But it can encourage dishonesty (by not requiring honesty and accountability) and certain behavior. You game it like you game any other system with obvious exploits.
I don't think it can encourage dishonesty where it doesn't exist.
Is it more exploitable than Early Access? Perhaps, but not in a way that really matters if the people behind the product want to deceive.
Any semi-experienced developer can come up with something playable in a few weeks, and the rest can be one big deception.
While fewer people might be able to do that, it doesn't change what it will do to your reputation if you willfully deceive a lot of people out in the open.
Very few people are stupid enough to do that for money. Even if it's NOT overt deception, people are ignorant enough to believe that - because that's how the world often works.
So, this whole thing about dishonest crowdfunding is an exaggeration.
It's more or less self-destruction to publically deceive a lot of people for money.
For example, I don't recall any KS where the developer disclosed why he/she/they need the asking amount, so we get wildly different numbers ranging from 10k (as if that's enough) to over a mil, which is ridiculous when it comes from new and unproven (or old and forgotten) developers.
You don't "recall"? Does this mean you know for a fact that no one ever explained why they need a certain amount? Because I call bullshit on that.
Sure, a lot might not have detailed why they need it - but that's hardly relevant. If you, as a potential backer, like what you see - you back it if you have the trust. Why would you even care about the amount?
The stretch goals simply pile up on top without making any sense. For extra 100k we'll add two extra characters! For another 150-200k [famous name] joins the writing team! Meaning what exactly? Etc.
Yes, that's an unfortunate way of having to appeal to people. If you use Early Access - you want to appeal to people as well. You want to sell your game.
Some people will realise that their game isn't for everyone - so they won't go out of their way to cram it down the throat of the audience. AoD is clearly for a small minority - so a large marketing campaign is probably a complete waste of resources.
But that's not about the model, it's about the people behind the model.
Kickstarter can add whatever goals - which function exactly like a feature list that may or may not be realistic. It's not part of the model that they have to make no sense or be unrealistic.
It's not but in most cases you get a pretty good idea. Take Underrail, for example. I think it was the first EA game I bought and it's nothing short of amazing. The quality of updates and new area are very consistent (if anything it gets better), so I don't have the slightest doubt that the final game will be every bit as good than what I played so far.
Yes, and? Are you saying that because one game is good all games are better because of the model itself? That makes just about no sense at all.
Similarly, our game is about 70-75% ready. It's unlikely that we'll suddenly drop the ball and rush the final areas just to "release" the game and make some money.
That's your game, not the model. You do understand that I'm arguing about models - not anecdotal examples of good or bad?
You do realise that we've seen successful Kickstarters, right? How about DOS?
I'd have to disagree. I pre-ordered quite a few games in my life and at least 90% of games were far from finished. Witcher 3, for example, is scheduled to be released in Feb 2015. I think it went on 'sale' back in Feb, which makes it nearly a year before the release. You can also preorder Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void and it doesn't even have a release date yet. Dragon Age 3 has also been available for pre-order for a while, including an option to pay $150 for a fancy box.
I don't know what you go around pre-ordering, but the vast majorit is nearly finished - as is Witcher 3. Witcher 3 was supposed to be done already - but was postponed.
It's extremely obvious that it WILL be done and it's up to the player to decide if he trusts the final product based on what's available right now.
Starcraft 2 expansion from Blizzard? Are you seriously stating that's not nearly finished? You do understand how Blizzard operates, right? They're obsessed with polish and balance. They also have a completely finished engine with a large portion of the assets done years ago.
In all three cases you get some goodies but not a playable build.
No one is saying you're not getting something playable. I'm saying the two are very different, because preorder means a nearly finished product in almost every case - and Early Access can mean a playable version of 1% of the game. It can be less than a demo, and still be Early Access.
The end result is about the same though. It hardly makes a difference to the consumer if he was blatantly lied to or naively misled.
Depends on the consumer, I guess. I think it's extremely relevant whether someone overtly deceived me or tried his best. But that's me.
I'm not saying that all KS projects are like that but most KS projects are in a conceptual state, which makes it a gamble. Like I said, I can easily bet that Obsidian will make a cool game because they have the tech, the resources, the knowledge, the raw talent. Same goes for Larian and inXile.
Lots of Early Access games are a gamble. Have you tried stuff like the Forest? Try it
You're confusing the application of a model with the model itself. Not a very rational way to go about arguing your case.
New and inexperienced developers? I'd much rather support their effort on Steam where I can see what they have to offer and browse through a hundred of players' impressions than take them at their word.
Good for you. I don't see what that has to do with the model itself. The model has nothing to do with who is using it.
I agree and I'm guilty of that myself, which is why the game took 10 years (we simply couldn't deliver what we promised in 2-3 years), but at least we didn't take a dime until we released two demos (combat and starting town).
Yes, you're a hero for not using crowd-funding before it became popular.
Personally, I would gladly support a game like AoD - and it's no skin off my back that you make a decent living trying to make your dream game.
But that's me.
I don't assume people are trying to deceive me because they want money to make their game.
I try to look at what they're doing, and how realistic it is to pull it off. That's what matters to me.
Early Access can be great - but it can also be a gamble. It depends on the stage of development and how close it is to what's being promised.
Grimoire could easily be released as Early Access right now, and it could easily be argued to be nearly finished. Does that mean it's more honest?
Kickstarter can be used to deceive or mislead - but it can also be a great way to establish a foundation from which to build a fantastic game.
I see nothing dishonest about either model. Again, most people are dishonest and some are so dishonest that they'll exploit whatever system for profit.
That's just how it is, sadly.
