Apocalypse Now to Raise $5M Via Site, Kickstarter Stopped - MMORPG.com News

SBFord

Apocalypse Now to Raise $5M Via Site, Kickstarter Stopped - MMORPG.com News

A couple of weeks ago, a game based on Apocalypse Now was brought to KickStarter to raise $900,000. As of today, however, the campaign has been canceled with only $173k in the hopper, a clear sign that it wasn't going to make it in the 30-days. However, the project will continue raising funds, now in the realm of half a million, via the game's official site.

Read the full story here

Tiller

I lost interest at survival game. But good luck to them.

blastermaster

Tiller said:

I lost interest at survival game. But good luck to them.

This !

And I also pretty much lost interest in anything that asks for my money without anything other than "words" (and often times: good intentions) to show.

BizkitNL

blastermaster said:

Tiller said:

I lost interest at survival game. But good luck to them.

This !



And I also pretty much lost interest in anything that asks for my money without anything other than "words" (and often times: good intentions) to show.

Bur this one's gonna be different! Honest!

Claies

I still don't understand the whole idea of giving people money now to develop a game you won't be able to play for FOUR! years. I have no idea what kind of games I'll be interested in and have time for 3 months from now, let alone 4 years from now. There are so many games coming out at such a regular pace, and the majority of them are barely passable clones of everything else developed in the same timeframe; investing in the development of one in particular for the "hype factor" would be folly.

Talonsin

Claies said:

I still don't understand the whole idea of giving people money now to develop a game you won't be able to play for FOUR! years. I have no idea what kind of games I'll be interested in and have time for 3 months from now, let alone 4 years from now. There are so many games coming out at such a regular pace, and the majority of them are barely passable clones of everything else developed in the same timeframe; investing in the development of one in particular for the "hype factor" would be folly.

On top of that, the game they pitch now might not even be close to the game that they release.  Look at Star Citizen, Chris Roberts initially said the single player would have Co-OP and friends could even jump in as enemies but fast forward four years later and now its "Co-OP would ruin the single player experience". 

donger56

The crowdfunding fad is pretty much dead at this point. Everyone has figured out that it just isn't worth it any more. I have no interest in funding some game today that I might not even recognize in a couple years. It's a bad deal for backers most of the time. Crowdfunding might work as one piece of the funding puzzle, but as the primary or only source of funding, not so much any more. I'm kind of glad that these are mostly failing now and people are getting smarter with their money. Now if we could just get people to stop buying over priced founder packs...

Kyleran

Claies said:

I still don't understand the whole idea of giving people money now to develop a game you won't be able to play for FOUR! years. I have no idea what kind of games I'll be interested in and have time for 3 months from now, let alone 4 years from now. There are so many games coming out at such a regular pace, and the majority of them are barely passable clones of everything else developed in the same timeframe; investing in the development of one in particular for the "hype factor" would be folly.

At my age there's no guarantee I'll be alive in 4 years, I need games this year.

Distopia

donger56 said:

The crowdfunding fad is pretty much dead at this point. Everyone has figured out that it just isn't worth it any more. I have no interest in funding some game today that I might not even recognize in a couple years. It's a bad deal for backers most of the time. Crowdfunding might work as one piece of the funding puzzle, but as the primary or only source of funding, not so much any more. I'm kind of glad that these are mostly failing now and people are getting smarter with their money. Now if we could just get people to stop buying over priced founder packs...

LOL crowd funding pretty much dead? Because some obscure title trying to cash in on a movie's name didn't get funded? New titles get funded just about monthly, where have you been? New platforms continue to open for Crowdfunding as well. It's far from dead...

Ozmodan

You have to wonder about the intelligence of the developers if thinking just saying it is a survival game will mean the money will flow in.  

A lot of this survival nonsense is about as close to a scam as you can get.

Aethaeryn

Claies said:

I still don't understand the whole idea of giving people money now to develop a game you won't be able to play for FOUR! years. I have no idea what kind of games I'll be interested in and have time for 3 months from now, let alone 4 years from now. There are so many games coming out at such a regular pace, and the majority of them are barely passable clones of everything else developed in the same timeframe; investing in the development of one in particular for the "hype factor" would be folly.

I guess it lets games get published that otherwise might not. I used to complain about only seeing Sequels and Rip offs. I would rather see some trash games come of it than nothing new ever. Maybe it is the only way they can get funded. We had a few companies deciding what we played until fairly recently. I personally won't be buying into very many and will wait until release but I am glad for the process all the same.

BruceYee

Now even Hollywood is trying to cash in on the crowdfunding survival game scheme. Terminator survival game would be kinda cool though.

kruler

Survival game....HHmmmm....Rogue Trooper would be an awesome setting for a survival game, seeing as it was a survival cartoon.

Agent_Joseph

someone should make game in original setting by novel what was inspiration for Apocalypse Now,.
That book ,Heart of Darkness has better & deeper story ;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness

SpottyGekko

I guess buying the rights to use a movie name from 1979 was fairly cheap. It was a classic movie, but the drawing power of that name has most likely faded somewhat in the last 36 years.

What kind of "survival game" they'd weld onto that IP is beyond me, and I doubt very much that it would do the movie any justice.

I wish them well, but I hope they're not quitting their day jobs for this...

Kyleran

SpottyGekko said:

I guess buying the rights to use a movie name from 1979 was fairly cheap. It was a classic movie, but the drawing power of that name has most likely faded somewhat in the last 36 years.

What kind of "survival game" they'd weld onto that IP is beyond me, and I doubt very much that it would do the movie any justice.

I wish them well, but I hope they're not quitting their day jobs for this...

My guess is most people could not even tell you what war the movie references, especially if they are younger they also likely have never watched it.

MaxBacon

Kickstarter itself is who is falling down, showing projects distancing themselves from it and making more money. Not only this, you look at games as Crowfall on the same page.

lukez

A game based on a movie based on a book that is the definition of perversion

everyone who liked Apocalypse Now, Heart of Darkness the documentary is even better

xyzercrime

Kyleran said:

Claies said:

I still don't understand the whole idea of giving people money now to develop a game you won't be able to play for FOUR! years. I have no idea what kind of games I'll be interested in and have time for 3 months from now, let alone 4 years from now. There are so many games coming out at such a regular pace, and the majority of them are barely passable clones of everything else developed in the same timeframe; investing in the development of one in particular for the "hype factor" would be folly.

At my age there's no guarantee I'll be alive in 4 years, I need games this year.

At your age there's no need to play games anymore, you need health insurance.

xyzercrime

Ozmodan said:

You have to wonder about the intelligence of the developers if thinking just saying it is a survival game will mean the money will flow in.  

A lot of this survival nonsense is about as close to a scam as you can get.

Pretty spot on, I agree wholeheartedly.

See, this is marketing thing, when you wanna sell something, all you need is just to wrap it nicely. When you can do that, people will overlook the content even though it is pure shit.

SpottyGekko

MaxBacon said:

Kickstarter itself is who is falling down, showing projects distancing themselves from it and making more money. Not only this, you look at games as Crowfall on the same page.

It's a bit premature to make that statement, lol

What makes them (and you) believe that they can raise far more crowdfunding capital by running a campaign on their own (unknown) website ? I'd say their chances of raising $5M are remote...

Crowfall used the KS campaign to raise additional funding to supplement the funds they got from private investors. That is not an example of "distancing themselves from KS", it's just a good example of a team that uses all available sources.

MaxBacon

SpottyGekko said:

It's a bit premature to make that statement, lol

What makes them (and you) believe that they can raise far more crowdfunding capital by running a campaign on their own (unknown) website ? I'd say their chances of raising $5M are remote...

Crowfall used the KS campaign to raise additional funding to supplement the funds they got from private investors. That is not an example of "distancing themselves from KS", it's just a good example of a team that uses all available sources.

I think I see it that way because that method is constant funding, vs Kickstarter's one-time campaign. So it just keeps the funding source open as the game develops, especially for those who will not turn towards things as private investors/publisher.

SpottyGekko

MaxBacon said:

SpottyGekko said:

It's a bit premature to make that statement, lol

What makes them (and you) believe that they can raise far more crowdfunding capital by running a campaign on their own (unknown) website ? I'd say their chances of raising $5M are remote...

Crowfall used the KS campaign to raise additional funding to supplement the funds they got from private investors. That is not an example of "distancing themselves from KS", it's just a good example of a team that uses all available sources.

I think I see it that way because that method is constant funding, vs Kickstarter's one-time campaign. So it just keeps the funding source open as the game develops, especially for those who will not turn towards things as private investors/publisher.

The very fact that they chose to launch a KS campaign BEFORE starting their own private one illustrates the relevance of KS clearly. It's still the number-one choice.

If your KS fails however, then you have to fall back to Plan B.

Running your own private crowdfunding initiative is not what I'd describe as a source of "constant funding". As a follow-on to a successful KS campaign, it is probably a realistic option, but if the KS bid has already failed spectacularly, a private campaign is wishful thinking at best.

MaxBacon

SpottyGekko said:

If your KS fails however, then you have to fall back to Plan B.

If the KS fails is one thing yeah. KS for me the best path I think it's one kind of "audience test", that is you throw it out there and see how is the interest for you game from the support it gets.

On that aspect a successful KS might more easily gather private investment, get one publisher behind the project, or if by their own choice, continue funding on their own platform. I forgot the exposure point on my original post. :P 

Kyleran

xyzercrime said:

Kyleran said:

Claies said:

I still don't understand the whole idea of giving people money now to develop a game you won't be able to play for FOUR! years. I have no idea what kind of games I'll be interested in and have time for 3 months from now, let alone 4 years from now. There are so many games coming out at such a regular pace, and the majority of them are barely passable clones of everything else developed in the same timeframe; investing in the development of one in particular for the "hype factor" would be folly.

At my age there's no guarantee I'll be alive in 4 years, I need games this year.

At your age there's no need to play games anymore, you need health insurance.

Wonder if they sell disability insurance in case I can't play games one day?

xyzercrime

Kyleran said:

xyzercrime said:

Kyleran said:

Claies said:

I still don't understand the whole idea of giving people money now to develop a game you won't be able to play for FOUR! years. I have no idea what kind of games I'll be interested in and have time for 3 months from now, let alone 4 years from now. There are so many games coming out at such a regular pace, and the majority of them are barely passable clones of everything else developed in the same timeframe; investing in the development of one in particular for the "hype factor" would be folly.

At my age there's no guarantee I'll be alive in 4 years, I need games this year.

At your age there's no need to play games anymore, you need health insurance.

Wonder if they sell disability insurance in case I can't play games one day?

Let's hope VR have been fully matured on that day. As long as your eyes, brain and, mouth are fully functioning, you can enjoy it I suppose.