Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Crowdfunding, Early Acces and the State of the Gaming Industry.
Bascola
Member UncommonPosts: 425
I hear the same arguments for crowd funding all the time and i think it's something that needs to be addressed. I understand this is a huge wall of text and probably a challenge for most to read all through to the end but i would like to ask you to take the time and refrain from comments unless you really read and understood everything. There is no point in an open argument if one side does not even try to understand the arguments presented.
Keep it civil and thank you.
1. What would happen without crowd funding? We need it to fight against the evil Publishers!
Have you failed to noticed that the evil Publishers run the crowd funding racked now? These people make more money with even worse games now than they ever have before.
All of the Publishers use EA or similar schemes now to get into peoples pockets and the gamers give it to them because they think it's crowd funding and on top of it they defend those evil Publishers saying: "Do you know how much it costs to develop a good game?", "Developers need to eat too" or "Why should a developer spend a year worth of salaries on a game if they can push it out earlier and off-set those expenses". Why indeed should they if there are enough gamers out there throwing money at them.
Sounds to me like a hostage with Stockholm Syndrome desperately defending the abusive captor. The whole thing is tragic and not even funny any more.
2. You don't need to back Project X, no one forces you.
Complete contradiction to the "We need crowd funding to get better games!" Song everyone is chiming into. "If you don't give us money this game that we promise will turn out great might never get made!". That's the whole psychological game they play with the minds of gamers worldwide.
Sure, you don't need to back any EA games but what happens if all games become EA?
Games will be released in horrific Alpha stages and if the money does not keep flowing the development will be stopped. "We made our money already, no point in finishing the game, we did warn you, it's all in the fine print:"
Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development.
Do we really want to go there? Oh wait we already arrived!
3. But there are great games that have been made using Early Access
Really? The shit vs. gold rate is absolutely in favor of the feces. The amount of failed, abandoned or simply shitty Kickstarters and EA games is outweighing the really good ones by 1:100 at least.
The whole Early Access, Founders Pack crowd funding movement smells like a sewer. It's littered with skeletons and abandoned pet projects and the rats are gnawing on the bones of the decaying corpses while the Vultures circle the area looking for more sheep to come dancing and jumping in thinking this is a rose garden.
If you are a heavy investor in EA, please take a step back and be honest with yourself. How much money have you spent on Projects that turned out to be complete turds compared to polished and finished product? How many have reached a release stage? how many have you played for a prolonged time? It's a rhetorical question,i am sure there is someone out there that has backed only successful and great games, i am not interested, thanks.
Closing words:
Sure, do whatever you want with your money, it's your money after all. I am not here to tell you how to spend it. I am just here to tell you that if we keep spending it the way we do now, don't be surprised if in the future we will have to pay for everything in advance.
Star Citizen is a prime example of what the future will look like. While probably going to be released it will milk this whole Early Access item shop and access privilege scheme for as long as possible. People will not abandon it because they are already invested. Some more, some less. They will keep this money printing machine running way into 2017 and probably beyond releasing as little as needed to keep the sheep happy, mark my words.
I don't want a future like that, i prefer what we had, even if it was frustrating at times, but that's just me. Maybe i am too old to understand the new generation of gamers. Maybe i need to be replaced. I will stop giving EA schemes money, i might just be a drop in the ocean but i am not going to play their game.
Happy Gaming,
Bascola
Comments
Latest example of this worrying development is Shroud of the Avatar trying to manipulate their backers into posting positive reviews to milk more money out of Steam Early Access:
"The good news is we continue to gain new customers from Steam. The not so good news is that some of them are giving us bad reviews. Just recently we dropped from Very Positive to Mostly Positive. Long term this will decrease the number of people who purchase our product on Steam and therefore will mean we will have less money to build this world we all want.
While many of those negative reviews are fair I feel like the ratio of positive to negative does not accurately reflect the overall sentiment from you, our loyal backers, especially when we take into consideration our current pre-alpha state. If you have not yet done so I would ask you to consider taking a few minutes and post a positive review over on Steam."
