|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Shadowrun Returns - Passes $1M, New Update

Default Shadowrun Returns - Passes $1M, New Update

April 15th, 2012, 19:16
Originally Posted by TheMadGamer View Post
What is this about? Isn't this Shadowrun?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/…ThinInYourVide

i dont like bioware games
turian is offline

turian

turian's Avatar
Sentinel

#21

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 276

Default 

April 15th, 2012, 19:21
Originally Posted by Bedwyr View Post
Ok, look. I need help understanding why this is so evil and bad. I take an economic risk on a product that doesn't exist yet and might conceivably not happen for any number of reasons. Why should I be unhappy that the creator decides to offer me an extra reward or more/special product for taking a risk in supporting him? What in the world is "shit" about this? What makes this worthy of turning your back on the project and (if many many people did the same) ensuring that a shadowrun game would not happen at all?

From my point of view the reaction is way out of proportion and sounds like a really bad hissy fit leftover from Mass Effect. Usually when I see complaints about day-one DLC its fits into a perception that the buyer is being nickel-and-dimed, essentially "cheated" into paying more than they would just buying a single game. But that doesn't fit in here. There's no day-one product available to buyers, just an extra reward for people who took a risk; these aren't the same things. I'm honestly flummoxed and can only guess that you and others looked and said to themselves "the game has been divided more than one piece, evil! EVIL!!!" My word what an overreaction.
Fully agree. IMO, It doesn't make sense.

I think there should be a guide that these PR's should use, to know which words (like social, multiplayer, DRM, bonus, etc) are forbidden and can never be mentioned to the crowd.
Von Paulus is offline

Von Paulus

Von Paulus's Avatar
Sentinel

#22

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 412

Default 

April 15th, 2012, 19:25
Originally Posted by Bedwyr View Post
Ok, look. I need help understanding why this is so evil and bad. I take an economic risk on a product that doesn't exist yet and might conceivably not happen for any number of reasons. Why should I be unhappy that the creator decides to offer me an extra reward or more/special product for taking a risk in supporting him? What in the world is "shit" about this? What makes this worthy of turning your back on the project and (if many many people did the same) ensuring that a shadowrun game would not happen at all?

From my point of view the reaction is way out of proportion and sounds like a really bad hissy fit leftover from Mass Effect. Usually when I see complaints about day-one DLC its fits into a perception that the buyer is being nickel-and-dimed, essentially "cheated" into paying more than they would just buying a single game. But that doesn't fit in here. There's no day-one product available to buyers, just an extra reward for people who took a risk; these aren't the same things. I'm honestly flummoxed and can only guess that you and others looked and said to themselves "the game has been divided more than one piece, evil! EVIL!!!" My word what an overreaction.
It's fair enough that you want something extra for taking a risk, but for me it goes against what I want. For me crowd-funding is partly about showing the established gaming studios that I'm not happy with them, and that I'm looking elsewhere when spending my money. I've always advocated the importance of everyone playing the same game - for me it enhances the overall experience.

Some people can't afford to pledge, others don't know of the opportunity. Others again are risk averse. But why should they pay for the final product when they get an inferior product to those who pirate? I didn't buy Mount & Blade before the final release, yet I've bought it at least 10 times since the release (because I want to promote the game). If they had "beta exclusive" content I would never have bought it even once.

As for the "quirky skill" in Wasteland; I don't like it, but there is the promise that it won't affect game balance.
Ithilien is offline

Ithilien

Watcher

#23

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 72

Default 

April 15th, 2012, 19:47
Originally Posted by Ithilien View Post
It's fair enough that you want something extra for taking a risk, but for me it goes against what I want.
No, I don't care one way or another. I'm just supporting the creation of older mechanics and gameplay styles made by past luminaries. Making a Statement to EA or Activision comes in a distant third or fourth.

For me crowd-funding is partly about showing the established gaming studios that I'm not happy with them, and that I'm looking elsewhere when spending my money. I've always advocated the importance of everyone playing the same game - for me it enhances the overall experience.

