Dorateen
Arcane
In tribute to the cancellation of this campaign, I shall now post the Marines and Seals standoff scene from The Rock.
"It's over."
"It's over."
I'm with you with OE and brand recognition (though I do think their campaign was good).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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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 dayThe WL2 campaign itself was not very good. I can't even remember a thing about it.
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.Did Star Citizen tank on the first day or something?
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.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.
Either way you can't compare dynamics of campaigns running exclusively on KS and those split between multiple resources.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.
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.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.
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.Either way you can't compare dynamics of campaigns running exclusively on KS and those split between multiple resources.
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.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.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.
"Contradict"? Do you think that you are wrong, that you need contradiction?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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
While interesting, the circumstances of SC crowdfunding are nothing like your typical kickstarter (including the KS in question for this thread).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.
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.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.
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.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.
While interesting, the circumstances of SC crowdfunding are nothing like your typical kickstarter (including the KS in question for this thread).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.
Not quite look at Eathlock and The Long Dark kickstarter, i have chosen them for exact the reason too contradict you.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.
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 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.The Bishop said:While interesting, the circumstances of SC crowdfunding are nothing like your typical kickstarter (including the KS in question for this thread).
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.Not quite look at Eathlock and The Long Dark kickstarter, i have chosen them for exact the reason too contradict you.
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:Did Star Citizen tank on the first day or something?
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.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.
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 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.Not quite look at Eathlock and The Long Dark kickstarter, i have chosen them for exact the reason too contradict you.
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 CoolerSCIf you remember the pitch then you remember all that matters. Successful campaigns (especially the very successful ones) are decided within the first day
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.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
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...Darkzone said: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.SCIf you remember the pitch then you remember all that matters. Successful campaigns (especially the very successful ones) are decided within the first day