Game News Seven Dragon Saga Kickstarter Update #13: Campaign cancelled

[Dorateen]

In tribute to the cancellation of this campaign, I shall now post the Marines and Seals standoff scene from The Rock.



"It's over."

 

[Shannow]

With all of the highly successful campaigns that came before them and showed them "This is how you run a campaign." Whether it be Obsidian, InXile, or what have you, there's just no excuse for how badly they bungled this thing.

What would they have to learn from them? Obsidian and InXile got funded largely because of brand recognition, their KS campaigns weren't really much to write home about. These guys obviously don't have the luxury of being funded solely by name/association.

I'm with you with OE and brand recognition (though I do think their campaign was good).
But inXile? Brand recognition? Wasteland probably had fewer people aware of it than the GB games. I think WL2 had the best pitch from a marketing POV. Perhaps I'm simply too anti-authoritarian and not representative of the average KS-backer. But I do think it was a perfect pitch. The TSI guys wouldn't get away with it. I don't think anybody would get away with such a vague pitch again. But at the time...
But what they can take away from those pitches is how to engage potential backers emotionally. And basically most of the stuff I wrote before...

 

[Athelas]

I'm with you with OE and brand recognition (though I do think their campaign was good).
But inXile? Brand recognition? Wasteland probably had fewer people aware of it than the GB games. I think WL2 had the best pitch from a marketing POV.

They got funded because of brand recognition: name-dropping Fallout and Black Isle heritage. The WL2 campaign itself was not very good. I can't even remember a thing about it.

Obsidian made a critical error in not having their campaign prepared (apparently they thought they'd only receive 100k in the first day rather than a million).

The Torment kickstarter was a lot more thought-out and better prepared than both of those. But again, most of its success was due to brand recognition: the Torment trademark.

 

[karnak]

Speaking for myself, when they launched their KS campaign I was appalled by it. The first adjective I used to describe it was "poor".
Now: if one who knows what these guys are capable of gets disappointed by the marketing, imagine those RPG-loving kids who only started playing from the late 90's onward. What would they think?
Would they waste their money on a "generic" RPG that asks almost 400.000$ more than "Dungeons of Aledorn"?

 

[Shannow]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2
Re-watch the pitch. It basically used lube and made sweet love to the codex butt, that had been hurt for so long. (And raped a few times.)
I'll give you the name-dropping. But that's name-droping and not brand-recognition in my book. Wouldn't fight over it though.

 

[Athelas]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2
Re-watch the pitch. It basically used lube and made sweet love to the codex butt, that had been hurt for so long. (And raped a few times.)
I'll give you the name-dropping. But that's name-droping and not brand-recognition in my book. Wouldn't fight over it though.

Yes, and how does this contradict what I said? 'I headed Interplay/Black Isle and made Fallout and publishers won't let me make another post-apocalyptic RPG' isn't relying on brand recognition?

Some of these (PoE, T:ToN) received more than a million within a single day - logically, that can't have been the result of a 30-day campaign which had yet to really take place. It's the brand/name.

 

[nikolokolus]

The difference is that Obsidian and InXile sold their pitch with an emotional connection to their past. TSI's came off as amateurish and slapped together and not particularly engaging.

 

[The Bishop]

The WL2 campaign itself was not very good. I can't even remember a thing about it.

If you remember the pitch then you remember all that matters. Successful campaigns (especially the very successful ones) are decided within the first day and that first day is decided by the pitch. Everything developers do afterwards amounts to very little for the overall success . With that in mind WL2 had an excellent KS going for it. WL2 pitch had a bit of a home video vibe to it, but overall it drove the message perfectly.

 

[Athelas]

The WL2 campaign itself was not very good. I can't even remember a thing about it.

If you remember the pitch then you remember all that matters. Successful campaigns (especially the very successful ones) are decided within the first day

 

[The Bishop]

Did Star Citizen tank on the first day or something?

 

[Darkzone]

Did Star Citizen tank on the first day or something?

No Star Citizen has reached only 500k after the sixth day. And made 1mio in the last 10 days, with the end of 2.1mio ks revenues.

 

[The Bishop]

Didn't they also run a crowdfunding campaign on their own resource in parallel to KS? Their KS numbers should be affected by that. I wouldn't expect SC campaign to reflect the way numbers work in a typical KS.

 

[Darkzone]

Didn't they also run a crowdfunding campaign on their own resource in parallel to KS? Their KS numbers should be affected by that. I wouldn't expect SC campaign to reflect the way numbers work in a typical KS.

By common sense the SC ks should then be way lower, because the campaign on their own site would take the ks backer away from the ks. If we take a constant broadening of knowledge graph into consideration for a development of the SC ks then the development adds up and the campaign on their own site is meaningless. Also it is difficult to speak about a typical KS behavior. T:ToN made around 50% in the first 2-3 days, then for a long time the day revenues were not that good. Wasteland 2 had not that great start, but day for day the revenues were better.
SR campaigns are very typical, like that of PoE.

 

[The Bishop]

By common sense the SC ks should then be way lower, because the campaign on their own site would take the ks backer away from the ks. If we take a constant broadening of knowledge graph into consideration for a development of the SC ks then the development adds up and the campaign on their own site is meaningless.

Either way you can't compare dynamics of campaigns running exclusively on KS and those split between multiple resources.

Also it is difficult to speak about a typical KS behavior. T:ToN made around 50% in the first 2-3 days, then for a long time the day revenues were not that good. Wasteland 2 had not that great start, but day for day the revenues were better.
SR campaigns are very typical, like that of PoE.

They're still all very similar. The critical mass of initial backers is what makes the deal for everyone else go like "join this new cool thing everyone else is excited about". And without that critical mass each of prospective backers asks himself a question "why should I care about it if nobody else does?". Once one or the other type of mentality set in, it's very difficult to change.

In Double Fine's KS video Tim Schafer says something along the lines "if you back this project you will be cool and everybody will like you". While meant ironically I believe feeling "cool" and appreciated is one of the key things about Kickstarter. People certainly don't spend hundreds of dollars on their pledges because they think they're getting a good deal. And people are much likelier to feel that way when they see a good number of people doing what they're about to do before them.

 

[Darkzone]

Either way you can't compare dynamics of campaigns running exclusively on KS and those split between multiple resources.

Basically we can, because most of the ks have also their own paypal campaign running, which is per definition a split between multiple mediums and sources. But there are always way more considerations towards certain development, like critical masses, the ks itself or advertisement or even desires of the backers. For an example the revenues for SC were i think before the ks campaign quite high on their own page, but why did it take so long for a take off on ks. SC had already 1.8mio on their own page before their ks started and at the end in 19.11.2012 they had already 6 mio, while the ks had 2.1mio. After that i took nearly half a year for the 9mio, but this seem to be the critical mass for SC, because after that their revenues exploded.

Also it is difficult to speak about a typical KS behavior. T:ToN made around 50% in the first 2-3 days, then for a long time the day revenues were not that good. Wasteland 2 had not that great start, but day for day the revenues were better.
SR campaigns are very typical, like that of PoE.

They're still all very similar. The critical mass of initial backers is what makes the deal for everyone else go like "join this new cool thing everyone else is excited about". And without that critical mass each of prospective backers asks himself a question "why should I care about it if nobody else does?". Once one or the other type of mentality set in, it's very difficult to change.

They are similar only on the surface and in the fact that they were founded very fast or within two or three days. But besides that they show quite a different behavior SR:HK has as a example no spike at the end. Other kickstarter develop different, sometimes they get founded only in the last days of the campaign.

 

[Shannow]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2
Re-watch the pitch. It basically used lube and made sweet love to the codex butt, that had been hurt for so long. (And raped a few times.)
I'll give you the name-dropping. But that's name-droping and not brand-recognition in my book. Wouldn't fight over it though.

Yes, and how does this contradict what I said? 'I headed Interplay/Black Isle and made Fallout and publishers won't let me make another post-apocalyptic RPG' isn't relying on brand recognition?

"Contradict"? Do you think that you are wrong, that you need contradiction?
To me inXile and Wasteland were/are the brands. FO and Black Isle were name-dropping. To you they are all the brands. Fine. As I said, not worth fighting over. Unless you want to pull a Grunker and fight over non-issues...

Some of these (PoE, T:ToN) received more than a million within a single day - logically, that can't have been the result of a 30-day campaign which had yet to really take place. It's the brand/name.

Sure name-dropping had a big impact. And especially for OE brand also did. Nobody was putting that into doubt...? What you seem to be ignoring is that all the name-dropping happened in the pitches. Pitches are important. Probably more important than the rest of the campaign.
TSI will have little impact with their brand and not much more with name-dropping. Which only means their pitch has to be all that much better. It'd also help to get some endorsements from other successful projects (like HBS, inXile or OE) early in the campaign.

 

[The Bishop]

Basically we can, because most of the ks have also their own paypal campaign running, which is per definition a split between multiple mediums and sources.

You're splitting hairs right now. Dynamics of a KS that only serves as a side source for a campaign started earlier on other resource are not representative of dynamics of a KS that revolves mainly around KS. There's no point to discuss here.

But there are always way more considerations towards certain development, like critical masses, the ks itself or advertisement or even desires of the backers. For an example the revenues for SC were i think before the ks campaign quite high on their own page, but why did it take so long for a take off on ks. SC had already 1.8mio on their own page before their ks started and at the end in 19.11.2012 they had already 6 mio, while the ks had 2.1mio. After that i took nearly half a year for the 9mio, but this seem to be the critical mass for SC, because after that their revenues exploded.

While interesting, the circumstances of SC crowdfunding are nothing like your typical kickstarter (including the KS in question for this thread).

They are similar only on the surface and in the fact that they were founded very fast or within two or three days. But besides that they show quite a different behavior SR:HK has as a example no spike at the end. Other kickstarter develop different, sometimes they get founded only in the last days of the campaign.

As I explained earlier the similarity is in how these projects managed to set up mentality of the "next cool thing". That psychological atmosphere decided if project would make many times the required sum, barely made it, or failed hopelessly. In none of the many projects I personally observed that mentality appeared midway. It either was there from the beginning or never at all.

 

[Darkzone]

Basically we can, because most of the ks have also their own paypal campaign running, which is per definition a split between multiple mediums and sources.

You're splitting hairs right now. Dynamics of a KS that only serves as a side source for a campaign started earlier on other resource are not representative of dynamics of a KS that revolves mainly around KS. There's no point to discuss here.

But there are always way more considerations towards certain development, like critical masses, the ks itself or advertisement or even desires of the backers. For an example the revenues for SC were i think before the ks campaign quite high on their own page, but why did it take so long for a take off on ks. SC had already 1.8mio on their own page before their ks started and at the end in 19.11.2012 they had already 6 mio, while the ks had 2.1mio. After that i took nearly half a year for the 9mio, but this seem to be the critical mass for SC, because after that their revenues exploded.

While interesting, the circumstances of SC crowdfunding are nothing like your typical kickstarter (including the KS in question for this thread).

Not quite this 'The Long Dark' Kickstarter shows similar behavior at the beginning in revenue development like SC kickstarter, besides the fact that this is only founded after 26 days and not 6 days, and the ks had only around 1/8 of the revenues and the end spike is dispersed like that of SR:HK.

Project eternity in comparison, strong at the begining and in the end:

Wasteland 2 has no spike at the end, but is strong at the beginning:

Here other behavior similar to SC, weak at the beginning but gain in the end with 1/15 of the money:

As I explained earlier the similarity is in how these projects managed to set up mentality of the "next cool thing". That psychological atmosphere decided if project would make many times the required sum, barely made it, or failed hopelessly. In none of the many projects I personally observed that mentality appeared midway. It either was there from the beginning or never at all.

Not quite look at Eathlock and The Long Dark kickstarter, i have chosen them for exact the reason too contradict you.

 

[The Bishop]

While interesting, the circumstances of SC crowdfunding are nothing like your typical kickstarter (including the KS in question for this thread).

Not quite this 'The Long Dark' Kickstarter shows similar behavior at the beginning in revenue development like SC kickstarter, besides the fact that this is only founded after 26 days and not 6 days, and the ks had only around 1/8 of the revenues and the end spike is dispersed like that of SR:HK.

Were the The Long Dark, PE, Wasteland 2, Earthlock campaigns also started at separate resource, then brought to KS for some additional funding? If not then circumstances of these campaigns were completely different, rendering any similarity with SC kickstarter irrelevant.

Not quite look at Eathlock and The Long Dark kickstarter, i have chosen them for exact the reason too contradict you.

If you wanted to contradict me then you certainly failed with these examples. Both campaigns got off to a slow start, both barely made it. The only irregularity here is SC kickstarter, which I'll just ignore for the reasons already mentioned. Whatever the point you were trying to make you didn't succeed. I can only guess that your tried to demonstrate how different kickstarters have different pledge curves to them, which I never claimed opposite, rendering your attempts futile from the start. My point - Kickstarter overall success (whether it'll make many times the goal, barely the goal, or nowhere near the goal) is defined in the very beginning.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Did Star Citizen tank on the first day or something?

Not really. They were piling money from the very beginning because the pitch was very strong, with the right amount of pandering and showing off:



Note: the "very beginning" was when they opened their website, even before starting a KS campaing. When they got 2 millions on their KS (which was more of a side thing for them) they were already at 5-to-7 millions overall (can't remember exactly, but it doesn't really matter at this point since they never stopped getting more and more money at a steady pace).

But hey, people will keep pretending showing something good doesn't really matter and it's enough to go in front of the camera with few old dudes saying "Uh, we did good games long before most of you were even born. Now watch this ugly prototype which looks like some russian shovelware published by 1C. We are confident that will make you throw money at us".

 

[CRD]

Ït's unfortunate because could be a good game, but at the same time its more or less good that developers are hitting a wall on KS recently and people doesn't gift money anymore so easy to newcomers that could or could not make a game that worth what they are asking for.

A lot of people were burned and kickstarter is now more mature

 

[Darkzone]

Were the The Long Dark, PE, Wasteland 2, Earthlock campaigns also started at separate resource, then brought to KS for some additional funding? If not then circumstances of these campaigns were completely different, rendering any similarity with SC kickstarter irrelevant.

This ks was compared to SC, and i have shown you, that SC kickstarter did not behave that different to PoE or E:FoM or TLD.

Not quite look at Eathlock and The Long Dark kickstarter, i have chosen them for exact the reason too contradict you.

If you wanted to contradict me then you certainly failed with these examples. Both campaigns got off to a slow start, both barely made it. The only irregularity here is SC kickstarter, which I'll just ignore for the reasons already mentioned. Whatever the point you were trying to make you didn't succeed. I can only guess that your tried to demonstrate how different kickstarters have different pledge curves to them, which I never claimed opposite, rendering your attempts futile from the start. My point - Kickstarter overall success (whether it'll make many times the goal, barely the goal, or nowhere near the goal) is defined in the very beginning.

Yes i have shown your mistake, because the same development could have happend with this ks. SC is not irregular in his development, because other ks had also such a development, like TLD and E:FoM, and therefore Aehelas was correct in his statement:

If you remember the pitch then you remember all that matters. Successful campaigns (especially the very successful ones) are decided within the first day

SC

While your statement that a Successful campaigns are decided within the first day is wrong, because TLD and E:FoM prove you wrong. They have reached their founding goals and were therefore successful. And even the Coolest Cooler
was not that successful on the first two days:

Here look at Conan development and compare it to SC:

Or Reaper Minature Bones:

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Ït's unfortunate because could be a good game, but at the same time its more or less good that developers are hitting a wall on KS recently and people doesn't gift money anymore so easy to newcomers that could or could not make a game that worth what they are asking for.

A lot of people were burned and kickstarter is now more mature

Oh, I'm absolutely sure this team (or at least part of it) knows its shit. Some of their updates were quality in terms of concepts.

The problem is that they aren't recognizable names and the pitch was extremely weak, both because poorly presented and because... frankly poor looking too.

Now, for all the people who keep saying "Oh, well, at least they showed something, others banked on KS without showing anything at all", let's point few flaws in this line of reasoning:

- We are past the initial "pioneering enthusiasm", when people believed anything out of KS was necessarily going to be gold. Which, I want to stress it, doesn't mean you can't have successful KS campaigns anymore. Quite the opposite, I'm expecting future successes ("the next big thing") to eclipse the past ones.
- Developers who got away with "showing nothing" were either recognizable names with a solid reputation or they were banking on popular/recognizable franchises. And even then there could be arguments to be made about how they could have racked even more money showing more in the pitch.
- Showing something that presents itself as "very poor quality" is WORSE than showing nothing, anyway. When you pitch a vague promise without showing a single thing, you can eventually try to bank on people who want what you are promising and are setting an imaginary quality standard in their dreams. When you show off something and it looks terrible (because it's dull, because it's graphically poor or whatever else reason) you are instantly lowering people's expectations, and even "tentatively hopeful" potential backers will typically take a back seat and say "Maybe things will improve later, I'll wait and watch, but right now I'm not going to throw money at this".

 

[The Bishop]

Darkzone
I'm starting to doubt you ability to process arguments, and since I don't feel like repeating myself I'll just ignore the SC bit here.

If you remember the pitch then you remember all that matters. Successful campaigns (especially the very successful ones) are decided within the first day

SC

While your statement that a Successful campaigns are decided within the first day is wrong, because TLD and E:FoM prove you wrong. They have reached their founding goals and were therefore successful.

TLD and E:FoM did well enough in their first day to barely make their goal. Their mild success was perfectly in accordance with their weak start. I have a feeling you just don't quite understand what I'm saying, or just can't put my point together and arguing with individual words. Per my words "especially the very successful ones" it should be clear I don't mean "successful campaigns" as one that barely climb over the bar in the end. My point was, well, if you can't tell what it was after half a dozen posts from me then it's not going to happen anyway...

 

[naossano]

Now i will have less hesitation of whom to back this month.