Some people can't afford to pledge, others don't know of the opportunity. Others again are risk averse. But why should they pay for the final product when they get an inferior product to those who pirate? I didn't buy Mount & Blade before the final release, yet I've bought it at least 10 times since the release (because I want to promote the game). If they had "beta exclusive" content I would never have bought it even once.
That's all fine. Making a political statement with your money is fine. But your (and I mean the collective "your") reaction to Jordan's offer was still over the top. You only hurt your own cause by getting instantly mad instead of helping the guy understand why going down this road is a Bad Thing.

Allow me to illustrate two different reactions:

Jordan: "Hey I thought I'd give you guys a little something extra. We'll throw a little mission in there JUST for you backers."

Reaction 1: "That, sir, is DLC and something that I cannot and WILL not support. I will take my money elsewhere. GOOD DAY sir."

Reaction 2: "Hey, thanks for the kind offer, I appreciate it. I'm concerned, though, that this gets way too close to being DLC, especially day-one DLC. It's part of the bad business practice that bigger companies use and one of the main reasons I wanted to support your project. Can you please reconsider what you do at the 1.5m level? Offering extra missions for everyone would be great."

The second one is the better response and more likely to get a positive reaction. There's still time to withdraw your money later if he doesn't change his mind.


By the way, this is also how you deal with customer support of any kind. Be polite, patient, and escalate slowly. It gets way more results.
Bedwyr is offline

Bedwyr

Sentinel

#24

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 298

Default Over-Reaction

April 15th, 2012, 21:12
Let me first say: I don't think they should do this. I think all content should be available at least at some point in time to late comers.

But I have to say that I'm a bit embarrassed after reading some of the over-reactions on this issue. Pledge cancellations and reductions? Suggesting other users do the same? Here's a small group of devs who have gone out of their way to try to bring something that people have asked for going on two decades, and they're trying to figure out a way to reward people for helping make it happen… and the mob reaction is to act like they've become EA overnight? Taking pride in seeing the funding drop? Facepalm.

Again, I don't think they should produce backer-only content per se, but for christ-sake try just for 2 seconds to understand the position these guys are in. This is new territory for everyone, and they're trying to find their way around in the dark and still reward people for putting faith in them. How about trying verbal feedback… and THEN maybe taking your money and going home if it's that big of an issue for you. But to me… the over-reaction is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Look, I can understand that you're all up in arms over how hard you've been taking it from the big publishers over nickel-dimed DLC, but taking the piss out of pre-order bonuses in general just shows a lack of understanding about how the economics of game publishing work. Pre-order DLC was not created to screw you, it was created as an incentive to get you to help the industry & retailers deal with the pitfalls of game sales. When retailers put media like CDs and DVDs on shelves, their distributors are usually willing to take back overstock… this isn't the case with games which suffer precipitous declines in prices and sales almost overnight. As a result, in order to make sure retailers aren't over-or-underestimating demand, they use pre-orders as a way to gauge popularity. How to entice gamers to help them guage that popularity? Offer a bonus.

Is it a perfect system? No… but it wasn't put in place to maul your face off either. It's one thing if these bonuses seriously break the game, but I see no problem in bonuses that give a little back to the community who help make the system, as broken as it is, somewhat functional.

On top of that, we're talking about an indie/self published game here, not some 5th sequel shovelware from a monopolisitic publisher. This is a game being made SOLELY because of and for passionate people like us who put money into the project early… is it really so E-V-I-L for them to understand that fact and want to give us something special as a result?

Now, I fully support the idea that we suggest they not make content exclusive if that is the community wish… but sabotaging the project because a handful of people think they're fighting the corporate monster here? Give me a break.

You want to sling mud in EA's eye… so be it. But this isn't EA putting micro-transaction "T-Coins" into Tetris here… how about cutting them a bit of slack since they're going out of their way to do our hobby a favor?
dv8godd is offline

dv8godd

Traveler

#25

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3

Default 

April 15th, 2012, 21:35
Whether one agrees with the sentiments of those who reacted strongly negatively this announcement or not is largely irellevent to whether or not this could be viewed as a mistake. As this discussion has proven, these sorts of bonuses are divisive and do create a negative reaction among some consumers which would not otherwise be present. View it as overreaction, insanity, or orange as you like but recognize that this reaction is predictable and avoidable.

