Double Fine Adventure Crosses $2.5 Million In Kickstarter Funding

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Double Fine Adventure Crosses $2.5 Million In Kickstarter Funding

Posted by Soulskill on Sunday March 11, 2012 @04:11AM from the people-pay-for-things-they-want dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Double Fine Adventure, the crowd-funded adventure game from Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert (of Monkey Island fame), just crossed the $2.5 million mark in funding on Kickstarter. So far, about 73,000 enthusiastic backers have contributed an average of $35 dollars each, with 3 extravagant backers going as far as to contribute $10,000 (earning them a lunch with Schafer and Gilbert, among other goodies). The total sum is over 6 times the amount Schafer and Gilbert were initially hoping to raise ($400,000). Schafer released a few pictures showing what he's doing with all the money. The project has received attention in mainstream media (sort of), with NPR's Morning Edition covering the story."

25 of 114 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Schafer wins the Internet by DWMorse · 2012-03-11 04:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Click the pictures link, it's worth your time.

--
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
1. Re:Schafer wins the Internet by Xemu · 2012-03-11 04:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I agree. I believe my investment is in safe hands.
  
  --
  Tell your friends about xenu.net
2. Re:Schafer wins the Internet by 0100010001010011 · 2012-03-11 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It appears seemingly more responsible than what Wall Street has been doing at my money.
Crowd-funding by alexgieg · 2012-03-11 04:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Crowd-funding is how entertainment will work in the the not too distant future, as far as creators are concerned:
0) Start by making something good, although probably for free, thus starting to build a reputation;
1) Offer to do something, for money, proportional to your reputation;
2) Get funded by the crowd;
3) Deliver a good end result, and with it improve your reputation;
4) Loop back to 1 as much as you need or want;
5) Retire.
Copyright? What for?

--
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
1. Re:Crowd-funding by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-11 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Music you say ?
  0) Start by composing a few good tracks , although probably for free , play in a few pubs thus starting to build a reputation;
  1) Offer to go to gigs , for money , proportional to your reputation;
  2) Get funded by the crowd that showed up;
  3) Deliver a good end result , and with it improve your reputation;
  4) Loop back to 1 as much as you need or want;
  5) Retire;
  Music artists hurt by pirated albums you say ? Tell that to anybody that enjoyes going to concerts.
  I've paid for once concert more than I've paid for all my CD's , and a concert is a one-time event,
  Good musicians earn their living through concers , shit ones through radio ad revenue.
2. Re:Crowd-funding by am+2k · 2012-03-11 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  To keep other people from making something better using your building blocks and leaving you out of it.
  Unlike yourself, who hasn't used a single concept (like the idea of an adventure game or using a mouse as an input device) from somebody else at all.
3. Re:Crowd-funding by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-11 04:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Exactly. Copyright isn't the demon here, it's the middle-men that have taken over the administration of creative works at the EXPENSE of the creator.
  Copyright isn't inherently evil, but the corporations and interests that are far removed from the average creator's interests are twisting copyright to make it something negative to the consumer.
4. Re:Crowd-funding by alexgieg · 2012-03-11 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To keep other people from making something better using your building blocks and leaving you out of it.
  The (alleged) purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of arts. The moment it starts keeping other people from making something better, i.e., starts PREVENTING the progress of arts, its whole purpose becomes null and void. So, again: copyright? What for?
  
  --
  Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
5. Re:Crowd-funding by Auroch · 2012-03-11 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  Crowd-funding is how entertainment will work in the the not too distant future, as far as creators are concerned:
  0) Start by making something good, although probably for free, thus starting to build a reputation; 1) Offer to do something, for money, proportional to your reputation; 2) Get funded by the crowd; 3) Deliver a good end result, and with it improve your reputation; 4) Loop back to 1 as much as you need or want; 5) Retire.
  Copyright? What for?
  Crowd funding is already what we do. They make a good game, you buy lots of it, they make a sequel. What you're talking about is cutting out the middle man (publisher/developer who lends them money) and doing it yourself.
  
