Slashdot Mirror
Gaming Legends Discuss Using Kickstarter For Their Next Projects
Nerval's Lobster writes "Just as the Internet fundamentally altered the way games are distributed from publishers to players, crowdfunding has upended the traditional models of raising money for gaming development, and some of the most storied people in the industry are taking notice. Chris Roberts, who created the well-known Wing Commander series in 1990, managed to raise millions of dollars on Kickstarter last fall for his upcoming Star Citizen, eventually collecting so much money from individual backers that he could return the budget he'd taken from "formal" investment firms. "Even nice investors, they want a return at some point. They have a slightly diff agenda than I do," Roberts told Slashdot. "My agenda is to build the coolest game possible." He's not the only famed developer getting into the crowdfunding game: Wasteland director Brian Fargo spent years wanting to make a sequel to his popular role-playing game, eventually accomplishing that goal via Kickstarter. And for every famous game creator who uses the power of crowds to produce a new masterwork, dozens of talented amateurs are also financing their first games via Kickstarter and similar services. But that doesn't mean there are occasional high-profile implosions, like CLANG."
Getting money from a different source that leads to a more open development process=excessive greed?
Sometimes you should explain your opinions.
I like the idea of Kickstarter, but I think a lot of people have co-opted it and it's becoming much less useful for finding really nifty projects. Too many corporate "we're too lazy to handle our own preorders" stuff on it these days.
Maybe that's a feature, not a bug, to the Kickstarter people but it's turned me off from browsing. Finding the diamonds in the rough is a lot harder with the corporate invaders adding so much more rough.
Getting money from a different source that leads to a more open development process=excessive greed?
Sometimes you should explain your opinions.
I think his point, and I don't know if I agree or disagree, is that more and more wealthy people are using kickstarter as a way of starting projects. These are people unwilling to risk their own fortunes and instead wish to use yours and mine. If they believed in their project so much they would use their own money to back it, but they don't.
I don't know if this is one of those situations but if these people are "gaming legends" as the article implies then one would assume, rightly or wrongly, that they are wealthy but unwilling to back their own project.
I believe kickstarter should be used for the up and comers, the idealists who are just getting started. When I see a wealthy person using kickstarter I just see greed and a complete lack of dedication to their own ideas and abilities.
I read TFA (don't judge) and all I could see is feature creep and delays written all over the project. EA's death marches to release should be avoided at all costs, but polar opposite is not any better.
More likely they simply want more assurance that they can succeed. Kickstarter lets them know their are paying customers lined up for a product.
I will not spend money on kickstarter for the up and comers as they are quite likely to just run off with the money as we have seen so many times.
What I don't like about Kickstarter is the long time before I start wanting something and I get it.
I like it to exist. It allows many projects that would otherwise be abandoned. I just don't want to know about them until they are ready to ship the product.
Knowing about the amazing toys I may have in a year's time makes me appreciate less those I've got right now.
Indeed, it is following the same path as Ebay, which was once an awesome place to find and sell older stuff, but these days it's populated at 98% by Ebay Stores with set prices, and lost it's usefullness as an auction site. Kickstarter is going that way too, it started as a great place for new, small projects, but is being overrun now by corps who uses it as a launch platform for their next product.
...in 3... 2... 1...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
At the rate Star Citizen is raising money, it's going to have an AAA budget before it comes out. It happened to hit the sweet spot of a known creator with a proven track record, good timing, and a genre with a lot of fans starved for a game. It's been marketed well, and the early previews have been good to wet the appetite (there's no meat available yet).
The sheer amount of money they've got (almost $20 million) makes it so unusual that it doesn't make a good example. Even if the game is a resounding success (and I sure hope it is) it's not a good example to follow because so few crowdfunded projects can get even close to that in funding.
What other projects CAN learn from them is to not stop fundraising just because your Kickstarter is over. Beyond that, it's just too weird to draw any kind of conclusions from.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
OK:
Translation: WHAT??? You mean those people who gave me the funding for this project actually want something out of it??? Well, fuck that, I'll just go beg from the community in a way that ensures I don't have to give them dick in return for their hard-earned dollars!"
Dude had the funding, but he didn't want to share his profits with the people that were giving him money. Ergo, excessive greed.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Although Kickstarter and its ilk have plenty of flaws (for instance, that you probably will never see any returns on your investments), I see crowdfunding as having an important place in the information age. It takes the money and power from the big publishers, and gives it back to the developers and customers, respectively. And it allows the existence of niche projects which most companies would deem as "too risky".
I see the same kind of thing happening with music as well, with sites like bandcamp. As I recall, Radiohead made much more money selling pay-what-you-want copies of "In Rainbows" than they did with all their previous albums put together. Realistically, I don't see the recording industry dying any time soon, but at least we now have financially viable alternatives. It allows things to exist that simply could not have existed otherwise.
I will not spend money on kickstarter for the up and comers as they are quite likely to just run off with the money as we have seen so many times.
How many times have we seen that with Kickstarter?
I think his point...
...is to make a statement that is both somewhat inflammatory but sufficiently vague to allow people to read into it whatever they want. You really need to learn the art of a good troll. The less you say, the better it works.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
If they believed in their project so much they would use their own money to back it, but they don't.
With the tiny big difference that if they invest their fortune, once the project is finished they have to sell the product.
Kickstarter "only" guarantees buyers. It doesn't matter how amazingly rich you are, knowing that you've got buyers is always good.
For example, Microsoft could have kickstarted their surface 2 to check if there's still enough... clients.
Chris Roberts, who created the well-known Wing Commander series in 1990, managed to raise millions of dollars on Kickstarter last fall for his upcoming Star Citizen, eventually collecting so much money from individual backers that he could return the budget he'd taken from "formal" investment firms. "Even nice investors, they want a return at some point. They have a slightly diff agenda than I do," Roberts told Slashdot. "My agenda is to build the coolest game possible."
Herein lies the difference. Kickstarter backers are not seen as actual investors in the project by the project owners, but rather as a way to informally fund games that the developers want to work on without feeling like there is any real obligation to those who funded it. To paraphrase what Chris Roberts stated, he couldn't care less if it ever makes any money as long as he gets to build the "coolest game possible". Without the incentive/pressure of investors looking for a return however, there will always be "just one or two more things" to finish up and the game will never actually get released.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
What you're complaining about is the inability to find the projects that are interesting to you and I have the same complaint about kickstarter. Several times I've heard about a project that didn't reach it's funding goal I would have loved to have backed but for whatever reason I didn't discover it until it was too late.
Every digital marketplace has this problem to some extent. The good ones seem to have a good recommendation engine like amazon and netflix or they're heavily curated like steam and Xbox Arcade. Then there are places like kickstarter and iOS where they highlight the best 40 or so and let the rest remain obscure.
Discover-ability is a real problem that is only going to get worse as digital markets get more popular and larger. And I'm guessing that any company that can solve that problem will be the next tech service monopoly.
Ergo, creative control. He never acted as if it was outrageous that investors want something for their money, that's an interesting bit of fantasy on your part. He merely noted that this does create constraints that can interfere with making a good game (there's a few dozen examples you can hear about if you actually follow the discussions among the game developers -- CR tends to be vague, but some of his employees that worked with him at Digital Anvil and other previous projects can be quite specific and biting at times about the interference they've gotten from publishers in the past).
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Max: The two cardinal rules of producing. One: Never put your own money in the show.
Leo: And two?
Max: NEVER PUT YOUR OWN MONEY IN THE SHOW!
The problem is when people who DON'T need kickstarter clog the pipe up. Spoiled brat kids of overpaid, undertalented music acts "kickstarting" their 2nd or 3rd album for instance. James Franco wanting people to "kickstart" his vanity-movie project.
Shit like this clutters up the site and makes it impossible to find the people who have interesting projects that actually need the help.
Umm, no. That's not his point at all. His point was this: he wants to make a video game. One that is well-made, fun, and follows his vision. The investors simply want money. The means of getting that money are irrelevant (so long as it's legal... well, most investors care about that. Well, the nice ones do, anyways). When you follow the former, you end up with games that are original, interesting, and usually quite fun (Braid, Bastion, Portal, etc.). Sometimes these make money, sometimes they don't. When you follow the latter, you end up with Call of Duty: 2013. This often makes you a lot of money, but it also makes for rather terrible games and stagnation in the industry. Hence, the massive amounts of re-hashed expensive shit that gets shoved out by most of the AAA studios while the actually interesting and novel ideas are relegated to being made on a shoe-string budget in someones garage (usually: not always).
Anyways, Roberts does give the community something, namely, the game. Not money, but what they (and he) actually want. When everyone involved in the project actually wants the same thing, you can focus on that. If he had investors, he'd need to focus at least somewhat on making a game that could earn money. As it stands, even if the game sells zero copies after release, it doesn't matter so long as the gameplay satisfies the crowdfunders.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
That's an interesting perspective, and one I had not considered. It's not unlike trying to get a small business loan for a start-up. No traditional model lending institution is going to loan you money if you aren't willing to risk any of your own. Gambling with house money can cause people to take risks that they otherwise may not, thus increasing the chances of a poor return on investment. Conversely, few success stories ever come out of people playing it safe, and Kickstarter may afford a designer or developer the option to take a risk that could be the difference maker in success...although that cuts both ways.
As a board gamer, I know that even successful game designers aren't usually wealthy, but they do have contacts and access that fledglings do not have. I don't know if that should keep them from starting a crowd funding project or not.
I certainly agree though that Kickstarter has been co-opted by larger companies and bigger names away from the garage inventors, hobbyists, and tinkerers; and that is kind of sad. Backing a project is now much more like shopping, than a quasi-philanthropic gesture of belief in a person or product. Part of me thinks Kickstarter should be open to all, and the public can decide what they will back. That would be the truest form of the democratization of funding. But it would probably be naive to think smaller operators wouldn't be marginalized.
It's a tough call.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Ergo, creative control.
Bullshit - you want 'creative control' over your project, you pay for it your own goddamn self; for reference, see: every independent artist ever, prior to the creation of websites like Kickstarter.
He never acted as if it was outrageous that investors want something for their money, that's an interesting bit of fantasy on your part.
Fantasy? That's a direct quote from TFS: "Even nice investors, they want a return at some point." Sure sounds like bitching to me. WTF do you mean, "nice investors?" Are you saying that investors who actually expect a gain from their investment in you are dicks or something?
That's the sort of attitude a selfish twat would have.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"Dude had the funding, but he didn't want to share his profits with the people that were giving him money. Ergo, excessive greed."
At this point, many of us old gamers could give less of a fuck. Publishers have single handledly:
-Dumbed down games
-Stopped making many genre's that used to exist in the past
Gamers are throwing money at projects because we know nothing will get made otherwise. We know some projects will fail, some will take our money, etc. But how's that different from publishers, DRM, Steam, etc? These people have taken our money and fucked us anyway with DRM and all sorts of onerous bullshit rules.
At this point we could care less, the whole gaming world is just once giant exploitation circle jerk with MMO's, F2P and DRM.
When games like wow and diablo 3 are selling virtual items, and Diablo 3 has single player lag... just how exactly are we not getting fucked six ways to sunday?
I didn't buy any of these games, but kids, illiterates and dumbasses who feed corporations aren't going to stop. So what choice to gamers who want games not being made have?
It'll be part of it, but not THE future. There is still plenty of room for publishers. There is a demand, a large one, for big, well produced, titles. People like the stuff you can get from a game that has a $20-50 million budget (or even more), that you just don't see from crowd funding. Publishers are very useful for funding titles that have a widespread appeal. They can risk a bunch of money because the chance on return is good since the games have a broad enough appeal.
Crowd funding is more for titles that there's a sizable group that is interested in, but not a really huge one. You can get a smaller amount of funding and build a more specialized title, to give particular fans what they want.
That is largely what we've seen in terms of KS successes. Developers have gotten a couple million dollars, which is enough to do a game (see Shadowrun Returns) but not with all the polish of a AAA title.
So both are likely to continue.
It seems a bit unfair to throw CLANG into the mix with these games:
CLANG was started by the author Neil Stephenson, and people are surprised how, by golly, the guy doesn't know the intricacies of game development (and its costs)?
I found it incredibly strange to see how succesful that Kickstarter was, since it's the same as a reknown gamedesigner asking money to write a book...
The other examples are people who have been veterans in the gamedesign industry, and whereas not automatically flawless, they will at least also know about the possible pitfalls of development.
What other famous game devs have tried this? I'd love to see what Chris Taylor (Total Annihilation, Dungeon Siege) could do with this.
Dude had the funding, but he didn't want to share his profits with the people that were giving him money.
Correction. Dude had the funding, but did not want to be constrained by the investor's definition of "turning a profit".
Very simplified, but there are three parties at play here. The Developer who is making the game, The Investor who is paying The Developer to make the game, and The Consumer who will buy the game. The Investor isn't giving away free money, they want a return on their investment. That generally translates into The Investor having a say in what kind of game The Developer makes, which may mean rehashing a classic formula instead of trying something new. Which there is nothing wrong with that, but this dude did not want to be limited in such a manner. By making The Investor and The Consumer one and the same, you change the desired return on investment from "I want money" to "I want a bitchin' game".
Is it possible that the decision to use Kickstarter actually is about greed? Sure. But without some kind of proof from you, it is far more likely that he really does just want to make a bitchin' game, and you are nothing but a troll.
I think Kickstarter is having a negative effect on game developers, and it's certainly not doing any favors for gamers.
When it becomes easier to collect money for promising a game than it does to do the hard work and actually produce and release a good game, you'll see what's happening now: a regression in PC gaming.
Over the past several years, there has been something of a renaissance in PC gaming. Skyrim, Far Cry 3, Dishonored, etc. Big games that deliver plenty of value to the consumer. Games, like Skyrim and Far Cry 3 that you can easily put 50-100 hours (or more) and still enjoy. Games that fire up a whole community.
2013 has been an awful year for PC gaming. Look at the list of GOTY candidates from a year ago, and ask yourself if there are any games that have been released this year that are nearly as good, or will provide such good value. I believe, though I don't really have any hard data, that the rise of Kickstarter has convinced a lot of AAA developers to just put out their dream game on Kickstarter and start collecting money. It's a hell of a lot easier than dealing with a big game company and all the hassles, plus when you go that route, the company actually expects you to release something.
Instead, we have a list of promises. Trailers. Trailers announcing the release of a new trailer. Where are the AAA sim racing games this year? Where is the big blockbuster like GTA V for PC this year. Everything is "later". Has there ever been a Kickstarted game that released on schedule?
At least when you give your money to a game company, you get a game, not a promise. If the Kickstarter campaign doesn't produce a game, what do you get besides a new item on your credit card?
If you're going to give somebody money up front, you need to get more than a promise. We have a very well-known system for doing that, it's called "investing". If I'm going to give somebody my money up front so they can make a game, I want a share, however small, of the profits. Besides the novelty, there is absolutely no incentive to donate to a Kickstarted game. Zero. If the game's worth making, then do the work and find backing. But not donations...real backing. You can do it using crowd-funding, but give people real value for the risk they're taking, not just a promise that they'll get a copy of an alpha release when and if the game ever comes out.
I liked Kickstarter for games at first. Thought it was innovative and could produce games that could never be made otherwise. Because there is no accountability, that hasn't happened.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I sincerely hope it's successful. Chris Roberts has a reasonably awesome game-CV behind him (Wing Commander, Strike Commander, etc). I believe he can do it.
However....
While the ongoing waterfall of funding comes in, one of the things Kickstarter projects to is 'stretch goals' - funding hits a big benchmark, some new thing will be added to the scope of the project.
That makes it hard right now to discern whether the 'stretch goals' are reasonable, or a sign of nascent project bloat. I'm reminded of many venture-cap-funded developments in the dotcom days, and projects that suffered not from a lack of funding, but a surfeit: there was no incentive on focusing on a reasonably-achievable project and do it right, to completion, full stop. Everytime a wave of new funding came in, projects' goals would be raised, a host of new features would be projected, and the only thing growing faster than the funding were the aspirations.
So for me the jury's out. I certainly won't wager, er 'invest' in the Kickstarter. If it comes, I'll certainly buy it. But I'm not just paying to see the Egress, either.
-Styopa
If a good game costs tens of millions of dollars to make and distribute, it doesnt really matter if you're "wealthy" with a couple of million in the bank. It matters even less when your source of income was (past tense) the game you produced 10+ years ago, and havent really worked since.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I think there's another issue in there:
Most of the arts projects are essentially looking for a platform, and the artists do the campaigning legwork themselves, directing potential backers on their mailing lists to site to pay. But many of the technology projects look to the site to draw investment in.
So there's nothing wrong with arts/vanity projects per se, but there is the problem that mixing the two classes of campaign together means the swarm of vanity projects underserving of marketplace promotion crowds out the minority of projects needing a source of stranger-investors.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Chris started the Kickstarter for SC to prove to investors that there was still a call for this type of game. EA et al. have refused to invest in this sort of game for years as there was "no interest in space exploration games" but Chris wanted to prove that there was. The initial goal of $2M was seen as HUGE at the time. It made that goal with no problems. Funding was also flowing in via the Star Citizen site and hasn't stopped since! With the crowdfunding that has happened, Chris is now able to make the game that he (and all of the fans that have pledged) want's to make. The kickstarter was but a small part of it all. It brought awareness to the masses that the game might not have, had they stayed with just their site for funding. There was a comment of "People who are sure of their product use their own money..." somewhere up in the thread... Chris spent 12+ months choosing an engine and making a tech demo before any of it even started. THAT was his own money put into the game. The kickstarter video featured in-engine visuals of what was possible. HIS investment of time and money made that happen. Another comment was about feature creep. Nothing that has been released with the stretch goals is creep. They have all been planned for, depending on the budget. They are not making things up on the spur of the moment for if they get to a certain amount of money. By keeping the pledgers well informed of what is happening, as well as listening to their opinions, Chris has allowed the community to see a hell of a lot more of the design process than any game previously created. The release of the hangar demo has also helped. Getting bug reports and feedback from the community WAY before it would normally be seen. They have just hit the $20 MILLION mark. Chris has said that at $23M EVERYTHING will have been crowd-funded to make the game. That includes all the credit charges they have to pay for transactions and the % they have to pay Kickstarter. It seemed that it was a long way off just a few short months ago. Now it seems inevitable, and at this rate, will happen by the end of the year. For those that want to read more into Chris' ideas about crowd-funding and Kickstarter, have a look here : http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/200998/chris_roberts_on_star_citizen_.php And for anyone that's interested in the game but not looked, have a read of the articles on the website or drop by the forums: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
You assume that your average game actually produces a notable profit under traditional investment terms. Many lose money, and few really roll in massive cash. In fact the goal of a lot of game developers is to break even, and get a little money back into their pockets. That's a hell of a lot more possible on a kickstarter model than under the thumb of someone like Microsoft or EA, who not only requires a significant percentage of any net profits, but also strongarms the design and regularly derails the design goals of the game creators.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Consider that a typical ownership cut demanded by venture capitalists in California (3000 Sand Hill Road types) is 30 to 50 percent. Kickstarter or Kickstarter clones could do very well just by saying if you (the individual) invest in XYZ and it pans out, you'll get your share of the 10 percent equity slice reserved for investors. So it could be easy for knowledgeable engineers, technicians and scientists to "play" the investment game via Kickstarter, using their insights from work experience, and do pretty well over the long haul. For start up founders, giving up 10% via Kickstarter is hella better than giving up 50% to 3000 Sand Hill Road folks. Why torture yourself trying to impress plump VC guys to give you 10 minutes and take 50% of your future profits, when you can just lay out your idea on Kickstarter and let the subject matter experts vote with their dollars?
Crowdfunding is therefore to the Anglo-Saxon financial elites what the comet was to the dinosaurs.
Therefore it would make sense that chaps such as Mitt Romney and friends are working quietly but very hard on getting crowdfunding outlawed or marginalized. Watch what happens in the next few years. This will of course only accelerate the decline of R&D and technological leadership in the U.S., but for the $$$ elites, that is some future generation's problem.
Having those close to the "investors" setting parameter on technical/gameplay details has them tied to highest-possible financial returns instead of product quality.
In the case of certain big gaming studios, a bad release doesn't even seem a setback any more as they'll just buy out the (smaller) competing shops leaving you with no other choice.
You can create a great game that makes a good/great profit. The problem is that when you start involving those close to the "investors" they want to cut the razors edge between not-fun-enough-to-sell VS crap-that-makes-more-money. Instead of profits based on game sales, you end up with "features" that increase profit but detract from game value such as:
a) Rushed release with poor testing (particularly common when a "big shop" buys out a successful small shop, cuts staff, and imposes sequelitis)
b) 0-day DLC (a.k.a cutting content to sell more as "premium" add-ons)
c) Internet-required/Always-on-DRM
d) Sequelitis (a.k.a interesting, original ideas are too risky and thus do not materialize)
e) In-game ads, including content-updates/downloads that exist just to update advertising
f) Paid DLC/items/levelling/etc
g) Multiplayer-required (good single-player games are becoming increasingly rare)
h) Analytics and personal-information scraping (getting particularly bad on mobile games etc asking for unreasonable permissions)
i) Console/mobile targeted games (may exist on PC but is controls are obviously intended for console)
Except that in the case of Star Citizen, you get the game with a pledge of $35+. That isn't a bad deal considering that AAA games go for $60 now when they first come out.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Fair enough; I can understand the viewpoint of the funders (we want games that don't suck), but I'm hard pressed to believe that the dev's rationale is as altruistic as some people seem to want to think. He's in it for personal gain, just like any other capitalist.
Publishers have single handledly:
-Dumbed down games
-Stopped making many genre's that used to exist in the past
The first one is a given, but I'm curious about the second: what genres have ceased to exist? I'd like to see more TBS/RTS games like the Total War series, but that's not to say that there aren't any such games being made (although I can't name any off the top of my head).
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You might note that all the games you listed were released later in the year. This is normal. The top flight titles come near Christmas since they sell better. October and November and December are the big release times. Checking my little OS clock, we don't seem to be in October yet.
There's also the additional issue of the new console releases, which devs will hold games for since that is a big money thing in more ways than one.
I haven't seen this year as being bad.
"but I'm curious about the second: what genres have ceased to exist?"
What I mean by this is : GOOD GAMES in these genre's have ceased to exist, aka, if you have a constant stream of bad low budget, low quality (unfinished) games in niche genre's, that's the same as having no genre at all. Because it's been reduced to niche status because the people publishing crap there aren't competent or have enough finances to build and polish these games to sufficient quality.
It's all about quality. The word 'genre' can't really capture the complexity of games anyway.
There are a few other projects that I feel very "involved" with in terms of how the devs communicate with backers.
These ones have regular progress updates to backers, and - more importantly - the updates give the impression that the devs are quite passionate about their work
* Mighty #9 is fairly fresh but updates are nearly daily
* Leadwerks/Linux gets regular updates
* Planetary Annihilation has good progress and updates, and is steadily moving from Alpha through to Beta
* Openshot is pretty good at passing updates
I've been less impressed by a few other projects that seemed to spend a lot of time sending emails like: Hey, send money to my self/buddies for this other *great* project. SpaceVenture was one that started out like this. It's great that people are making stuff like the old classic sierra games, but I didn't pay to slammed with ads about it.
Even the "nice" investors still want a _monetary_ return, and if that means watering down the game's ambitions so they can pump up the ROI a few points, they're going to push for that.
Which is different from getting your funding from the players, who would be delighted to push for the complete opposite, because they want an _entertainment_ return.
This is exactly why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
It is? Why the hell aren't we banning Kickstarter then? We could have this wealth-disparity problem licked in a year!
Last post!
Of course there's personal gain involved. But calling someone greedy for not taking out a loan when they don't need to, thus avoid paying interest, is kinda stupid. Especially so when you call it "excessive" greed. Yes, he did this at least in part to not have to pay investors back with interest for the money they lent. And I, just today, bought a computer with money out of my pocket rather than agreeing to the stores financing plan. Calling me *excessively* greedy for not taking out a loan when I didn't need to just just moronic...
CR figured out how to fund his game without taking investor loans. Good on him. Calling that "excessive greed" is stupidity writ large...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
So go ahead and make your own Kickstarter-like website that would filter out such projects.
Why, you could even get the funding for such a thing through Kickstarter. ~
Chris Roberts already had the audience - So many people knew him and respected him for previous achievements that the buzz level was phenomenal. Fans will do anything to raise and throw money at him - even making their own crowdfunders for the 10,000 dollar(!) pledges: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/2014-deloria-space-pirate-calender
They should take the kickstarter thing even further (and break thru the rut games are in these days)
Player created assets for the game. Not just objects, assemblages of objects , but quest scripts, tool plugins, tutorials, template of all of the above to make it easier for others to create....
Yes there will be legal issues and a heavy vetting process (and a community to organize for this scheme to be effective), but players have 1000X the creativity and imagination and potential effort that the games employees will have (really important if its to be a persistant MMORPG).
Have you played any FOSS games? They are mostly derivative clones of existing proprietary games, and the weaknesses aren't in the bits copied, but in the original assets. Last time I checked out Freedoom, the enemy sprites didn't go well together, some being cartoony hand-drawn sprites (as per Doom) and others being amateurish prerenders of 3D models. By far the worst thing, though, is level design. You may get some cracking levels out there, but they're bundled in among vast amounts of grinding through poorly designed dross; a problem compounded by the fact that an awful lot of these games just throw a bunch of levels at you for selection, rather than attempting to build in a learning curve with progression through levels according to difficulty.
The key word in the preceding paragraph is "design". Game development isn't just a question of "imagination" - execution counts.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'