Originally Posted by dv8godd View Post
Now, I fully support the idea that we suggest they not make content exclusive if that is the community wish… but sabotaging the project because a handful of people think they're fighting the corporate monster here? Give me a break.

You want to sling mud in EA's eye… so be it. But this isn't EA putting micro-transaction "T-Coins" into Tetris here… how about cutting them a bit of slack since they're going out of their way to do our hobby a favor?
Wow talk about overreactions right? If someone feels so strongly that about this that they want to withdraw their own pledge (I'd argue that's too strong a feeling, but arguing against sentiments is futile and condescending) that is hardly sabotaging the project. The desire to back these sorts of projects is largely based on sentiment and how excited the prospect makes you - as you are funding something very early in the pipeline in most cases. If someone no longer feels comfortable with the project for whatever reason, they are free to change their mind without being accused of sabotaging the thing just because they might be overreacting in your and my view.

Personally I suggest voicing your dislike to the game creators - they do sort of listen more often in these kickstarter cases as with Wasteland 2's social feature proposal/oops/never-mind. Do that and give it a little time before considering withdrawing your support, but in the end if it does bother you that much you shouldn't have to be uncomfortable about how you spend your money and are free to vote with your wallet. I don't think it will come to that as most people will still want this game to be made and to be as good as it can be and ultimately the creators will likely consider fan input on the matter. I won't personally withdraw my support over this, but for the sake of the project I would rather them walk away from this one reward idea.
jhwisner is offline

jhwisner

Keeper of the Watch

#26

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,472

Default 

April 15th, 2012, 23:34
Originally Posted by jhwisner View Post
Whether one agrees with the sentiments of those who reacted strongly negatively this announcement or not is largely irellevent to whether or not this could be viewed as a mistake. As this discussion has proven, these sorts of bonuses are divisive and do create a negative reaction among some consumers which would not otherwise be present. View it as overreaction, insanity, or orange as you like but recognize that this reaction is predictable and avoidable.
I think misunderstanding the reasoning for the existence of "pre-order bonuses" in the first place is relevant to the discussion of whether it is a mistake or not and whether, as you say, this sort of reaction is avoidable. (And this is the thing we're supposedly pissed about, really… because that's the connection people are drawing "backer bonus" to). Again, these bonuses came into being for a very legitimate reason, not as a mechanism for undermining gamers or squeezing their wallets. That we as a community get bent out of shape at every little slight is hardly some high ground for us to stand upon and say "they should've seen it coming".

Gamers are frequently simply wrong on the finer point of how we got to bonus pre-order content in the first place: saying that devs could avoid the "reaction" is forgiving gamers for their ignorance while offering devs and publishers no alternative mechanism to overcome the obstacles present in games publishing. Sure, it'd be nice if games didn't work that way, but they currently do (though pure digital distribution may solve that… while making other things for us to gripe about).

I'd actually argue that "backer bonus" is less relevant to the operations of the industry than "pre-order bonus"… but that's probably neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by jhwisner View Post
Wow talk about overreactions right? If someone feels so strongly that about this that they want to withdraw their own pledge (I'd argue that's too strong a feeling, but arguing against sentiments is futile and condescending) that is hardly sabotaging the project.
Watching the donation mark slip backwards and suggesting others withdraw their support strikes me as a pretty recognizable backslide. Enough to stop the project dead? No, of course not… but there's more to this kind of project than simply a dollar mark and a release date… there's a re-emerging genre and a process too. I can't imagine the devs feel too inclined to reach out again any time soon and do us any more favors. If this is the way we react to being smiled at the wrong way, how interested do you think the next dev team is going to be to include gamers in the conversation?

Even if it doesn't kill the project though, it does effect the tone of gamer/developer relations… and a big part of this recent Kickstarter push has been to open the door to us more than previously.

What this recent spat shows, I feel, is that we're highly volatile and it's probably best to keep us out of the room in the first place. Consider also the recent reaction to simply using the word "social" with respect to Wasteland 2. The more the devs talk with us in the room, the greater their risk of pissing us off, apparently. Why bother producing low-income games for grouchy bastards like us when they could just take the easy route in social gaming next time?

Originally Posted by jhwisner View Post
The desire to back these sorts of projects is largely based on sentiment and how excited the prospect makes you - as you are funding something very early in the pipeline in most cases. If someone no longer feels comfortable with the project for whatever reason, they are free to change their mind without being accused of sabotaging the thing just because they might be overreacting in your and my view.
Whether or not the project is "sabotaged" (and if you don't like that word, that's fine)… I think the process of having us in the room, if not the game itself, has at least taken a few steps back. If our goal was to get devs to listen to us more… we'll likely have done the opposite with this incident. Maybe "sabotage" would be better placed on "our interests" than on "the project"… or peruse a thesaurus for a kinder, more family-friendly word… undermine… impair.

Originally Posted by jhwisner View Post
Personally I suggest voicing your dislike to the game creators - they do sort of listen more often in these kickstarter cases as with Wasteland 2's social feature proposal/oops/never-mind.
Agreed… and again, this is why I see this as a bad trend for the community. So far, the devs have been quite open and have yet to give us any reason to think they're doing anything to screw us… and we've over-reacted to innocuous statements or suggestions with near clockwork precision.

Originally Posted by jhwisner View Post
Do that and give it a little time before considering withdrawing your support, but in the end if it does bother you that much you shouldn't have to be uncomfortable about how you spend your money and are free to vote with your wallet. I don't think it will come to that as most people will still want this game to be made and to be as good as it can be and ultimately the creators will likely consider fan input on the matter. I won't personally withdraw my support over this, but for the sake of the project I would rather them walk away from this one reward idea.
Agreed.
dv8godd is offline

dv8godd

Traveler

#27

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3

Default 

April 15th, 2012, 23:54
Actually I'm a bit shocked after reading the negative comments. They just want to give you a small reward for trusting them and backing the project, because you're taking a risk there since there's no product yet. And you say "hey this is against all I'm standing for, this is evil, this is sin, I'm going to cancel my pledge." Aren't you a bit overreacting? This isn't an Evil compAny before you that wants your wallets with greedy eyes. They're people who want to resurrect Shadowrun with good old gameplay and modern graphics. Lower your torches and pitchforks.

"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it."
Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
Gokyabgu is offline

Gokyabgu

Gokyabgu's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#28

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 724

Default 

April 15th, 2012, 23:59
Such a shame that gamers have overreacted to what was intended to be a positive offering. There is absolutely no relationship between a reward for backers before development even starts and the sort of DLC people want to protest. Communication is the way to go.

By the way, there is no message to EA in the Kickstarter process. Major publishers operate in the hundreds of millions. The petty 1M raised by this project is irrelevant. Further, injuring the project in protest of a well-meaning gesture to send a message to EA is just bizarre.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Watcher
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#29

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,964

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 00:05
Originally Posted by Gokyabgu View Post
Actually I'm a bit shocked after reading the negative comments. They just want to give you a small reward for trusting them and backing the project, because you're taking a risk there since there's no product yet. And you say "hey this is against all I'm standing for, this is evil, this is sin, I'm going to cancel my pledge." Aren't you a bit overreacting? This isn't an Evil compAny before you that wants your wallets with greedy eyes. They're people who want to resurrect Shadowrun with good old gameplay and modern graphics. Lower your torches and pitchforks.
Well most of the negative comments - those that suggest not doing this - make the point that the hyperbolic negative reaction is one to be expected if you have any familiarity with recent gaming. Most of the backer comments arguing against this move have been along the lines of "this sort of bonus generally riles up some consumers, I strongly suggest a different sort of reward." The smaller subset of them appear to be an argument on the wrongness of this sort of bonus in principle - and only a minority of those appear to take the more hyperbolic bent you describe. Most of the arguments in support of this however seem to focus on the exaggerated outliers and their disapproval of their sentiments.

