Godus: Peter Molyneux's next Big Fun Thing.

[koro]

Fable and B & W weren't great games, but they're hardly 'omg, still trading on his Bullfrog stuff' failures...

I bought Fable based on the hype, promises and an IGN review. If I had lower expectations, I would probably have enjoyed it a lot more. Since then I don't buy his stuff, aside from when it's in the Bin of Bargains..

I actually somewhat enjoyed Fable mostly because I had completely ignored any and all pre-release hype. Knowing what I know now about its development and the promises it made (it promised shit that's not even really feasible to do today, a decade later), I'd have been incensed after buying it.

[Azazel]

Yeah, it was around that time when I stopped really paying attention to fellatio articles previews on websites and magazines.

IGN review.

This was almost a decade ago. Having said that, I still check out their reviews before buying stuff I'm not sure about. I also do the rounds of Gamespot, Eurogamer, see what if anything is said here, and so on.

[rk47]

with the advent of player reviews on youtube, like Angry Joe's and other stuff - ( i know some of them are annoying ) it's pretty much a video review i'd go for than reading paragraphs smeared with ad hype left and rights.

[Maledict]

Fable wasn't just over promising. Lionhead deliberately *lied* just before release about what the game entailed.

One of their community reps, Sam, posted about he got lost in a forest for days looking for weapons just before release (and after the game had gone gold). That's not possible in fable - the entire game is invisible walls and corridors. You couldn't go off the beaten track because there the game didnt work that way!

Peter Molyneux has been repeating the cycle of 'promise the earth before release, then admit its shit after but promise the next one will be better' for over a decade now. I used to think it was just optimism but not so many times doing the same thing.

[Fabricated]

I wish I could see the graph of donations for this thing. A lot of the kickstarters by former and current devs that haven't just rocketed to 10000% of their original goal typically get to like 70-80%, stall out, and then like on the last day suddenly magical angel investors drop money on all of the high $ items and push it over 100%.

[Yegolev]

I like where you're going with that.

[Sky]

Listen, I'm a huge minecraft fan, I think it's one of the best games ever in the history of gaming. That said.



Notch needs to shut the fuck up.

[Yegolev]

He's the poster boy for "I'd Rather Be Lucky Than Good".

[UnSub]

I wish I could see the graph of donations for this thing. A lot of the kickstarters by former and current devs that haven't just rocketed to 10000% of their original goal typically get to like 70-80%, stall out, and then like on the last day suddenly magical angel investors drop money on all of the high $ items and push it over 100%.

Like this?

https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/22cans/project-godus/

[Fabricated]

I wish I could see the graph of donations for this thing. A lot of the kickstarters by former and current devs that haven't just rocketed to 10000% of their original goal typically get to like 70-80%, stall out, and then like on the last day suddenly magical angel investors drop money on all of the high $ items and push it over 100%.

Like this?

https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/22cans/project-godus/

Huh, in the last two days donations increased by 2 1/2 times or so. Go fig, I'm absolutely sure that a lot of people suddenly found it and were excited to contribute.

[Sky]

Well, once everyone got their hands on the playable demo it was inevitable pledges would spike.

[Quinton]

Looking at stats for some projects I've backed, having some additional lift in the last 3-7 days seems pretty common to both projects that just slide over the line and projects that hit their goal within the first week.  The data here isn't super-granular (it'd be awesome to see the days broken down in stacked bars by rough donation size buckets), but it seems like they got a big push a couple days before the end which pushed them over the line, but then interest continued at the same pace it had before that big push.  Most analysis I've seen of kickstarter funding patterns for successful projects matches up with heavier funding rates in the first few and last few days.

[Sky]

We call it the 'hockey stick effect'.

[UnSub]

Video game Kickstarters have become used to targets being blown out of the water, but some other analysis of Kickstarters overall point out that a quarter are funded within 3% over their target.

[Falconeer]

The whole Amanda Palmer debacle (google it) says a lot about Kickstarter project and attitude as a whole. Even though, of course, there's room for plenty of exceptions. I might be forgetful here, but so far I think I only backed Wasteland 2, and so far the updates are satsfactory. We'll see if they can deliver and how, but I think that the next step gor crowdfunding is to provide super-transparent balances and detailed expenditures to the penny, or we'll all get tired pretty soon with of fixing some other person's debts in exchange for the promise of the game of our dreams.

[Maledict]

You will have to elaborate on the Amanda palmer thing because googling it doesn't reveal anything at all. The top search on Amanda Palmer Debacle is a post from a musician defending her using volunteers whilst touring - I'm guessing its somehow linked to that?

[Soulflame]

I'm pretty sure he meant Anita Sarkeesian, not Amanda Palmer.

In short, Anita Sarkeesian started a Kickstarter to fund research on how women are portrayed in video games.  In response, someone created a game which entailed punching her in the face.  This is just the tip of the iceberg of the misogyny and threats of violence that were made against her.

[Xanthippe]

Anita Sarkeesian trolled the trolls, to the tune of "$158,917 over the course of a month" giving her enough ammunition to paint an entire huge group of people as consisting mainly of the lowest denominator. She's almost as big a jerk as her tormentors.

While misogyny exists, (and I would argue no more so in the game industry than most other male-dominated places), it is not the norm. Men who play females in video games can attest to that, I would guess.

There are actions a person can take to invite abuse. The virulence of trolls know no bounds, which anyone who has spent any time online knows.

[koro]

It also doesn't help that since Sarkeesian's Kickstarter, she's more or less dropped off of the face of the earth, and last I heard even her backers hadn't seen updates for months.

