Soulbound Studios Talks Crowdfunding, Funding Fatigue, and Transparency - SPONSORED ARTICLE

SBFord · May 2016

Soulbound Studios Talks Crowdfunding, Funding Fatigue, and Transparency

In the early days of the industry video games were two-dimensional, had two colors, and were controlled by a single input device. While retro games are making a comeback, the fact remains that over the years the complexity of games has increased exponentially from 2D, to 3D, and now to VR. Where before it was fine for games to make beeps and blips, today’s immersive games are expected to have award winning scores

Read the full story here

Sirmatthias · May 2016

The primary difference is that without a publisher or "middle men to wade through crap ideas". The game developer uses kickstarter to bypass them and recoup all profits minus the portion kickstarter takes for hosting the idea. the fan base gets a new pay to win model by the more you offer the better you stay ahead of everyone else. Its a genius idea that offers low risk high reward. Hell if they get to 500k they've alreadyy recouped they're expenses and could walk away ahead.

Sanguinesh · May 2016

One big difference - there is no pay to win in CoE and what may appear to be an early advantage is in fact just a way to further flesh out the game pre launch.

Thomas2006 · May 2016

I love the idea of this game. Lots of great features they want to add into it. But when you want to go around and claim things like Fully destructible world MMO and stuff.

We don't need simple single player combat demos. Heck any dev with a grain can make a good single player combat demo. But now take that and scale it to 100+ people. Now scale that up even more. Show us a working networked destructible world demo.

Like I said it is easy to show single player non network stuff but as soon as you get into the multiplayer space things change massively. What works for one thing generally does not work for the other in a large scale environment.

I think that is why people are bringing up there are no rock star devs on the team. People that have experience in the MMO field dealing with these things. Working on a game with basic multiplayer and single player games are entirely different then MMOs.

If they can show me a working 50+ player networked destructible world demo I would have no issue dropping money into there pockets to help fund it. But without multiplayer working demos then I have nothing more then the best of wishes to give them.

OmegaXtc · May 2016

I also think one of the more complex facets of crowd-funding is the definition of success. A game made by a handful of people making $100k profit after expenses then garnering residual income via a cash shop is successful from a certain point of view. Others would consider no less than 1M concurrent users over time as the indicator of success. I believe that the expectation of a game's success from the developer's point of view is something that isn't communicated enough or early enough in the crowd-funding cycle.

st4t1ck · May 2016

Sirmatthias said:

The primary difference is that without a publisher or "middle men to wade through crap ideas". The game developer uses kickstarter to bypass them and recoup all profits minus the portion kickstarter takes for hosting the idea. the fan base gets a new pay to win model by the more you offer the better you stay ahead of everyone else. Its a genius idea that offers low risk high reward. Hell if they get to 500k they've alreadyy recouped they're expenses and could walk away ahead.

Think the quote system is messed up, or it is on my side but anyway
@Sirmatthias If they dont reach there goal of 900,000 then the pledges dont get charged. no one is charged until the goal is met. so they cant walkaway with 500k

st4t1ck · May 2016

Thomas2006 said:

I love the idea of this game. Lots of great features they want to add into it. But when you want to go around and claim things like Fully destructible world MMO and stuff.

We don't need simple single player combat demos. Heck any dev with a grain can make a good single player combat demo. But now take that and scale it to 100+ people. Now scale that up even more. Show us a working networked destructible world demo.

Like I said it is easy to show single player non network stuff but as soon as you get into the multiplayer space things change massively. What works for one thing generally does not work for the other in a large scale environment.

I think that is why people are bringing up there are no rock star devs on the team. People that have experience in the MMO field dealing with these things. Working on a game with basic multiplayer and single player games are entirely different then MMOs.