By the way, there is no message to EA in the Kickstarter process. Major publishers operate in the hundreds of millions. The petty 1M raised by this project is irrelevant. Further, injuring the project in protest of a well-meaning gesture to send a message to EA is just bizarre.
Yeah I don't think anyone who backs this - or at least anyone save for a very small few - is arguing that the project itself should suffer for this sort of decision or that this is somehow about sending a message to EA. Most people - including people decrying the overreaction to this - are saying this is a bad idea because that overreaction happens predictably; it should be expected and is easily avoided.

Maybe I missed the posts where people said that specifically, but it seems to be somewhat of a strawman. I thought were saying they don't and won't support this sort of bonus for whatever reason - and any message they wanted to send was directed to the devs and to that effect rather than being some political statement to the larger industry. Though as soon as I do see someone actively work against the project and lable those who disagree but don't pull out as collaborators or something I will be the first to point at them and say "jackass!" I'll do it out-loud and not in text though because, you know, feeding the troll is bad and all.

Also - I don't see people actively encouraging others to pull out. I pointed out that it dropped because this is the first time I've seen it drop and thought that was a little shocking - though I thought I've been pretty damn clear that I do not agree with that decision (to pull out). It had only dropped a few hundred dollars during one short interval and has since eclipsed that little hiccup by thousands upon thousands of dollars (as i suggested it probably would.)
Last edited by jhwisner; April 16th, 2012 at 00:21.
jhwisner is offline

jhwisner

Keeper of the Watch

#30

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,472

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 00:16
Originally Posted by Gokyabgu View Post
Actually I'm a bit shocked after reading the negative comments. They just want to give you a small reward for trusting them and backing the project, because you're taking a risk there since there's no product yet. And you say "hey this is against all I'm standing for, this is evil, this is sin, I'm going to cancel my pledge." Aren't you a bit overreacting? This isn't an Evil compAny before you that wants your wallets with greedy eyes. They're people who want to resurrect Shadowrun with good old gameplay and modern graphics. Lower your torches and pitchforks.
If you buy a game you should get a complete game, not one with bits and pieces chopped off. People complain about piracy, but that's what happens when your paying customers get an inferior product. It's not very complex; you make a game, and you sell the same game to everyone interested. That's the way it used to be, and that is the way I want it.

Yes, I've pledged money to this particular project, but I can't pledge money to every project out there. Are those who wait (i.e. the majority) supposed to get a lesser product if I buy the game upon release? Now that sounds like a smart move to entice more buyers.

What you see as reward I see as trying to force people into making a decision (creating a sense of urgency is a basic marketing move). It's not about rewarding those who have already bought it, but a way to make other people buy now rather than wait and see what's delivered.

I don't see people as good guys until they've proven themself as such, and there is no blind faith.

Shadowrun means nothing to me, and I hadn't even heard of it until I saw the Kickstarter project. I'm not supporting the ressurection of Shadowrun, I'm supporting the ressurection of the RPG market. My reaction has nothing to do with this particular game, which I don't know much about, but everything to do with what I want from Kickstarter projects in general.
Ithilien is offline

Ithilien

Watcher

#31

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 72

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 00:22
I don't mind some extra trinkets for backers, like the balance-not-afffecting skill in Wasteland 2 or maybe an extra gun (provided there are enough alternatives in the final game), but an entire quest line (or a complete bonus character) is a big NO for me. I have limited funds for backing, so I'm now supporting another game, which was next on my list. Also I can't turn a blind eye on this kind of "service" if it's done by a smaller developer team: it's just as bad as if EA did that.
srabuseen is offline

srabuseen

Watcher

#32

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 82

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 00:37
I'm really confused about people pull their funding. Sounds petty. Hell I thought that line was there from the start so why would would people care now. As much as dislike the custom item stuff, I doubt I'll even want it when I get it.

Its not like the days of BG2 which the merchant that came with preorder/collectors edition had some of the best items in the game. I don't recall people blacklisting BG2 because they did this. Instead everyone that cares just downloads it off the net as its always published by someone else. Its also not like it has DRM to try and prevent that.

