Antinomy - New Kickstarter

Originally Posted by IvanErtlov
Yeah, I understand that. However, "the funding goal must be sufficient to complete the project, and deliver the rewards" - this is actually the case here. The stretch goal is then basically "complete the project and deliver the rewards without working ourselves to death". Perhaps this was written poorly? Shall we rephrase it?

I don't think the problem is the wording, I think the problem is a fundamental incompatibility with the deal on KS.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm sure that you appreciate there is a difference between the security offered by a developer's personal assurance that they will deliver the product, even if they have to do it for free in their spare time, and a realistically-budgeted and fully-funded project. As I understand it, KS insists on the latter.

I think it makes a nonsense of the KS policy of only collecting money for fully-funded projects, if we all say, "Back us for $1000, and if we don't get enough above that to actually fund the project, we promise to deliver anyway." KS might as well do away with the fully-funded policy entirely. It's replacing hard financial viability with personal assurances, no matter how genuinely intended.

Originally Posted by Ripper
I understand what you're saying, but I'm sure that you appreciate there is a difference between the security offered by a developer's personal assurance that they will deliver the product, even if they have to do it for free in their spare time, and a realistically budgeted and fully funded-project. As I understand it, KS insists on the latter.

Ok, I guess I understood you know. And I fully appreciate the difference. However, I can also provide proof that we are capable of delivering anyway, just that it will be a very tough ride. Would take some elaboration and a Steamspy link to what we collect on monthly revenues from our previous games, but it could be done.

But it wouldn´t change your (valid!) point, right?

Originally Posted by Ripper
I think it makes a nonsense of the KS policy of only collecting money for fully-funded projects, if we all say, "Back us for $1000, and if we don't get enough above that to actually fund the project, we promise to deliver anyway." KS might as well do away with the fully-funded policy entirely. It's replacing hard financial viability with personal assurances, no matter how genuinely intended.

Ok, I understand what you mean, and I can agree with that, however, that´s nothing I can change now, only address concerns in the next update properly with said proof. having said that, and with 13 years of experience in game development and publishing, I would safely assume that not even 3 out of 10 Game Kickstarters have currently a goal that reflects a full production budget (including marketing and / or bizdev). Most of them are at 20 - 30 % of that what a game of this magnitude would cost if calculated at a publisher desk.

We do our job really carefully in order to not disappoint anyone, from historic research to playable ingame implementation:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects…/posts/1509517

but, in the end, as said, I can see now where you were right, and I don´t want to dispute that.

I'm sure there's truth in what you're saying about many KS games being costed too low - business budget estimates are frequently way off in one direction of the other, depending on the motives. But, I do still think there's a world of difference between those budgets, and the $1000 funding target.

Many people here have been burned on crowdfunding, so a close look at the details and a healthy dose of skepticism have become necessary. Otherwise, I think the historical setting of your game looks different and very interesting, and I hope you can deliver on it. I do think there's a risk that KS would not be happy, though, if a backer were to complain down the line.

Originally Posted by Ripper
but I'm sure that you appreciate there is a difference between the security offered by a developer's personal assurance that they will deliver the product, even if they have to do it for free in their spare time, and a realistically-budgeted and fully-funded project. As I understand it, KS insists on the latter.

Well, Im not sure if that difference is that clear. Because there were numerous fully funded projects that were not realistically budgeted or directed. Projects that were released unfinished and mostly abandoned (?). Or projects that needed to do another KS or split the game into 2 parts (Broken Age fiasco) because devs wasted all money. Or projects released as Early Access and dependent on funds from EA. There is always risk involved in KS. You must check and decide if developer is trustworthy and how much work has been done, what devs can show you?

Of course - if that strech goal wont be met, the risk will be bigger.


I think that Antinomy's campaign is actually pretty close to campaign of Kingdom Come. KC got only a fraction of the whole budget. Devs said clearly that their KS was only meant to secure funding from "other side" - private investor. They are fully dependent on it. Antinomy seems to be similar example. The difference is that Antinomy has stretch goal that gives you possibility to fund the game fully without "other side".

BTW: the investor of KC has bad reputation in Czech Republic. He got a lot of wealth via huge privatisation scam and shady business (lawsuit is still ongoing). I dont want to suggest some worst case scenario - I dont think that money for KC are in danger - but with this kind of ppl you cant be 100% sure of anything.


The only project we can be 100% sure that it has all needed money is Star Citizen. And yet some pesimistic ppl doubt it will be fully finished.