Kickstarter's Problem: You Have To Make the Game Before You Ask For Money

An anonymous reader writes with this piece about Digital Knights, the studio behind the Kickstarter campaign project Sienna Storm, which was cancelled this week after the team raised only 10% of their $180,000 target, despite a compelling concept (a card based espionage game) and a reputable team including the writer of the original Deus Ex, Sheldon Pacotti. The team is now seeking alternative funding before reaching out to publishers, but in an interview given this week, Knights CEO Sergei Filipov highlights what he sees as a recent and growing problem with crowdfunding games: an expectation to see a working prototype. "It seems at least 50 or 60 percent of the game needs to be completed before one launches a campaign on Kickstarter," he says. It's a chicken and egg cycle some indie developers will struggle to break out of, and shows just how far we've come since Tim Schafer's Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter burst the doors open two years ago.

Comments

Actually a good thing.

[BarbaraHudson]

This requires would-be developers to have significant skin already in the game (pardon the pun) in terms of time and resources invested. Better than "I have an idea, now give me money and I'll eventually build it for ya." Or all those similar-talking losers on Shark Tank and Dragons Den who think and idea with nothing else is worth big bucks.

Re:Actually a good thing.

[Kjella]

Well, if you want Kickstarter to be your go-no go decision maker then you can't wait so long you're already pot committed, as they'd say at the poker table. If you're half finished and your Kickstarter fails, what do you do? Throw away all that work and start over on something else? Try to salvage it and publish something, even if it has lackluster appeal? Not to mention then you must go it alone, if you already know you can finish it alone do you really need Kickstarter? My impression is that Kickstarter works best when your "selling points" aren't your product but your reputation and history. I donated fairly big to the Musopen project because there was quite a bit of history to show that yes, they're serious about creating free music but lacked the funds to do it. I'd be very weary of people with just photoshop and powerpoint skills.

Re:Actually a good thing.

[Altrag]

Where it can fill in the gaps is when you have a product (say a game, since that's what I'm usually most interested in) and are nearing production and suddenly you need:
a) Hosting services for downloadables.
b) Production services if you plan to make hard copies of the game, merchandise to go with it, etc.
c) Possibly most important: Visibility.

It can also help if you're a good designer but perhaps a crappy artist. You can build your game with clip art and cube models or whatever and then try to get the funds to hire a proper artist to flesh the game out as you're nearing completion.

There's plenty of points during a game's development cycle where a sudden (comparatively) large influx of cash can push it past a milestone that the developer wouldn't have been able to manage on their own (or would have taken them significantly longer to do so.)

Not to mention KS's for silly things like a nifty T-Shirt design or whatever where the idea actually is pretty much 100% of the project -- its not hard to get silkscreening done if you've got a picture and a few hundred/thousand dollars.

As for what the devs do if the KS fails.. depends on the dev. If they're mostly business people they may cut their losses and try something new. If they're creating a labor of love they'll probably try and push through it on their own. In both cases they may try to find other sources of income if they really believe in their idea and think that KS is just stupid for not trusting them. Everyone's reaction to a failed KS will be different I'm sure.

Re:Actually a good thing.

[BarbaraHudson]

There are ways out of this. The first is to find one or more partners who have the necessary skills to develop the prototype with him, in return for equity. Not willing to give up equity? Then too bad? Can't convince devs that your idea is not that great/unique/compelling (because we've ALL heard variants of this "my idea is SO great - all you have to do is code it and we'll be rich" bullsh*t)? Again, too bad.

The real "way out of this" is to realize that, since he doesn't have the necessary skills, he either has to acquire them or give up. Not willing to take the years necessary to acquire them? Like the old saying goes, "The will to succeed isn't as important as the will to plan to succeed." Not having a plan that takes the obvious potential obstacles such as the ones you cited into account is a pretty good indicator that you're not the one to invest in. After all, ultimately, people invest in people, not products. The product won't complete itself. You can't hold an incomplete product accountable. You hold the people behind it accountable.