Anyway back to the real stuff which is it passed $1M which means new setting = more content.
figment is offline

figment

figment's Avatar
Sentinel
RPGWatch Donor

#33

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 491

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 00:41
Originally Posted by srabuseen View Post
I don't mind some extra trinkets for backers, like the balance-not-afffecting skill in Wasteland 2 or maybe an extra gun (provided there are enough alternatives in the final game), but an entire quest line (or a complete bonus character) is a big NO for me. I have limited funds for backing, so I'm now supporting another game, which was next on my list. Also I can't turn a blind eye on this kind of "service" if it's done by a smaller developer team: it's just as bad as if EA did that.
No, it isn't. And above all, it wasn't done with the same intention.
Von Paulus is offline

Von Paulus

Von Paulus's Avatar
Sentinel

#34

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 412

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 00:57
Originally Posted by figment View Post
I'm really confused about people pull their funding. Sounds petty. Hell I thought that line was there from the start so why would would people care now. As much as dislike the custom item stuff, I doubt I'll even want it when I get it.
I fail to see why you find it petty. How is it any different to just deciding not to pledge? You find the projects you like, and you pledge to help finance them. Then sometimes you'll find information about the project you disapprove of, and you get some sort of buyers remorse. Why is it bad to move the money to a project you find more worthy?

I wholeheartedly agree with the following statement (from one of the first posts in this thread): "Terrible, terrible idea! This needs to be stopped, before it becomes a trend. The videogame market is already polluted with Day-0 DLCs, preorder DLCs and other crap, no need for more of that. A game should offer the same experience to every player, no matter where or when you purchased it or how much did it cost to you. "

What would people say if EA started selling their games two years in advance, promising exclusive content for the "early movers"? I fail to see how it's any different here. It is not about this particular game, it's about trying to stop a trend.

Personally I haven't cancelled my pledge. I'll wait for more information, and see what happens…
Ithilien is offline

Ithilien

Watcher

#35

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 72

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 01:24
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^
^
Ugh this is why I wish they hadn't done this.
jhwisner is offline

jhwisner

Keeper of the Watch

#36

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,472

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 01:35
I find the backlash to the backlash amusing.

If I'm spending my money for a certain purpose and suddenly that certain purpose has in my mind changed - I damn well have the right to change my mind about things. Especially when the the thing itself doesn't even exist yet. Why should I risk my money when I start seeing questionable product decisions. I would do the same thing for a game that exist on the market. Why is it an overreaction when the game doesn't exist on the market?

Like some of the others here, I am in a wait and see mode.
Dajjer is offline

Dajjer

Dajjer's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#37

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 879

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 02:54
For some reason, I have less confidence in the Shadowrun project than Wasteland 2.
I noticed that this game is due next January; A surprisingly short development cycle for an rpg… I'll bet that it's pushed back at least six months due to the added funding.
In any case, I decided to throw some cash at it and hope for the best.
Vindicator is offline

Vindicator

Vindicator's Avatar
Watchdog

#38

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 166

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 04:53
The above sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me.

With any luck this will be a blast to play; Shadowrun is a pretty cool modern fantasy setting and I really miss the tactical elements of turn-based, party RPGs. I hope it's a hit and they plan for a sequel.
rjshae is offline

rjshae

Bob
RPGWatch Donor

#39

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,198

Default 

April 16th, 2012, 08:44
Originally Posted by Dhruin View Post
By the way, there is no message to EA in the Kickstarter process. Major publishers operate in the hundreds of millions. The petty 1M raised by this project is irrelevant. Further, injuring the project in protest of a well-meaning gesture to send a message to EA is just bizarre.
Ummm, no they don't. There is only a handful of games that have cost over 50 million in the entire history of gaming… The typical funding is around 15-20 million dollars for a AAA game.

1-3 Million dollars of "no strings attached" and "in advance" funding is a HUGE deal. The other important thing to realise is that there is still room for growth. Imagine what is going to happen if something like Wasteland 2 or Shadowrun Returns turns out to be an awesome game and sell like hotcakes. Kickstarting could well become the norm and as it becomes better known the amounts being pledged could easily climb to 5 million plus. I think that is very exciting.

Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny and Secret of the Silver Blades.
Last edited by bjon045; April 16th, 2012 at 08:59.
bjon045 is offline

bjon045

bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#40

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 907
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Shadowrun Returns - Passes $1M, New Update
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 23:33.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch