Kickstarter - Productive or Pandering Thread

So I have a question for my fellow gamers and devs out there....Is the Kickstarter system of project funding something you view as a positive way to get involved (and possibly score some unique rewards) or just a system for developers to beg for dough?

Thanks for any insight!

note: For anyone that is unfamilliar, Kickstarter.com is a site where projects can get funding from donors, and those donors get rewards in return. It's supposed to be a win-win, where projects can get their necessary startup and set the market with a creative venture, and anyone interest gets to interface with those creating something they have an interest in.

Edited by: ScottTykoski

Yeah the majority of developers who've used it have completely abused the relationship with their "customers" (note I don't use the word Donation!). Game developers should be Entrepreneurs, and be able to front the capital. They do not beg.

Community Funding was never designed to be "I give you money for nothing", if you pay the developer a cent you're either given the game early while its developed (for the exact same value that you donated $ for $), or you're given a cash return (where you can actually profit from it). It is not simply for fund raising, it is purely a means of accessing your market now (and in turn loosing post release sales as this will eat away at it.) to fund development.

None of the developers I've seen have done this, many of them just exploit them by forcing you to donate 2x the value of the product or donate with no indication of a return. Video games are a for-profit industry. It should be either treated as a purchase OR treated as a stock investment.

Edited by: formerlyknownasMrCP

I think if the game is near completion and perhaps the money is being used for a great marketing plan (that really helps spread the indie game to the market) or money to provide the icing on the cake or pay for the final installment of the multiplayer servers (or things along that line) then fair enough.

If done properly and fairly I see no problems with donating to projects that look good and to teams who have worked really hard to achieve something. Some indie teams are great, work hard and do honestly need all the help they can get once the working for free period is over. If I found a game I liked I'd definitly consider contributing a fair amount. Even at an earlier stage I'd consider it if it meant the team could achieve something beyond their means or have worked hard on a project to suddenly come to a financial necessity. I think it's easy to spot the 'special ones who deserve it.

However, sadly that is not the case in most situations and you're right, most people just rudely expect it now; somehow as if the donators owe it to them so they can make their game. Often they ask for money before production has even started and only have a couple of concepts done. Jeez, these people need a reality check - unfortunatly though, some people still donate.

I think it's acceptable to have a donate button on the website if they are updating progress, making advancements and so on and it's just a box in the corner that the 'customer' can visit using their own decision and freewill. Often though you get teams who put it up as front page news and are in your face DONATE NOW! or on every thread post they make is BTW, DONATE HERE! Then you view their page and it's 5% completion.

Teams need to be realistic. Why do they expect to be paid so early? If they don't have the funds why would they start a project? - especially when everyone on the team probably works for free. Apart from website hosting costs, domain costs, and possible multiplayer server costs, they have access to a free engine, free software if they havn't already got software (blender, gimp etc) and free staff for the most part. If they want to take it to the next level (licensing, paid marketing, software investment, employing more experienced freelancers) they should invest their own money into it (or find an actual investor), like a lot of other indie devs have done and do so - myself included.

Or as cyberpunk put it, if needed for development then offer a real return for their investment other than a potential free copy of the game and a signed t shirt. Signed T-shirt? Honestly?

Edited by: Tetsuo3

What if early supporters were given a % of the takings of a game once it has shipped. That way it could be classed as an investment and the dev team get money during development to aid their progress.

There would be a limit on how many 'shares' are available to the community and this would cap out at the development budget of whatever £$E.
I suppose there would be some rather awkward legal issues to it as it is essentially making a company public.

I've bought into games well before beta, but never through kickstarter, probably for the reasons mentioned (mostly the general feeling that there's too many clueless blaggers hoping that kickstarter will be an easy way to dodge the hard work. It isn't )

Great feedback on the issue, thanks everyone!

I personally LOVE the idea of testing the market and collaborating that market in one fell swoop, but there's definatly an air of begging about the Kickstarter setup, and I'm sure those objectives can be met through other means.

I've been considering Kickstarter, but I'll also agree that there are far too many projects on there that shouldn't be for various reasons. The main reason I'd looked into it, was as a means of getting some cash together to get multiplayer servers up and running for a beta, and ultimately the released product. In any case, I wouldn't even have considered using it until such a point when the game had reached multiplayability in a reasonably bug-free state.

The projected returns were relatively simple:

• small 'donations' of around half the product's expected retail cost had access to the multiplayer beta program
• 'donations' matching the product's expected cost got into the beta program and a copy of the game when shipped.
• 'donations' worth around 2x the expected cost got into the beta program, a copy of the game, and a copy of our (awesome) internal tools used for level design during said beta.

Pretty simple breakdown really. In all cases though, it's not so much a donation, it's more of a purchase or pre-order.

Yah i see this sometimes a great idea. It helps get the company some extra cash to make the game that more polished, but i think there is people abusing the system as there always is just getting the money and either not using it appropriately or running away with it.

Overall its upto you to decide if it's a good donation or your just gonna get your money stolen.

ambershee wrote: I've been considering Kickstarter, but I'll also agree that there are far too many projects on there that shouldn't be for various reasons. The main reason I'd looked into it, was as a means of getting some cash together to get multiplayer servers up and running for a beta, and ultimately the released product. In any case, I wouldn't even have considered using it until such a point when the game had reached multiplayability in a reasonably bug-free state.

The projected returns were relatively simple:

• small 'donations' of around half the product's expected retail cost had access to the multiplayer beta program
• 'donations' matching the product's expected cost got into the beta program and a copy of the game when shipped.
• 'donations' worth around 2x the expected cost got into the beta program, a copy of the game, and a copy of our (awesome) internal tools used for level design during said beta.

Pretty simple breakdown really. In all cases though, it's not so much a donation, it's more of a purchase or pre-order.

It sounds alright, but Overgrowth already did something like this and I feel it was more successful. Also I think their tools are included with their Pre-order (which isn't 2x the value). I'd argue 2x or maybe more would entitle the user to a commercial license for your tools if they REALLY wanted them for their own games. (Selling mod tools is a no no, it should be free for the most part). If you're offering a commercial license then that'd justify charging them more. I wouldn't use kickstarter though, my hopes are that Desura eventually implements a better system that will replace kickstarter completely where by your actual licenses are put up in the product profile and state what you get and that this project is still in development and is being community funded.

Given that we can't publically release our tools without some serious paperwork, we couldn't work like that. Fundamentally the idea is to let users contribute to the end product as developers in this instance rather than just giving them mod ability; which won't be publically available for the same reasons.

I know my personal plan was around rewards of signed concept art and input in parts of the design (helping to create NPC characters, cheat keys, etc). However, I'm starting to realize you can do this without the "I need to make x by y date..can you help me?" stance, since it's really not true (I'm gonna make the game regardless, so it seems a bit off).

Mr_Cyberpunk wrote: ...my hopes are that Desura eventually implements a better system that will replace kickstarter completely where by your actual licenses are put up in the product profile and state what you get and that this project is still in development and is being community funded.

Yeah, this certainly sounds more in line with MY personal aim with funding (more pre-order with extras than actually 'kick-starting'). Hopefully something like this is in the works

Edited by: ScottTykoski

ambershee wrote: Given that we can't publically release our tools without some serious paperwork, we couldn't work like that. Fundamentally the idea is to let users contribute to the end product as developers in this instance rather than just giving them mod ability; which won't be publically available for the same reasons.

I take it your using a commercial engine (like Unreal ect) with your own custom tools.. hmm you make a good point. In that case charging them for the tools could be a good idea- but where would modding fit into this relationship? if there's still a type of editor and the assets can be changed using 3rd party apps then everything is good.

Edited by: formerlyknownasMrCP

Maps and content packages would be creatable using an alternative available solution, but it won't contain a lot of the features the custom tools provide.

ambershee wrote: Maps and content packages would be creatable using an alternative available solution, but it won't contain a lot of the features the custom tools provide.

That sounds fair.