If they can show me a working 50+ player networked destructible world demo I would have no issue dropping money into there pockets to help fund it. But without multiplayer working demos then I have nothing more then the best of wishes to give them.

i understand what your saying and i completely agree with your reasons, i just cant expect someone to be that far in development to show 50+ multiplayer destructible world before they got funded to create such things. To me, the put in a lot of work and money to get to the place where im comfortable "hoping" that with my money (and everyone's) they can make the game they want

Sirmatthias · May 2016

Yea I can't quote anymore either . Yes, you are correct. as it stands now the last time I checked they're at 519,000 and 29 days left in the campaign. I'm sure they'll hit their target.

edit-522k and 28days to go

CrazKanuk · May 2016

st4t1ck said:

Sirmatthias said:

The primary difference is that without a publisher or "middle men to wade through crap ideas". The game developer uses kickstarter to bypass them and recoup all profits minus the portion kickstarter takes for hosting the idea. the fan base gets a new pay to win model by the more you offer the better you stay ahead of everyone else. Its a genius idea that offers low risk high reward. Hell if they get to 500k they've alreadyy recouped they're expenses and could walk away ahead.

Think the quote system is messed up, or it is on my side but anyway
@Sirmatthias If they dont reach there goal of 900,000 then the pledges dont get charged. no one is charged until the goal is met. so they cant walkaway with 500k

Please refrain from using any sort of logic. There is actually a great article attached to it, which was obviously not read, nor was there time invested to learn about the project or crowdfunding in general.

Image: https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/65409821.jpg

Slapshot1188 · May 2016

Wow... 2 paid articles from these guys in just a few days. That might be a record!

Sirmatthias · May 2016

@Crazkanuk I did read the article. except for the 500k threshold in cost and not acquiring the revenue until 900k what else was I wrong about? avoiding a middle man and not offering a return of investment is true. I'ts a very smart way to do business. in fact most art forms literature, movies ,etc etc that require a publisher should look to this as a viable alternative. Hell Broken Lizard is making Super Trooper 2 due to crowdfunding.

Sirmatthias · May 2016

@slapshot1188 Flux had some crazy amounts of sponsored just a month ago.

st4t1ck · May 2016

Sirmatthias said:

@Crazkanuk I did read the article. except for the 500k threshold in cost and not acquiring the revenue until 900k what else was I wrong about? avoiding a middle man and not offering a return of investment is true. I'ts a very smart way to do business. in fact most art forms literature, movies ,etc etc that require a publisher should look to this as a viable alternative. Hell Broken Lizard is making Super Trooper 2 due to crowdfunding.

the not reaching goal is a kickstarter rule.. Kickstarter doesnt take any money from the people that backed a project until that project reaches its goal

CrazKanuk · May 2016

Sirmatthias said:

@Crazkanuk I did read the article. except for the 500k threshold in cost and not acquiring the revenue until 900k what else was I wrong about? avoiding a middle man and not offering a return of investment is true. I'ts a very smart way to do business. in fact most art forms literature, movies ,etc etc that require a publisher should look to this as a viable alternative. Hell Broken Lizard is making Super Trooper 2 due to crowdfunding.

Sorry, I read it as a sarcastic generalized post aimed at flaming crowdfunding en masse. If you're being serious, I'd suggest that you're wrong about the model, for one. You're assumption is that it's a P2W model why? So is it your belief that if EVE were to launch today, someone starting 30 days before me would have a substantial advantage over me 3 years from now? Even 6 months from now?

What I WILL agree with you on is that it's an awesome avenue for things like arts and literature. Games are definitely higher risk, I'd say.

BillMurphy · May 2016

Done, on the forum thread "SPONSORED" tagging. There's no easy way to do it other than adding it after, due to Vanilla being separate from the main MMORPG.com. Thanks for understanding, guys!

Savant · May 2016

I hope their promise for transparency includes how much homework they've done confirming

st4t1ck said:

Thomas2006 said:

I love the idea of this game. Lots of great features they want to add into it. But when you want to go around and claim things like Fully destructible world MMO and stuff.

We don't need simple single player combat demos. Heck any dev with a grain can make a good single player combat demo. But now take that and scale it to 100+ people. Now scale that up even more. Show us a working networked destructible world demo.

Like I said it is easy to show single player non network stuff but as soon as you get into the multiplayer space things change massively. What works for one thing generally does not work for the other in a large scale environment.

I think that is why people are bringing up there are no rock star devs on the team. People that have experience in the MMO field dealing with these things. Working on a game with basic multiplayer and single player games are entirely different then MMOs.

If they can show me a working 50+ player networked destructible world demo I would have no issue dropping money into there pockets to help fund it. But without multiplayer working demos then I have nothing more then the best of wishes to give them.

i understand what your saying and i completely agree with your reasons, i just cant expect someone to be that far in development to show 50+ multiplayer destructible world before they got funded to create such things. To me, the put in a lot of work and money to get to the place where im comfortable "hoping" that with my money (and everyone's) they can make the game they want

A problem I see is that the devs aren't saying they "hope" to make this game. They are definitively staying they will make this game with the funding. I worry they have not done enough homework to justify them being so confident. I sure hope this pledge of transparency shows that they have, but images and design journals are unlikely to prove that point.

MikePaladin · May 2016

SedrynTyros said:

For anyone who's ever wanted this type of game, funding this project is your best shot at seeing it become a reality. The more interest that is shown at this stage of development, the more clout Soulbound Studios will have in securing investment dollars from other parties. It's so easy to give into cynicism when looking at all the challenges involved in developing a game like this, but in order for it to have a possibility of succeeding everyone who wants it and can contribute needs to come forward and do so. People waiting for a AAA studio to take on a project like this are going to be waiting forever, for the reasons Jeromy mentions in this article.

I'd never suggest that anyone who can't afford to lose their pledge donate to this project, but for those who are holding off pledging because they see the investment as risky? Of course it's risky! Everything new that's ever been attempted is risky. It may indeed fail. But if it doesn't get the funding it needs it will definitely fail. So I think every person who wants this game should be asking themselves which would be the bigger loss to them personally. Losing a $50 dollar pledge or never getting the opportunity the play this game?

Agree unfortunately all these pseudo critiques supported so many fishy projects like SC Pathfinder Pantheon which looks like will never reach a stage of decent game.
I founded but because I wanted to support their ambitions ideas and if It won't do well there will be 1 less customer in MMo industry or maybe in gaming industry )))

Sirmatthias · May 2016

@crazkanuk ; pay to win... so the more you "donate" the more items you get. you can call a donkey a horse but it still smells like shit.

From the Kickstarter webpage for

Pledge $120 or more
About $120 USD
389 backers
BLOODLINE (digital)
• Mount: thoroughbred horse¹ for breeding or travelling
• Help flesh out the world and story with access to 3 month game intro - servers will not be wiped
• Choose your own custom surname³
• 100 Influence Points (IP) - see chart for options
• Digital town guide (PDF)
• In-game decorative plaque¹ (exclusive to Kickstarter backers)
• Forum Badge - Bloodline

Influence Points (Influence or IP) is our pre-launch currency, used to track the most influential community members who earn IP by recruiting other players, substantial contributions to the community, or Kickstarter funding. IP currency features heavily in the Kickstarter campaign, allowing people to earn IP which can be spent in the IP store prior to the official launch date. Influence provides benefits such as early access, special rewards, and currency to purchase in-game property, titles, and items.

Actually I'm going to stop trying to convince you its pay to win and let you decide for yourself while I look elsewhere. and btw I own Elite Dangerous a kickstarter game.

[Deleted User] · May 2016

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DixonHill · May 2016

Savant said:

I hope their promise for transparency includes how much homework they've done confirming

st4t1ck said:

Thomas2006 said:

I love the idea of this game. Lots of great features they want to add into it. But when you want to go around and claim things like Fully destructible world MMO and stuff.

We don't need simple single player combat demos. Heck any dev with a grain can make a good single player combat demo. But now take that and scale it to 100+ people. Now scale that up even more. Show us a working networked destructible world demo.

Like I said it is easy to show single player non network stuff but as soon as you get into the multiplayer space things change massively. What works for one thing generally does not work for the other in a large scale environment.

I think that is why people are bringing up there are no rock star devs on the team. People that have experience in the MMO field dealing with these things. Working on a game with basic multiplayer and single player games are entirely different then MMOs.

If they can show me a working 50+ player networked destructible world demo I would have no issue dropping money into there pockets to help fund it. But without multiplayer working demos then I have nothing more then the best of wishes to give them.

i understand what your saying and i completely agree with your reasons, i just cant expect someone to be that far in development to show 50+ multiplayer destructible world before they got funded to create such things. To me, the put in a lot of work and money to get to the place where im comfortable "hoping" that with my money (and everyone's) they can make the game they want

A problem I see is that the devs aren't saying they "hope" to make this game. They are definitively staying they will make this game with the funding. I worry they have not done enough homework to justify them being so confident. I sure hope this pledge of transparency shows that they have, but images and design journals are unlikely to prove that point.

You have a point, although one can look at this from different angles. *Maybe* they are overconfident, and were too ignorant and have overseen major things.
But, generally, i rather have my devs be confident, from there i will assume, they indeed did their homework.
"Hoping" to make the game might indicate they did not do their homework.
"How will you guys do that?" " Dunno yet, maybe this or that way. We´ll hope for the best!"

CrazKanuk · May 2016

Torval said:

CrazKanuk said:

st4t1ck said:
Sirmatthias said:

The primary difference is that without a publisher or "middle men to wade through crap ideas". The game developer uses kickstarter to bypass them and recoup all profits minus the portion kickstarter takes for hosting the idea. the fan base gets a new pay to win model by the more you offer the better you stay ahead of everyone else. Its a genius idea that offers low risk high reward. Hell if they get to 500k they've alreadyy recouped they're expenses and could walk away ahead.

Think the quote system is messed up, or it is on my side but anyway
@Sirmatthias If they dont reach there goal of 900,000 then the pledges dont get charged. no one is charged until the goal is met. so they cant walkaway with 500k

Please refrain from using any sort of logic. There is actually a great article attached to it, which was obviously not read, nor was there time invested to learn about the project or crowdfunding in general.

There was a lot of smooth earnest sounding language in the the article and the word transparency was thrown around a lot, but I didn't see anything concretely laid out to support that. There are two main issues backers should be asking themselves.

Funding Goal: People have pointed out that $900k isn't a very big sum to complete and ambitious MMO project and it's not. However, in the world of "funding fatigue" it seems that lowballing the KS goal to ensure it funds is a popular strategy. A developer can then go on to have multiple KS funding campaigns. Once enough people have bought in they need to keep supporting that to keep it going. And, if nothing else, it will fund enough for them to recoup their personal investment even if the project flops. Low ball KS goals should give pause for thought.

Transparency: There was a plea for trust based on transparency and then a warning that sensitive documents, traditionally covered by an NDA, won't be divulged in the transparency campaign. Which means the transparency initiative isn't really transparent at all. Anything can be put under non-disclosure. Only approved items will be made transparent. That is not transparency to monetary backers.

What people should take away from that is an easily met goal means they get the money and that transparency is subject to what they feel should be divulged. I'm not saying don't back the project. I am saying that a lot of positive reassuring stuff was said in the article without any more accountability than any other project.

I don't think that's fair either. Can they make their project for $1 million? Lol, no. However, this has been the case for quite some time with crowdfunding. A crowdfunding campaign doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with funding the game. It has everything to do with the gauging of interest in the product and reducing the potential risk to secondary investors. I mean, really, why did Chivalry even need a Kickstarter? I believe they asked for like $50k? The answer is that they don't. There are probably a few (5%) of games which are of higher quality (completely subjective I know) and can be developed on what they earn through their KS campaign. Even something like Pillars of Eternity is pushing it and they earned one of the highest ever (at $4 million). Remember that an annual burn rate for like 25 employees is going to be about $3 million, conservatively, including labor burden.

As far as flopping goes, there have been a relatively low instance of cancellations (around 2%) and projects going on hiatus (around 5%). As far as delivery goes, for all projects up until 2013, I had tracked until mid 2015 as delivering 70% of games, which was manually verified by me for each game. That leaves some 23% in a limbo of development or outright failure. Either way, the instances of people walking away are highly irregular. Even those who do fail will generally try to work with other KS projects to get you something. There have been some disappointing crowdfunding campaigns like Greedmonger and Divergence, but there are probably 10 times more critically-acclaimed games coming out of KS than are being cancelled. Is there risk involved? Sure. However, if someone doesn't see the value in it, then don't use crowdfunding.

As far as transparency goes, you're not wrong, but you are at the same time. I can appreciate that you're pointing out how they say transparency and then go on to state how certain things won't be disclosed. That's not transparent, in the literal sense. However, it's also this insane sense of logic that has bred such an incompetent society. "Well, the lawnmower didn't say not to trim hedges with it.", "Well it didn't tell me not to put my hand inside the wood-chipper.", "I'm suing McDonald's for making me fat!", "I'm suing that coffee shop because they gave me hot coffee that I spilled all over myself and burned myself!"

The truth is that it's more a level of transparency or a level of opacity. Transparency just sounds more fun. However, maybe we should use opacity instead so that people will have an understanding that the base level is zero visibility into the model. Then everything that is exposed is a bonus.

In fact, I'd say they were being quite transparent about their level of transparency

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that shows that people simply are not ready and/or cannot handle any level of transparency, let alone full transparency. However, I think it's misleading to believe that the level of transparency offered by some of these projects is equal to that of a published game. There is a lot of transparency in a lot of games, sometimes to their own detriment. Unfortunately, the Internet prevails once again, after being given more and more of what they apparently want, they have beaten it back into submission and left it bloodied in the corner, lol.

TigsKC · May 2016

Sponsored content or not, I like this article because I believe in two of these central ideas: 1) Backers are more likely to support bold and innovative ideas than Publishers, and 2) Transparency builds goodwill and trust in the Community.

After following Camelot Unchained as a Backer for over three years, these are important values to me, and I am glad to see others rallying around those same concepts.

CrazKanuk · May 2016

TigsKC said:

Sponsored content or not, I like this article because I believe in two of these central ideas: 1) Backers are more likely to support bold and innovative ideas than Publishers, and 2) Transparency builds goodwill and trust in the Community.

After following Camelot Unchained as a Backer for over three years, these are important values to me, and I am glad to see others rallying around those same concepts.

But CU didn't show you their financials, source code, or password for their debit card, right? HA! Transparency my ass! :P

That's a joke btw.

Razzlyyy · May 2016

Hi all!
If you're reading this because you're interested in the game but you're wary, or don't yet have enough information, then I urge you to come join the community! There's so many active and helpful people there already and everyone is welcome!

It can be tedious to comb through Dev Journals looking for specific information, or maybe you already did but still have questions. That's where the wonderful CoE Community comes in. I insist that all of you who are even remotely interested in the game come register and join on their site and hop in the forums. So far, I've noticed that people are very helpful and kind and I'm sure you'll get the same treatment!
This way, all your questions can be answered, your concerns addressed and your comments discussed.

Hope to see you there!
-Razzly (aka Chalkii)

garretth · May 2016

CrazKanuk said:

TigsKC said:

Sponsored content or not, I like this article because I believe in two of these central ideas: 1) Backers are more likely to support bold and innovative ideas than Publishers, and 2) Transparency builds goodwill and trust in the Community.

After following Camelot Unchained as a Backer for over three years, these are important values to me, and I am glad to see others rallying around those same concepts.

But CU didn't show you their financials, source code, or password for their debit card, right? HA! Transparency my ass! :P

That's a joke btw.

Would you be so free with your source code and passwords? For shame. Editing...my shame ... didn't read through your post. apologies.

Rasiem · May 2016

I cant wait for all of you to eat your negative words. Theres so many negative trolls on this site now i cant stand it. And another thing is im tired of hearing people bash great game ideas and projects that company's start then complain that everything is a wow clone and the industry needs to move forward. Do you even understand how expensive these projects are to bring QUALITY, I guarantee you would be singing a different tune if you were on these innovative teams that try to bring new ideas then seen the cost but still had the passion to try and make US happy. WTF makes you think these people are in it for the money you do realize they can make more in many other tech fields with their experience. Especially the team they have at Elyria I mean just the art alone is some of the best out there right now. UGH!!! sorry I had to get that out I mean no disrespect to anyone here but come on guys have some damn faith. And just because a project fails does not mean its because the developers are greedy people definitely just go to that place anymore and its pretty annoying.

Howdy, Stranger!

Soulbound Studios Talks Crowdfunding, Funding Fatigue, and Transparency - SPONSORED ARTICLE

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Comments

Pledge $120 or more

About $120 USD

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Soulbound Studios Talks Crowdfunding, Funding Fatigue, and Transparency - SPONSORED ARTICLE

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Comments

Pledge $120 or more

About $120 USD

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다