________________________________________________________________________________
Essentially saying: "We need you to post good reviews because when the money stops the development stops"
I think the bottom line to all this is the output.
Is the output good?
YES
Early Access games are fanfrigginstatic. Traditional publishing model has been suffering when it comes to quality for a very long time. I have been gaming for more than 30 years and I can say this has been the best gaming year of my life and its 100% because for Early Access games.
Should it work? no
does it actually work? yes
done
-------------------------
People who are aggressive toward ending Early Access want a day where :
Ubisoft and EA rule the gaming space.
Where pre-order of an disclosed 'Season Pass' is the only way to get to play on day one.
Where PC games are locked at 30 FPS
Where you need a spreadsheet to de-code the pricing model
Where screenshots shown at E3 are nothing like they are at release
Where we will be stuck at 1080p at best for the next 7 years
Where GTA is considered a 'sandbox' game
Where nearly every single game is a story based game with cutscenes and voice actors.
This is what they support
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I do think crowdfunding has it's place in the industry as a whole, but not in it's current state. Almost every game now has some form of EA or crowdfunding aspect, and it's getting really stale. Originally, I thought crowdfunding and EA/Greenlight was supposed to help really small, indie developers get backing for small projects that would enrich their portfolio. Which would then allow them to land a real investor in a larger project, or fund it completely themselves.
What crowdfunding and EA has turned into is a real cash grab. If gamers are willing to pay for completely unfinished or barely conceptualized ideas, why not charge them an arm and a leg for it?!
There are currently more funds in unfilled, promised games than there are in finished, released products. And that's coming from Kickstarter alone, not including EA games. Let that sink in.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
really just one thing to say
Kerbal Space Program
7 Days to Die
Wasteland 2
Space Engineers
From the Depths
If you havent played any of those games you are missing out on some serious fun.
To be completely frank and I say this in all seriousness, I feel sorry for those who are not playing Early Access games. The games are on average MUCH better than anything we have seen in many years.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
All of which are relatively small projects. I never at any point said that it was a bad thing. I said what it's turned into is a bad thing.
Also, for every game you list as complete and launched there's at least 6-8 more that are still being developed, or that have been stopped being developed entirely.
They are not small projects.
Kerbal has far past a million copies. Space Engineers as well.
plus all the games I have listed other than Wasteland ARE STILL IN EARLY ACCESS
You are pulling facts out of thin air based on your assumptions
There is only 1 AAA game in Early Access and its also the one that is the largest scam which is ironic
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I consier publisher games cash grab, small, flashy, stale, 60+$ games with day 1 DLCs and cash shops to get full game
What needs to sink in with you is that you are playing an investor (not really) role here. If it goes to some publisher anyways THEN they dont get any money from me. I want FULLY crowdfunded games (there can be other bigger inestors but with no more say in the game than anyone else).
And yes, they are relatively small projects, thats the point, those are niche projects that have their backers who havent been served by qulity products by publishers. If you enjoy whats on the market, dont look into KS, very simple.
In fact, what you described as "just to put some crap together to attract publisher/investor" projects should be AVOIDED as they finish exactly same way you complain they finish.
First, I'm glad that you actually differentiate between Early Access and Crowdfunding. Something like Kickstarter is so much different than something in Early Access.
1. I think that Kickstarter IS an avenue that we want to encourage. At the same time, I don't think that we'll see AAA publishers take to Kickstarter because it burns too much of their earned money. Do I have a problem with them running a crowdfunding campaign? Nope, not at all. I would RATHER see crowdfunding being used by small dev houses but, honestly, if there was a AAA studio who wanted to do something innovative and couldn't fund it internally, I would gladly back them. Let's say a group of devs at EA launched a crowdfunding campaign to, I don't know, make their animations less mechanical in Madden. I would drop money into that if they were offering my a copy of the Madden game where that tech debuts. I've also, gladly, dropped money into Star Citizen which exploded, for sure, but there's a reason for that, and expectations are huge for it, too.
Fact is, if it's a concept you better have a very strong and clear vision, you need to prove you can do it, or you need to show that you've already made progress. Look at Shards Online, for instance. They were running play tests during their crowdfunding. Then take a look at Camelot Unchained. It was nearly a failure, in my opinion, because they didn't come to the table with a strong presentation. John Romero and Brenda Brathwaite failed (although I backed them) on a project they were trying to get funded. Why? It was one of the weakest presentations ever!!! This is what I think needs to happen with Kickstarter projects, too. People need to be mindful of their money. Yes, in the event the Kickstarter fails to be fully funded, you aren't charged, but if someone is being unrealistic then that's another problem.
I do agree with you that Early Access could become more of a plague. Unfortunately I think it reflects poorly on the industry as a whole. I'll say this tongue-in-cheek, games take time to develop. I get that. I can respect that. I'll even support games in Early Access to offset the cost of continuing their development effort on the game. That being said, when we've got games like DayZ which have been sitting in Early Access for approaching a year and a half, it's just not good. Plus you know DayZ has sold millions of copies, so there really isn't an excuse for it. Shoot, Star Citizen will probably be released before them. Actually, Pillars of Eternity took a year and a half to go from zero to market. They had to have an ACTUAL game to even release to Early Access, so they must be at least 50% there by then. THIS is what I see as a problem. Honestly, I think it's something that needs to be addressed sooner than later. I have, actually, never bought into an Early Access game. I've backed many KS projects, though (none of which have been cancelled).
2. Ok, so you started off by differentiating between crowdfunding and Early Access, but then you seem to muddy that water. At any rate, I think that your assertion that these companies are using psychological tactics is just as much propaganda as the game companies telling us it won't be made otherwise. Again, it comes down to individual perception. Here's a few I can think of off the top of my head.
Star Citizen - Oh gawd! Nobody would touch that project with a 50-yard pole
Shadowrun Returns - (released) Probably one of the best CRPG series', yet the genre is just stagnent.
Shadowrun Hong Kong - You know, cuz it WORKED. Funded for a sequel.
Wasteland 2 - Again, CLASSIC CRPG, no sequel ever made.
Torment: Tides of Numenera - Ummmmmm, Torment might be THE best CRPG of all time? At least arguably. This game would not be made otherwise.
Divinity: Original Sin - Nominated for GOTY, would NOT have been made otherwise
Camelot Unchained - Definitely would not have been made
Pantheon - Most certainly would not be getting made
Thing is, you take a look at the number of people who actually back these projects and it's not a lot. Like less than 100k, probably less than 10k in many cases. That is NOT a market that a AAA publisher is interested in sinking money into. So, no, without crowdfunding, these games would likely NOT be made and I'm not sure why you're arguing that.
3. While I can appreciate that you're providing (grossly misleading) data, saying that 1 in 100 games made through Kickstarter aren't even good. 5000 KS video game projects have been funded. 100 of those are on Steam. If you search Kickstarter you'll find that 75% of them are actually "Mostly Positive" or better among the community, so I really don't think that your numbers stand up. Not now, not ever. In addition to that, what is your gauge for your measurement? I would argue that you'll find the same ratio of "Great" games from a publisher as you would from crowdfunding. Actually, the crowdfunding number is rising. More projects are failing to be successfully funded because people ARE being more conscious about spending their money. The result is that we're actually beginning to churn out better and better games.
Early Access? Well, jury is still out on it. I think that the backlash against Early Access is good, though. We understand that games are "continuously in development" but your game doesn't have to be "continuously in Early Access" to get that point across. Honestly, I'd be happy with a 6-8 month EA cycle. I think that's enough time to get some feedback, implement changes, and release. Otherwise, I think that your sentiments simply become more and more valid. I think you, also, need to have faith that people will see that. There will always be whales throwing money at a game, but there aren't 1 million whales out there, and soon enough that crowd will get tired of games being in perpetual development.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I stopped right there.
Early Access is much better than Kickstarter.
Kickstarter you get what? A screenshot, a game description, and a promise to have your name somewhere in the game..
Really? are you joking me?
In Early Access you get an actual game in which the devs can grab statistics from as well as get reaction from the community on design.
MUCH better
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Agree with you on so many levels. I did mention further down that EA COULD become a problem. Specifically, I looked at DayZ which has been in EA for about a year and a half now. That's where I see the problem, not with the model itself. I also said I don't even care if large studios use KS or EA as a means of offsetting development expenses or creating innovative work. At some point, though, you've got to face the firing squad and call it a release. I'd prefer if Steam would set up policies for this.
So, maybe I shouldn't say I like Kickstarter "better", not even sure if I said that. I do think it's a model that should be promoted, though. Also, I think it's a model that is becoming more mature. EA I find less mature, but I think that both are completely viable and fit a need.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
fair enough.
Although a few years is pretty standard for Early Access (for better or for worse) Kerbal I think has been in for 3 years now and its a fantastic game.
DayZ specifically has high reviews and lots of players so I assume customers are happy which is the most important thing I think.
H1Z1 looks like a pure scam to me though but that is what I expect from a AAA company to be honest
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't really agree with your position.
#1, no, not all crowd funding is being run by evil publishers. You can pick any business and give a blanket statement of "evil x rules this business".
Hollywood spends inordinate amounts of money to rake in inordinate amounts of cash (when they are successful). Yet there are still successful indie movies made and they are made for the people who want them. With games, as with movies, those people who want indie games will spend money on them and provided that the company can deliver will get a game. I believe there are several succesful indie/kickstarter rpg's that have been covered on this site. One that is set to launch in a few days.
I'll also add that big companies have websites but if people don't want to patronize those websites they can just as easily choose a smaller company's site/products. Same with crowdfunding.
#2, also no.You are trying to tie two things together that don't need to be tied together. They can be mutually exclusive. Additionally, just because "some people" use the "we" in "We need crowd funding or else better games won't be made" doesn't mean that it's true and doesn't mean everyone thinks so. You are guilty of doing what some other posters on this site do: make a blanket statement that because a vocal group of people state something that everyone thinks it's true or at least "everyone" of whatever opposing side the discussion finds itself in.
3, You know what? The "shit vs gold rate" for AAA games is also in favor of the bad games. How much money has been spent to make such games only to have them fail because they are bad. This is more of a fact of life and you will find it anywhere.
4, you kind of are here to tell people how to use their money. you are essentially setting up these false premises and saying "well, I'm not here to tell you how to use your money but if you don't heed my words this is the future and so maybe you better start thinking like I'm thinking".
That's how it comes across. Almost as if you are being passive aggressive and trying to guilt people to see your point.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Well this is just the thing, right? It's adjusting expectations. How long does it take to make a game? Might as well ask how long a piece of rope is. However, the overwhelming majority of people will expect it to release "soon" if it's something that's playable..... and they're not entirely wrong. On the other hand, I'd prefer something early that's actually taking user feedback and making changes than something that's set it stone.
H1Z1? I'll zip my lip on it. I'll say they've had some interesting ideas about monetization. Honestly, I think people just want to jump onto the Free to Play train nowadays. Sometimes it might just be better to charge $40 for the game (pretty cheap still) and open it wide up, like DayZ. Maybe sell some cosmetics or something like that. I mean monetization is a problem, for sure! Not sure if the whole selling an event idea is something viable though.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
As I posted in another string I feel the EXACT opposite.
I feel that the gaming industry has been suffering from bad AAA games for a long time . I used to complain so much about the bad games coming out and now its different. Now I have more good games to play then I have a time and most of them are still in Early Access.
So I really really really really do not want to go back to the days where TOS is king and nobody has ever even heard of Kerbal Space Program.
nope that is a world you can have
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me