  --
  Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
6. Re:Crowd-funding by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-11 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why is that a problem? With the grandparent's model, you're paid before you release your product. If someone else takes it and makes something even better, then that's great! You can then take their work and incorporate it into your next product. The important thing is to not lose something like trademarks or moral rights: if someone takes your work and builds something great, then they need to credit you. When you're looking for funding for your next project, that credit can be worth a lot...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
7. Re:Crowd-funding by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-11 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  The model doesn't just have to be for live music. Release one track, and ask for funding for the rest of the album. Once you've reached the target, record and release it. Encourage people to 'pirate' it (not really piracy, since it's with your consent) and spread it as widely as possible. Then ask for funding for your next album...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:Crowd-funding by artor3 · 2012-03-11 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Doesn't work. You really think that this kickstarter project is endlessly reproducible? There are so many great movies and TV shows and books and songs and video games that would never have seen the light of day if they had to be funded in advance.
  By your own admission, you have to do some good, free works first, before you get jack. And one good game ain't gonna cut it. You really think people would dump millions of dollars onto some developer who's only claim to fame was a single, albeit fun, flash game? Of course not. You'd have to make hit after hit, and only then, after years of unpaid hard work, would you even have a chance of getting paid.
  Kickstarter, the Humble Bundles, they're all nice supplements. But for the vast majority of content, copyright is necessary. It needs reform, but it is necessary.
9. Re:Crowd-funding by kamapuaa · 2012-03-11 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  This. Crowdsource funding is a fun one-off for already established artists with a large following.
  In addition to the problem for non-established artists, if every single artist/author/video game producer had their hat in hand asking for crowd-sourced money, it would become an ignored barrage. Projects like these work because they're unusual enough to get people's attention and maybe even a couple Slashdot articles.
  
  --
  Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
10. Re:Crowd-funding by causality · 2012-03-11 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  He's violating the principle of generosity. When debating somebody, you invariably come across a statement that could be interpreted in several ways. The principle of generosity says that you should try to interpret this in the best way, which makes the strongest argument, and assume that that's what he meant. Be generous to his argument, in other words.
  The usual instinct people have is to take the most idiotic interpretation and use that, since it's easier to attack. But as we see in the GP, it doesn't help your side, it just makes you look like a jackass. Which is why, if you're interested in winning your argument, you need to be generous.
  It just seemed so natural and obvious to me that I didn't realize there was a term for it. Thank you -- seriously, you have educated me today.
  
  I agree with you about the nature of it but I disagree in terms of emphasis. You're correct that this kind of impatient "I must be right and you must be wrong so easy-to-attack is all I care about" mentality doesn't work very well and often backfires. But I don't really view it so much in terms of working or not working.
  
  To me it's the product of an (emotionally) immature mind. It's like the two-year-old who has to be first in line, has to have the biggest piece of candy, etc. People like him think that if you say "hey, that's a great point and you've changed my mind about this" then you have lost something. Avoiding that is their major priority because they're coming from a puerile ego level. It has no concern for the truth; truth is something to be downplayed or spun in whatever way is convenient.
  
  I think that's bullshit. If you really want to be right so badly, you start by realizing you don't automatically have all the answers.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
There's also a Tactical Shooter! by airfoobar · 2012-03-11 05:22 · Score: 5, Informative

A few of days ago I submitted a story about another high-profile game creator following Schafer's lead by using Kickstarter, but /. mods chose to post ads about Apple TV instead (because obviously Apple needs the help more than an indie team).

"..an independent team led by Chistian Allen (lead designer/creative director for games like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Halo: Reach) has launched a Kickstarter for a new hardcore tactical shooter."
Their PR is nowhere as good as Schafer's, but tactical shooters deserve some love too!
Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-11 05:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

2.5 Million? And we'll never own the game.
For 2.5 Million we could fund the same effort or more and enrich the commons with a high quality opensource game that would allow a wide array of derivative. Instead the commons is robbed and is given a proprietary game.
Slashdot should not be posting kickstarters for software and other things that aren't free/libre open source licensed or creative commons licensed.
Use kickstarter to compensate creative people for their effort, but pay them to contribute to the commons as well.
1. Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons by Anrego · 2012-03-11 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or we could use the money to cure cancer!
  Seriously though, people spend the money on whatever they want. There's always something better they could have spent the money on, but things don't work that way. If they did we'd all be giving all our money to whatever society deemed the absolute most important cause.
  As for turning slashdot into a church of RMS .. bleh.
2. Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons by Garth+Smith · 2012-03-11 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We donated millions to Tim Schafer because he has a rightly earned reputation for making great games. Tim is being rewarded for all the hard work he put in. Are you saying that good work and effort should go unrewarded? Is it a problem that we want to help people out who have already proven they can enrich our lives? Kickstarter has helped us get a new old-school adventure game where previously where was none.
3. Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons by Gaygirlie · 2012-03-11 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  high quality opensource game
  That there is an oxymoron. There are no high-quality F/OSS games.
  
  Slashdot should not be posting kickstarters for software and other things that aren't free/libre open source licensed or creative commons licensed.
  /. doesn't exist to drive F/OSS agenda, it exists to propagate news items about stuff that people are interested in.
  
  Use kickstarter to compensate creative people for their effort, but pay them to contribute to the commons as well.
  Tell some high-quality F/OSS dev to make a kickstarter project then and stop whining about it here.
4. Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-03-11 06:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  AC had a good point. Creativity is generally not improved by rewards, and there are other ways to support people than linking the right to consume with an increasingly precarious income-through-jobs link. We could have had $2.5 million of free stuff, and now we are getting yet more proprietary stuff.
  See my essay on that theme (though it is directed more at tax-exempt non-profits):
  http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html
  Longer version: http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html
  See also on why creativity diminished if done for material gain:
  "RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
  From 1964 on the strained income-through-jobs link.
  http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
  Alternatives:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
  http://books.google.com/books/about/The_dictionary_of_alternatives.html?id=IKZVKMPEQCEC
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
5. Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-03-11 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Tell some high-quality F/OSS dev to make a kickstarter project then and stop whining about it here."
  The problem is that the social dynamics of Kickstarter don't work very well for F/OSS, given that pledges are generally tightly tied to specific rewards (and pledges are amplified by the project creating "artificial scarcity").
  The big issue is that people need to wake up to the notion that they are supporting and even creating "artificial scarcity" with how they spend their time and money. Related by me: http://www.artificialscarcity.com/
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
6. Re:Again Kickstarter is used to rob the commons by elifer · 2012-03-11 10:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There are at least two succesful open source projects in kickstarter:
  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/149077132/a-house-in-california-a-point-click-art-game?ref=live
  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1384519763/pissed-off-penguins?ref=live
  Just because people backed the project doesn't mean it can be released freely afterwards. They still can get their recognition through the rewards
Silly NPR! Gaming isn't just for kids! by jensen404 · 2012-03-11 06:17 · Score: 2

From NPR:

Schafer plans to do just that and make a documentary about it, to demystify the process for kids who think that only big publishers can make games.
The 74,000 backers are obviously just buying the game for their kids.
Re:Great. Although... by Gaygirlie · 2012-03-11 06:28 · Score: 2

I get what you are saying and some lesser designer might indeed start to crack under the pressure, but looking at what Schafer has been saying in the public and his pictures here, it doesn't seem like he even notices it. I really doubt quality is an issue, but one thing that people WILL complain about is that it takes so long for the game to materialize. People are impatient and a large adventure game is a multi-year project, that is going to cause some quarreling eventually.
Gilbert's involvement might be overstated by Malibee · 2012-03-11 08:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not sure it's accurate to say this game is "from Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert." See http://grumpygamer.com/5694081