Kick-starter and established developers.

Narj

Narj

Narj

Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2010
Posts
13,254
Location
London
Just got an email from square ENIX regarding a kick-starter project (Undungeon).

Am I right to feel affronted by this? I thought this was the realm of indie developers or are times changing and is this a good thing to help them escape from the evil clutches of publishers like EA or whoever?
 
It does seem a bit out of order, but at the same time the gaming community isnt rejecting the idea of developers with backing going down this route, and at that point you've got to look at it from their side and question why they wouldnt. It mitigates a lot of the risk with many titles, and lets them finish (aka abandon) titles when they see fit and we knew and agreed to those terms from the beginning.

I'd have no issue with an EA studio like DICE going early access if they were going to attempt to do something they couldnt get the green light from EA execs on, if they'd decided we want to go back to the BF routes, somewhere between BF2-BF4 and Squad - hell yeah i'd be all for that. If it was to fund BF5, they can go screw themselves.

I think whats annoying is that it was accepted when the idea was that this was a way for studios to make titles that werent considered financially solid investments, near enough a sure-thing. It was like a step between small indie titles and big publisher funded studios. Funding to employ a decent team to work on a title, free from publisher shackles, or the financial shoe-string of indie.

Codemasters doing Dirt Rally, getting feelers for whether there was a somewhat hardcore audience for such a title, rather than it being the console arcade game its evolved into because execs say thats where the largest audience is.
CIG & Star Citizen are doing something the publishers said wasnt viable, and have over 300 staff in 4 studios & a few contracted too. That i have no issue with, they're aiming for the stars, open communications, consistently showing proof of progress in-keeping with their claims/goals etc. They couldnt do that any other way. They could have done a shoddy version, but not something significant.

Im fine with stuff like that, and as long as we dont get titles like Assassins Creed, Call of Duty etc going early access, and its kept open to titles that are more niche and harder to fund, then i dont mind. Its not about whether a publisher should be able to fund it from past success IMO, its whether they WOULD. If this makes is viable, i think thats justification. If its a sure thing, and they're just looking to maximise profits by not having to pay a publisher more for funding 2-3yrs of development, then they can go to hell.
 
I have mixed feelings about that kind of thing - their mainstream products it seems a bit off to me but if its something they are trying to revive, etc. that is commercially risky but has a niche demand I kind of think that is a good way to get stuff out that might otherwise not see the light of day.
 
I beiieve it shows a lack of faith from publishers, surely if the game is worth it's salt then a publisher would pick it up and pour money into to its development. I have no faith in Shenmue 3 because of this
 
Lack of faith certainly comes into it however I could also put it down to gauging interest.

Saying that, kick-starter.. If you back a project and nothing comes of it then you don't get refund/money back etc do you? So yeah, for a proper studio to do that is a bit out of order.
 
No problem with it personally, I tend to back projects from developers with a proven track record (Admittedly a couple that haven't) and have yet to be stung.

However, I guess square enix are big enough that they can take more commercial risks than the developers I back. Personally wouldn't get bent out of shape over it, just ignore the email? People who want to back will do so and those that don't want to don't have to.
 
I can understand why they do it but for me, pre-orders are kind of silly as you don't know what the final product will be like. People paying for Alpha/Beta access, it's like paying for a car that kind of works, paying money out before things have really got going, just screams that people like being bent over.

I have no issue with it from small indie guys where they have no other choice, but big established dev studios... it's really not on.
 
DONOHUE07;30493072 said:
I beiieve it shows a lack of faith from publishers, surely if the game is worth it's salt then a publisher would pick it up and pour money into to its development.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Look at how many great product ideas were turned down by big brands only to become successful via other means. Similarly for TV shows; Stranger Things was rejected by all the "conventional" studios they approached yet it's been hugely popular on Netflix.
 
I've not been stung by it so far - some games didn't work out at all like I'd hoped i.e. Elite Dangerous while a decent game I was hoping to be able to play it more casually as well rather than pretty much having to break out a full on controller setup to make life easier when playing which I can't be bothered with most of the time.

Couple of games only got as far as a bit more fleshed out beta before the developers realised they'd bitten off more than they could chew without raising like 5x the money but they did atleast get something out and working for niche game types that otherwise wouldn't have had a release of any kind.
 
Its just limp-wrist'd Developers who deny themselves a real bargaining position with Publishers.

Its the easy way out for them, this way new games will more likely be just thrown at crowdfunding instead of being pitched to a Publisher.
 
Pre-pre-order? Next they will be asking for money to put potential developers through university with the hope they come up with a game.

But hey, that's how we are in the Western world, always looking for that next "best thing" so that we can start throwing money at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom