Codex Preview RPG Codex Report: Expeditions: Conquistador, Logic Artists and Kickstarter

[CrashOberbreit]

you should be a bit nicer with the few developpers posting here

No. Fuck off. Everybody deserves the same amount of respect, no more, no less.

I have take up the cudgels for Mangoose actually. As long as he has no problem with being flamed by a publisher or developer I don't see a problem with being angry or hating somebody. You just have to face that the answer could be equal

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, Kickstarter is not ideal.

What you do with any half-assed concept - improve it until at least the most glaring issues are fixed.

But what would you do instead? Take money back when projects miss their deadline?

You can't take money away (legal issues, money could be spent, etc), but you can hold back the funds or the portions of the funds until the milestones, agreed upon in the KS pitch, are met.

Another main problem, as I said earlier, is that developers ask for what they think they can get, implying that this amount is all that stands between them and a finished game. It simply is not true. So, requiring developers to submit a proper business plan, similar to what you take to the bank when ask for a loan, would be the very first step. Not "I need 100k!", but "I need 100k, here is a detailed break-down of the proposed expenses showing why I need 100k and most importantly why I feel that 100k is enough."

So, a proper plan with milestones and funds released as the milestones are met (as voted by the backers, for example) would certainly work.

So, overall I think Kickstarter is a great solution for many indie companies including us. Unfortunately, many companies are startups, including us, and in startups there are often several rounds of financing. So far, we had already 5 rounds:
- My own money
- First investors-friends
- Second investors-friends
- Kickstarter
- New executive producer

5 is a lot and we will stay by that

And had you failed to find that producer with money?

However, it's not about you. You *are* a developer and it was clear from the start that you do have a game, skills, and vision. If anything, you are an exception. What about people who have nothing but good intentions to offer? How many rounds of financing would they need? How far would they get on a 50k budget?

 

[CrashOberbreit]

You can't take money away (legal issues, money could be spent, etc), but you can hold back the funds or the portions of the funds until the milestones, agreed upon in the KS pitch, are met.

That would KS make a publisher and the whole thing just a preorder-action. Just sayin.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Handing out large sums of money and hoping for the best is idiocracy. Just sayin'.

 

[CrashOberbreit]

That might be the case, yes. But you know, than most publishers would be idiots. Cause most times, in the beginning, you can't say if a product will end up well or not

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm not defending the publishing system. It's rotten to the core. I'm saying that some oversight is necessary.

Dictatorships are bad, but replacing them with anarchy is nothing but another extreme. A more balanced approach is required.

 

[CrashOberbreit]

Well, than you should actually be happy with the mixture out of it: KS happens and maybe it works out well, maybe not. And if not, they still can search for additional investors / publishers to end in the dictatorship.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, than you should actually be happy with the mixture out of it: KS happens and maybe it works out well, maybe not. And if not, they still can search for additional investors / publishers to end in the dictatorship.

In other words, the publishers are now going to use the public's money to fund games for them. Makes sense.

 

[Mortmal]

So you want them to slave on iphone and mobile apps, till they get enough money to fund a game catering to your needs ?

I wasn't aware that KotC was an iphone or mobile app.

IS Kotc making a lot of money ? And are people really interested into that ? When even in the project eternity thread theres complaints about the graphics, i have doubt theres any interest in those kind of games still.

 

[Aterdux Entertainment]

What you do with any half-assed concept - improve it until at least the most glaring issues are fixed.
You can't take money away (legal issues, money could be spent, etc), but you can hold back the funds or the portions of the funds until the milestones, agreed upon in the KS pitch, are met.

That's a good thought, but do you realize that it will really complicate the way KS works and also, you would need someone to decide, provide appeal process etc. This seems a bit too much.

Another main problem, as I said earlier, is that developers ask for what they think they can get, implying that this amount is all that stands between them and a finished game. It simply is not true. So, requiring developers to submit a proper business plan, similar to what you take to the bank when ask for a loan, would be the very first step. Not "I need 100k!", but "I need 100k, here is a detailed break-down of the proposed expenses showing why I need 100k and most importantly why I feel that 100k is enough."

Estimates are tough. Not only KS backed projects miss deadlines, nearly everywhere in software development it's the case. I have been to many post-mortem talks and that's a common problem. We did by the book in the beginning - calculate budget, multiple by 2 and add 20% (I read that somewhere). Guess what? That still wasn't enough. KS added risks section and I think if this section was taken more seriously and devs would say what they do in case of delays, it would improve things a lot. But adding whole layer of bureaucracy might not be the best solution.

So, a proper plan with milestones and funds released as the milestones are met (as voted by the backers, for example) would certainly work.

But what do you do in case of delays? Not release funds? That makes a big risk for a studio as employees might simply leave and that can endanger the project even more.

And had you failed to find that producer with money?

However, it's not about you. You *are* a developer and it was clear from the start that you do have a game, skills, and vision. If anything, you are an exception. What about people who have nothing but good intentions to offer? How many rounds of financing would they need? How far would they get on a 50k budget?

Well, for most indie KS works not as a test of ideas, but basically they bring the game to alpha and KS campaign is more like early pre-order or alpha funding. We are not so much an exception - because our experience was very limited which resulted in these delays. But that's the case with most developers it seems. Building a piece of software is not like building a house - there you need say 10k bricks and you know average time of putting them together. A game is a complex system, and it's just a bit unpredictable how long it will take to make a subsystem work. With all finding bugs, changins things etc. it's the nature of software development to be not very predictable. And this can be changed only with a lot of experience.

 

[Mangoose]

So you want them to slave on iphone and mobile apps, till they get enough money to fund a game catering to your needs ?

I wasn't aware that KotC was an iphone or mobile app.

IS Kotc making a lot of money ? And are people really interested into that ? When even in the project eternity thread theres complaints about the graphics, i have doubt theres any interest in those kind of games still.

Since you're going to be a dick and ignore all my other points, I'm going to purposely misunderstand your post.

Yes, indeed, Age of Decadence is hoped to make enough money to fund VD's next game. And VD asked for less money than LA.

And I will reiterate the main point:

Legitimately making the game that "caters to our needs" is one thing. Making said game while reneging on agreements and not being clear and honest is another.

 

[CrashOberbreit]

In other words, the publishers are now going to use the public's money to fund games for them. Makes sense.

Well, that's quite negative wording. There's also a positive one (and as far as I can see you like talking in extremes): Publishers are saving some projects. And they don't even interrupt the things said on Kickstarter (or goods promised by the company who did a Kickstarter). You know, projects can fail milestones - not matter of how good you have planned. And if so, a backup sometimes can be quite a good thing. And if you don't need it: The better.

 

[Monty]

I think a bit of clarity on the risks would help keep backers on your side without necessarily reducing pledges. If you back a purely speculative project off nothing more than plans and ideas then I think delays are expected and anyone backing the project is knowingly taking a gamble. But when someone claims to have a mostly completed game with a playable demo and only needs to add 'more content', then I think most backers would expect a game to be ready close to a due date, even if it was patched or expanded at a later date.

I would put Larian's DOS kickstarter in this category, and I think many backers thought Conquistador was a similar case. All it would have required is a target date with an explanation up front that if a distribution agreement isn't finalised by then it may have to be delayed. Then keep backers updated on the progress on two fronts: (a) the game (b) the distribution arrangements. Give backers advance warning if delays in (b) are likely, and that the time will be spent improving (a). Backers don't want a developer going bust so most would have no problem with this, but releasing a vague statement on the day the game is supposed to be released is the worst approach possible.

 

[CrashOberbreit]

All it would have required is a target date with an explanation up front that if a distribution agreement isn't finalised by then it may have to be delayed. Then keep backers updated on the progress on two fronts: (a) the game (b) the distribution arrangements. Give backers advance warning if delays in (b) are likely, and that the time will be spent improving (a). Backers don't want a developer going bust so most would have no problem with this, but releasing a vague statement on the day the game is supposed to be released is the worst approach possible.

But you know, sometimes such things can occur in a very, very, VERY short timeframe. You can't predict such things, especially if you never thought that you might need help to get somewhere. However I fully agree that the communication of the whole thing wasn't the best. Still: The game will come out. And it's not far away.

 

[Monty]

All it would have required is a target date with an explanation up front that if a distribution agreement isn't finalised by then it may have to be delayed. Then keep backers updated on the progress on two fronts: (a) the game (b) the distribution arrangements. Give backers advance warning if delays in (b) are likely, and that the time will be spent improving (a). Backers don't want a developer going bust so most would have no problem with this, but releasing a vague statement on the day the game is supposed to be released is the worst approach possible.

But you know, sometimes such things can occur in a very, very, VERY short timeframe. You can't predict such things, especially if you never thought that you might need help to get somewhere. However I fully agree that the communication of the whole thing wasn't the best. Still: The game will come out. And it's not far away.

Good to hear. Anyway, thanks for coming on here and responding.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In other words, the publishers are now going to use the public's money to fund games for them. Makes sense.

Well, that's quite negative wording.

Well, that's quite a negative situation (to which the original post is dedicated). Quite a few people fail to see the positive, as you can see.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That's a good thought, but do you realize that it will really complicate the way KS works ...

May be a bit of complexity isn't such a bad thing, because at the moment KS works in the most fucked up way imaginable, a lot closer to a cheap carnival for country yokels than to a business proposition.

Another main problem, as I said earlier, is that developers ask for what they think they can get, implying that this amount is all that stands between them and a finished game. It simply is not true. So, requiring developers to submit a proper business plan, similar to what you take to the bank when ask for a loan, would be the very first step. Not "I need 100k!", but "I need 100k, here is a detailed break-down of the proposed expenses showing why I need 100k and most importantly why I feel that 100k is enough."

Estimates are tough. Not only KS backed projects miss deadlines, nearly everywhere in software development it's the case. I have been to many post-mortem talks and that's a common problem. We did by the book in the beginning - calculate budget, multiple by 2 and add 20% (I read that somewhere). Guess what? That still wasn't enough. KS added risks section and I think if this section was taken more seriously and devs would say what they do in case of delays, it would improve things a lot. But adding whole layer of bureaucracy might not be the best solution.

Something is always better than nothing. A rough estimate is better than no estimate.

If the developers need more funds they should be able to lunch a secondary campaign, show progress, explain why they need more funds, etc.

But what do you do in case of delays? Not release funds? That makes a big risk for a studio as employees might simply leave and that can endanger the project even more.

Depends on each situation. I'm not trying to redesign the whole system, but I'd let the backers evaluate the progress (whatever is submitted by the due date), read the explanation (why the delay, when to expect, etc) and then vote on whether or not to kill it or release the next amount in good faith.

 

[crakkie]

Judging by this thread, people would be voting to kill projects that dared to release a month late or, god forbid, get additional funding outside of kickstarter. Giving that power to the people just creates another kind of anarchy, and one suited to manipulation by demagogues such as yourself.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So, when it comes to funding games, people are wonderful backers, the best of mankind. When it comes to anything else, they are spiteful fuckers who'd kill projects for sport. I see.

 

[Monty]

Judging by this thread, people would be voting to kill projects that dared to release a month late or, god forbid, get additional funding outside of kickstarter. Giving that power to the people just creates another kind of anarchy, and one suited to manipulation by demagogues such as yourself.

By 'that power' I assume you mean the power to decide what is done with their own money? Yes, anarchy indeed.

 

[Mangoose]

Judging by this thread, people would be voting to kill projects that dared to release a month late or, god forbid, get additional funding outside of kickstarter. Giving that power to the people just creates another kind of anarchy, and one suited to manipulation by demagogues such as yourself.

So? You act like that is worse than the situation now, where there is (almost) absolutely no way to get your money back.

 

[BobtheTree]

I don't mind minor delays (say a month or so) as long as it means we get a better end product, but I think Kickstarters should do a better job at giving themselves some buffer room seeing as just about every video game kickstarter ever has been delayed.

 

[tindrli]

JUST RELEASE THE GOD DAMN GAME!!!!

 

[tindrli]

I don't mind minor delays (say a month or so) as long as it means we get a better end product, but I think Kickstarters should do a better job at giving themselves some buffer room seeing as just about every video game kickstarter ever has been delayed.

seems like this is a MUST!!

 

[Grimlorn]

I wrote a long ass reply but it got deleted. I'll have to illustrate its content instead:

Chill, bro.

The way I see it, this discussion is mostly about KS. Or the ethics of KS, to be more specific. The game in question serves merely as a specific example illustrating some issues, and nobody is getting worked up over it.

Well there are no ethics when it comes to Kickstarter. They allow people to scam backers, and they have no power after the money is transferred to do anything anyways. They themselves break their own rule against supporting and endorsing other Kickstarters. They get a percentage of every Kickstarter so they are actually complicit in those scams by keeping them up after they are reported. Kickstarter is a joke.

A place where you get anywhere from 50,000 to 4+ mil is not a joke, but it needs proper rules, accountability, and monitoring.

That's another main issue with KS. It gives money to people without any strings attached and hopes for the best don't really give a fuck after they take their cut. No bank would ever do that without reviewing a business plan first. You can't get 250k (sui generis) by saying "I'm gonna make a game and it's gonna be awesome, you'll see!", which isn't necessary a bad thing.

When the KS model cut the publisher out of equation, they cut not only the middle man but the business mode and didn't replace it with anything.

The problem is Kickstarter doesn't care if someone breaks their rules. Look at that 9 yr old girl creating a RPG to prove her big brothers wrong Kickstarter. It broke 3 rules and Kickstarter left it up. Not only that they emailed her saying they are supporting the project which was copied into one of the updates. That breaks Kickstarter's own rule about not supporting projects and remaining neutral. Not only that they ignored any questions or reports from concerned backers. Marking the questions solved/closed with no reply. That just goes to show how much they care.

Those rules exist to protect backers from being taken advantage of and were made so Kickstarter remains neutral and objective. They mean nothing if they allow them to be broken at their discretion.