That's what got me with both UA and SotA… went ahead with the blind trust in "seasoned developers" thinking remakes would be a slam dunk and to the tune of $600 I've had to learn that isn't the case. Anyway, from now on, at least for me, contributing to a crowd funder that markets itself with "seasoned professional X is involved" will have zero value to me from here on out.
Yeah, I know what you mean. 300$ is also a very large amount - so I can certainly see how it might hurt even more.
The only game I've backed at that level and beyond is Star Citizen - but, in that case, it's very much a case of knowing the skill-set of the key people involved and agreeing with the leads in terms of what they're doing every step of the way (at least, so far). Certainly, I'm very confident it will be worth my money - and then some.
I didn't back Star Citizen for more than a year, because I was so sceptical they could pull it off. After hundreds of interviews and videos involving the people in charge - I became convinced it was worth a great deal of support. Here's hoping I'm not wrong
For UA and SotA - I just backed them and didn't pay much attention until they were nearly finished. I prefer to not spoil myself following development too closely - even if I can't always help myself.
I can't even remember how much I backed them for. I think SotA was around 100$ and UA probably the same.
I will say, though, that SotA has improved lately - and it's not what I would consider a spectacular failure on the same level as UA. It's more like a really, really underwhelming and mediocre result - based on the Garriott pedigree.
But it's not really about the money for me. I'm fully aware that I'm taking a chance - and even if Star Citizen ends up being a failure against my expectations, the money won't be a factor in my disappointment.
I have this rule for myself that I never back something unless I'm already ok with it being a failure.
I think that's what you have to do - to keep this funding model alive.
That's because I very much want to keep crowd-funding around. I still see it as the only potential escape from the way capitalism has all but strangled creativity and daring in modern gaming.
I mean, when I see the kind of mainstream no-challenge and ancient game design games being declared best of all time these days, I almost shed a tear. If RDR2 and W3 is the best we can do in terms of gameplay, then it's a sad world indeed.
Don't get me wrong, I really like both games - and consider them good to great. But 10/10 - best of the best? Not even close to being in the vicinity of being close to that.