Kickstarter - Asking for Less than You Need is Risky
 

Developer Katie Chironis wrote a highly interesting piece for Polygon analysing the Kickstarter bubble and the risks of asking only for a small part of your game's budget: 'Big indie' Kickstarters are killing actual indies.

If you are considering to back a Kickstarter or even launch your own campaign in the future, you should head over to Polygon to read Katie's article.

More information.

Interesting opinion piece from Polygon.

While I don't quite agree with the main premise of the article, that the big kickstarters are killing the smaller ones, I do think it is kind of worrisome that mid-level developers are using kickstarter as just another source of income, along with investor funds and revenue from past releases. This does kind of ruin the spirit of kickstarter a bit.

What does everyone think?

I think that this in itself is a risk not analyzed correctly by folks like Fargo who intend to come back again and again for new funding rounds.

He'd like to see KS become an ongoing and "normal" funding model, but I don't think that's been borne out yet. We don't yet know if the Kickstarter market will continue to grow, plateau, shrink, or become cyclical. We don't yet know if KS fatigue or some sort of social or technological shift will take place, limiting the trajectory of successes that Fargo apparently sees. I think he's underestimating all of those risks, at least publicly.

We shall see what happens I suppose. Right now I'm really happy to see the resurgence of the auteur and mid-size studios, but I share the Polygon writer's worry about some of these possible side effects. And I agree that when larger figures like Fargo, Roberts, Garriott, Steve Jackson (Ogre), and others are using Kickstarter for only partial funding that they should be honest about that. I was already worrying that funding contributors are being trained to think about development budgets at an order of magnitude smaller than they ought. And unreasonable expectations may be, as she writes, hurting some indie campaigns.

Well, I think kickstarters are going to die. I'm personally only donating the minimum to get a game nowadays because the end games have never been what was promised nor did they meet my expectations. I donated big to Larian and Obsidian and yet they want to do kickstarters again. Why? Free money.

D:OS and Pillars should pay for their sequels without any other help. If your product isn't good enough to earn enough for the next product, you need to close up shop. I gave to each of these guys, but it was a one time thing; at least more than a typical game cost donation. I might pledge to Larian and Obsidian but it will be at $30-50.

Also, since Larian is building their next games with the D:OS engine, that should save 50% of the costs. I don't feel like they're going to pass the savings on to us. Same with Pillars. To me, that's the way the bigger studios are killing kickstarter. They'll get the money that should be going to the smaller guys, who really need it.

What irks me is when someone with TONS of money asks for some on Kickstarter.

Take Richard Garriott for example. He spent $30 million to take a space trip yet asks for money on KS. The dude has plenty of money.

Three responses.

- From various interviews I'd say the biggest motivation for middle tier studios is more about the early fan base and testing and feedback than it is about the money. Money is important, but we're beginning to see more and more partial funding campaigns to get a community committed to the success of the product. I think they're more often going to seek private investment and use Kickstarter for partial funding or a buffer.

- This is largely from observation, so it's not authoritative, but I think you're wrong. Running a game studio is a really high risk enterprise. I'll never get into this business from an owner's standpoint. The risk is too high and the return on investment sucks. I'd sooner burn dollar bills in a fireplace. With some exceptions like, apparently, Larian or maybe the smallest indie studios that hit the jackpot, studio economics largely prevent self funding. So when Brian Fargo says he needs further funding to continue running two staggered development teams, I believe him.

- Engine and tool development saves time, but not nearly enough in an RPG context. The storytelling and content development has the highest share of development costs of any game genre. No way in heck does it save 50%.

It doesn't bother me in the least that rich-guy Garriot uses kickstarter to raise funds for a game. In fact, I find it normal and entrepreneurial.

What bothers me about SotA is that originally it was pitched as a single player spiritual successor to U7. Shortly after I pledged, it began its steady morph into Ultima Online 2.0.

However, I've chosen to NOT withdraw my pledge and taken the long-shot hope that maybe I'll be surprised (in a good way).

I hope you're dead wrong. I agree that most kickstarter projects that actually get completed fall short (I'm looking at you Legends of Dawn). But after almost 20 years of FPS this and FPS that… I'm happy to see a contemporary version of the 90s creativity and risk taking. So happy about that, I don't mind if I ended up paying for a dud here and a failed post-kickstarter project there.

I don't know yet if I agree with you. But Larian stands out as a complete exception. Swen has been so utterly transparent about his business, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. If he says he needs kickstarter funds for the next project, I'd take him at his word.

I don't mind being wrong. It saves me money :)

Aren't all development costs basically time spent for human work hours? The only other costs I can imagine are more abstract things like rent for office space, a bunch of computers and desks, a copious supply of Mountain Dew and Doritos. What other things don't relate to man hours?

License costs, Kickstarter fees.