Yeah, so?

[realmolo]

You *should* have a working prototype before you expect to get money.

Yes, it's difficult to build a prototype when you don't have funds. Welcome to the Real World, asshole. It's not easy to produce/market a new product. Kickstarter has made it *easier*, but it's not a magic bullet. It briefly *was* a magic bullet before people got smart and realized that giving money away for something that has almost no chance of ever being a real product was silly.

Re:Yeah, so?

[Charliemopps]

I agree with you. And given that they're making a card game all they need for a working prototype is a printer. I don't see what the problem is. In fact, there are plenty of websites you can go to and have professional cards/boards, etc made...
One example I've used: https://www.thegamecrafter.com...

If you don't have any sort of demo, you haven't put in enough work to get my money.

Double Fine is a bad example.

[timrod]

With Double Fine, there's a lot of questions about how the money was spent - many of which have gone unanswered. For instance, Tim Schaefer initially said he would need $400,000 to make a full game. Granted, he arrived at that number using numbers from games he made in the early 90s, but then it spiralled out of control into a $3.3 million project. The numbers he HAS released show that he spent almost the entire initial amount - $400,000 - on "backer rewards".

The $3.3 million barely covered the first half of the game, and that was on top of another few million in crowdfunding that Schaefer did shortly before release date. They still don't have a released date set for the second half, other than "We're working on it and it might be out by the end of the year."

Re:Kickstarter's Problem

[halivar]

Not true. From the KS TOS:

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

And from the FAQ:

Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.

Ya well

[Sycraft-fu]

If you aren't a known developer, people want to see some evidence that you have the ability to make good on your plans. Game development isn't simple, and many people are not prepared for what they are going to have to do to bring a successful game to market.

So Doublefine or inXile can get a good bit of funding with nothing but a design doc for a game because people have faith they'll be able to deliver since they are experienced game devs. New crews are going to have to show something to get people to trust them.

Particularly in light of past KS failures in that regard. I've backed a number of games on KS and two of them I knew were fairly high risk: They were being done by an individual who hadn't done a game before, and there wasn't any sort of demo up front, just some basic concepts. I decided to take a risk on it, but fully understood that failure was likely.

Sure enough, both are floundering/failing. One hasn't had any updates in months, the other does update periodically but it is still extremely rudimentary, despite being way past the planned launch date, and it is pretty clear the dev just doesn't have a good idea how to proceed from here.

On the flip side, the games by established studios have either delivered or are well on track (Shadowrun Returns was brilliant, Wasteland 2 ships next Friday, Pillars of Eternity is in beta, etc). Likewise the indy titles that had a demo and were a good bit along with development have delivered, like FTL.

So no surprise many people aren't willing to take the risk. They want a better chance of return so they stick with established devs or with things that have some proof.

Crowdfunding has jumped the shark

[MrEricSir]

Kickstarter barely cares what you try to fund anymore, and the other sites are even worse. It doesn't matter if your project clearly violates copyright laws -- or even the laws of physics -- you can post any project you want. This makes the entire crowdfunding ecosystem look incredibly shady.

That said, this has led to some pretty funny stuff over at Kickfailure.

Re:Kickstarter's Problem

[macdude22]

What kickstarter says and their actions are two different things. I'm having an issue where a company (a somwhat large board game company using kickstarter for preorderes) has not delivered the promised rewards or a refund. I reached out to kickstarter for clarification on these specific terms. After some back and forth where kickstarter kept dodging my questions they finally stated

Kickstarter Support (Kickstarter)
Aug 20 10:37
Alexander,
Thanks for writing in. Unfortunately I'm unable to comment further on our terms, as it is a standalone documentation of our policies.
Regards,
Alfie

I don't even know what that means. Short of it, kickstarter doesn't actually follow through with their terms and are unwilling to clarify any part of them.