, but exactly how do you know they're "ignoring" the market? I want games like Wasteland, Shadowrun, and the majority of the other kickstarter projects listed here. But I'm one person. Hell, I even know another person in my area who is right there with me. On the flip side, I know 5 other people in my area I've talked to who play games and want nothing to do with those games. (Edit: And I have backed the project, as well as all but one of the Kickstarter's I've seen through SA) It could be true that the market for those kinds of games was left to dry up and die and just needs some revitalizing with new blood (games) to show that publisher's are retarded. However it could also be true that for all the blustering that is done on internet forums, the total number of people willing to buy a game early enough in it's release cycle are not enough to make the project profitable to a publisher, meaning they've got a solid lock on the market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:If it tells them that mechanically faithful sequels and remakes of old content are that valuable, then that's one of the best things that could happen to the gaming amrket. Valve is proving right now that mechanically faithful sequels are ridiculously valuable. Dota 2 and CS:GO are on their plate for a reason. I expect this to become a bigger trend, and yes, I think there's a large demand for this kind of "updating" of older games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:48
|
|
Zoolooman posted:Seriously, Lurdiak, the biggest Kickstarters so far are for new additions to existing franchises. Does this not suggest that the audience will pay heavily for franchises? Isn't this widely considered problematic to the development of the gaming industry? The biggest one so far is the Double Fine adventure game, which isn't one of those. Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun (2?) are similar to Double Fine in that they're promising games in genres that are widely considered "non-sellers", despite being new installments in old franchises. Then there's projects like this that are doing quite well with neither a franchise or a "games industry celebrity" attached. I really don't follow how any of that could send the message to a publisher that somehow isn't already convinced the way to go is recycling recognizable names into shoddy products to begin doing so.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:The biggest one so far is the Double Fine adventure game, which isn't one of those. Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun (2?) are similar to Double Fine in that they're promising installments in genres that are widely considered "non-sellers", despite being new installments in old franchises. Then there's projects like this that are doing quite well with neither a franchise or a "games industry celebrity" attached. I really don't follow how any of that could send the message to a publisher that somehow isn't already convinced the way to go is recycling recognizable names into shoddy products to begin doing so. Fair enough. The trend is already in place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Really, all you need to look at here is the difference between this and the Shadowrun FPS to see how publishers and creators differ in their methodology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Publishers have been pushing the whole sequel/franchise thing into the ground for years and years. Yes, I think publishers (including movie and book publishers) are well aware that franchises sell better than innovation. Publishers aren't going to learn any new lessons, but maybe they might be more willing to buy up old IPs and give them the XCOM/Syndicate/Shadowrun treatment now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:51
|
|