I don't see Kickstarter going away any time soon. There are signs that it is self-adjusting, after the first wave of enthusiasts, but for some projects can be viable.

Larian, for example, is pondering if using it again, since so many people found the whole process very entertaining (from the pitch to the feedback during early beta). Although it was clear from the beginning that the amount request was only to fund a small fraction of the game, people enjoyed the whole experience, not just the reward of the game at the end. So, as long as thy are clear on what they need and what they offer, I don't see why they should not go for a second project.

Very small developers could need much less, depending on the people involved. Legend of Einswald took forever to finish, there are clear flaws in the design and execution, but the end product (which will be out soon) feels like a mid-size project funded with a fraction of a typical mid-size budget.

A recent project (Dungeons of Aledorn) was funded with a mere $60K but the project feels like a big one, a multi-million dollars project for mid-size studios. Will they be able to deliver? I bet my money on it.

Underrail was funded with a very small budget and it surely feels it has been stuck in early access purgatory for eons, but even at this stage it plays and feels like a multi-million dollar project with retro graphic.

So, in short, I find very shortsighted to claim that all projects need many million of dollars. Since human resources is by far the highest expense, it make a big difference if the studio employs 20 professional who wants to be paid as such versus a few talented amateurs who wants to be recognized in the industry. And having a stable of professionals does not guarantee success not quality. Look at Double Fine and their Kickstarters and other recent projects. One might argue about the end quality, but nobody can argue about the controversy during the process and failure of some of their offerings (like Spacebase DF-9).

Kickstarters will die. Eventually.
Are going to die? When? In five years? Ten Years? Better to bet they will be there. Beyond that, well… Still, a lot of time…

In board gaming, companies are already funding their products the way it is depicts, with shorter production cycles.

The article point is flawed as it assigns a different purpose to KS than the current ones, in one word, it gives words way too much weight these days.
Of course, putting words on what KS is wont be as marketable as wording it as a service to allow the type of projects they claim to fund to get funded.

KS takes a 10% cut from any project. That is all that matters from their side.
Players have no gaming expectations toward their product, they want to regain control over the spending done as they disagree with some cosmetic points made by big corporations (like putting a black player in the front cover of a football game), project managers want money at no risk with no strings attached etc

KS delivers all this.

I don't see the problem.

The "spirit" of Kickstarters is subjective, and the only objective aspect, I'd say, is the crowdfunding aspect. Meaning, you're not relying on publishers to invest, but on the crowd to invest.

Personally, I don't think "small indies" are good and "big indies" are bad.

I like that suits without passion for gaming is taken out of the equation, but I'm not naive enough to believe that better games is the result, in all cases.

To me, Kickstarters just ENABLE a few passionate developers to pursue their dream, but the result still depends on skill, talent, and the will to go all the way.

That will always be rare, because most people simply don't have all that much of what it takes to make truly great games.

Any human-made system can and will be exploited, but some systems are still better than others.

The crowdfunding model has amazing potential, and I'm sure it will grow and change for many years to come. I don't see it going away, I see it becoming bigger and bigger.

I agree. I can only see the model growing from here on out. Have people not heard the saying 'a rising tide lifts all ships'. Well by virtue of 'big' kickstarter campaigns it has been proven to benefit the smaller campaigns. No doubt due to the increased number of backers using kickstarter at that time.

It is not the same as releasing a game at the same time as Witcher 3 or GTA 5 and suffering for it. The more eyes on kickstarter the better.

That is barely a saying. Just PR talk.
You could use as well stuff no children left behind etc Would work the same.
Usually, sayings are different in nature from the quote.

It will keep growing. In first case it provides capital from an easy source with no strings, and second it allows convincing the suits who are over cautious and try to homogenize everything.

Ten percent cut on guaranteed presales? They will take that deal all day long.

At least with my quote I used an example to illustrate my point.

Frankly, I think that there has been a bubble of over-excitement in the Kickstarter boom. There has been a fair amount of amateurish dross that doesn't really deserve to succeed. There will be a rather harsh adjustment as these die away, but I think it's just an evolution of the model. I don't think it's going anywhere.

If you browse the list of RPG-type-things on Kickstarter, it's a sea of generic, characterless dungeons, dragons, elves and maidens. This was never going to be sustainable. Stuff with real talent and imagination behind it still has a real chance with KS - a chance it didn't have before.

KS projects, that were innovative, fresh, unusual, have been few.

Most of them have been refitting old design to sell the same old again and again.
Quite an effort of imagination to tell that stuff with real talent and imagination is going to be what succeeds in the future.

In the future, what is going to succeed is what has succeeded so far: blank design, thousands time already seen, bringing up over and over again the same old.
This includes blank so called RPGs with maidens, elvens etc…

The affirmation reading that it benefits all, placed in a thread reporting a person experiencing the contrary, all this supported by a political slogan?
Better to have given nothing.