Will Kickstarter Launch a Gaming Renaissance?
jfruh writes "Most gamers probably know that legendary game designer Tim Schafer turned to Kickstarter to help raise money a new adventure game; aiming for $400,000, he managed to raise more than $3 million. But you might not know that a host of other game projects are doing well on the crowdfunding site, with creators ranging from industry famous to unknown. By bypassing corporate funding and appealing directly to their audience, these developers are sparking a renaissance in quirky, personal games that probably wouldn't be backed by a big label looking for a sure-fire hit."
As somebody who put in money for Wasteland 2, I'm negative about Kickstarter. I'll even join the official backlash team.
Let's wait until a single good game has been released under this model. Or really, a single good game has been released from somebody who doesn't already have a large fanbase and nostalgia helping him get attention.
Furthermore, there's really no accountability under this whole scheme. What if the game released is totally amateurish? What if the developers just pocket half the money? What if the money ends up not being enough and the game is only half completed? What recourse do the "donators" have?
System seems ripe for being abused...Leisure Suit Larry's kickstarter suggests the money is needed to make the game, glossing over that the game has already been under production for at least half a year. Presumably they already had the money, it doesn't mention where the donation's going.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
buy a consumer product. If you want to make an investment, make an investment.
Kickstarter is not a store, nor is it a brokerage. It is a place to donate and support things you'd like to see happen. Don't send any money their way if you're hoping for some sort of guaranteed return. It's a kind of participation, activism, or expression, not a kind of transaction.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Really? Well then I guess that the answer is no, this will not launch a gaming Renaissance. So far in my scans of these posts, I have seen a sequel, a remake, people fixated on return on investment, and the established developers getting priority over new, unproven programmers.
That sounds just like our existing games industry to me! The established industry still has an avenue for potentially unprofitable ideas. It's called indie developers.
Also, the idea of giving money to games you want to see made is not new, as people do the same with pre-orders. Some people had Duke Nukem Forever on pre-order for a decade!
The pattern seems to be of remakes of and sequels to classic-style games from the 1990s, of a type which the mainstream games industry claims no longer has a market. The people with experience making such games have found a way around the traditional middlemen. I think there's room for this pattern to continue for five years or so, tapping the veins of creativity that were cut short by the consolidation of the gaming industry, before I'd start demanding completely-new titles (which may or may not be supportable through the Kickstarter model).