A lot of people think she just took the money and ran at this point.

[eldaec]

You will have to elaborate on the Amanda palmer thing because googling it doesn't reveal anything at all. The top search on Amanda Palmer Debacle is a post from a musician defending her using volunteers whilst touring - I'm guessing its somehow linked to that?

Palmer kickstartered her tour.

Then went looking for musicians willing to play for free rather than use the kickstarter money.

[Triforcer]

Are there any Kickstarter projects that aren't scams?  I laughed at the whole idea three seconds after I heard about it.  I simply can't believe people are stupid enough to "invest" in projects online.

[Soulflame]

I felt I got my money's worth from Burlew's kickstarter.

[Mazakiel]

Are there any Kickstarter projects that aren't scams?  I laughed at the whole idea three seconds after I heard about it.  I simply can't believe people are stupid enough to "invest" in projects online.

Uh, lots of them?  I've gotten just about everything I've Kickstarted for.  I mostly stick to the tabletop game stuff though. 

[UnSub]

You will have to elaborate on the Amanda palmer thing because googling it doesn't reveal anything at all. The top search on Amanda Palmer Debacle is a post from a musician defending her using volunteers whilst touring - I'm guessing its somehow linked to that?

Palmer kickstartered her tour.

Then went looking for musicians willing to play for free rather than use the kickstarter money.

This was Palmer's controversy. She picked up US1m+ from her Kickstarter but then wanted volunteers to play for (pretty much literally) free beer. Her comments about it was that the money was spent on filling the pledge rewards of art books and session time. A lot of people kicked up a stink about it on the grounds that she'd got a lot of money and now wanted to basically crowdsource her show (and how the hell that would work from city to city on tour wasn't ever clearly explained, or at least I never saw it).

Palmer backed down and promised to pay her musicians, but her tour is on hold currently due to a friend having late stage cancer.

It also doesn't help that since Sarkeesian's Kickstarter, she's more or less dropped off of the face of the earth, and last I heard even her backers hadn't seen updates for months.

A lot of people think she just took the money and ran at this point.

Sarkeesian has posted updates, but they are backer-only. She also did a TED talk. The only people saying she's taken the money and ran are those guys who desperately, desperately want her project to fail so they can say they were right in abusing her all along.

[Paelos]

Are there any Kickstarter projects that aren't scams?  I laughed at the whole idea three seconds after I heard about it.  I simply can't believe people are stupid enough to "invest" in projects online.

It's unpopular to question Kickstarter around here. Best to just not bother.

[rk47]

the revival of old skool shit, man.
how can u deny the second coming of fargo, Judas?
hang urself nao.

 

[Fabricated]

Sarkeesian has posted updates, but they are backer-only. She also did a TED talk. The only people saying she's taken the money and ran are those guys who desperately, desperately want her project to fail so they can say they were right in abusing her all along.

I'd like it to fail because it's a dumb and boring idea.

[Sky]

It's unpopular to question Kickstarter around here. Best to just not bother.

No, it's not. It's unpopular to stay stupid shit about kickstarter.

Since several of us have been backing some pretty awesome stuff and have physical rewards on hand, calling them all scams and us stupid...is stupid.

Same thing we said when you brought up concerns about the KS model: caveat emptor. Because there are awesome gems in amongst the crap and the scams.

[Paelos]

True. 43% succeed and deliver.

[Quinton]

Paelos, I don't think anybody here disagrees that there's a lot of worthless crap projects (if not outright scams) out there, and in many cases there's even agreement on which projects are clearly bad bets. 

But I don't think there's much support for "Kickstarter is inherently terrible."  Because it's not.  It's a service, a marketplace.  Like Ebay or Craigslist or Amazon's merchant program, etc.  I'm glad it's out there, and I have nearly a thousand dollars worth of books, prints, games, and gadgets (including a CNC motor controller and set of nice 3A stepper motors) around the house as a result.  There are also some projects that I've backed that have been delayed but show ever sign of delivering (the Pebble watch is a good example), and some which I'm not sure I'd give great odds to (some video game projects that were more of a roll of the dice).

There are definitely things Kickstarter could do better, I think, to hilight the nature of the transaction and the risks.  Their new requirement of a "risks" section turns out to have pretty weak teeth -- I see risk assessments that basically read as "this is hard but I'm confident we can do it!" which is completely without value -- why is it hard? what could go wrong? what are your contingency plans if something goes wrong? (the CNC project had issues with plastic molds and is having to remachine some parts differently, for example).

[Margalis]

It's a service, a marketplace.  Like Ebay or Craigslist or Amazon's merchant program, etc. 

It's not like these things at all.

[Quinton]

Not in the sense of providing a venue for one-to-one transactions, no -- wish I could think of some more varied examples here.  But in the sense of providing a way to facilitate transactions between different entities to take place, yes.  In all cases though, you get the best experience by applying some amount of due diligence and caution, and the providers of the venue are providing a venue with limited rules or protections where you are not conducting a transaction with them, but through them.

[Paelos]

But I don't think there's much support for "Kickstarter is inherently terrible."  Because it's not.  It's a service, a marketplace.  Like Ebay or Craigslist or Amazon's merchant program, etc.

I agree, and I don't think Kickstarter is bad at all. I think the idea of Kickstarter taking 5% from projects, but not doing more beyond just saying "buyer beware" is weak. Craigslist is free, so it doesn't really have to police anything. Amazon provides product, and it absolutely will provide recourse for customers that do not get a product. Kickstarter falls into a grey area that makes me a little uncomfortable when the facilitator itself is making money from the projects.

I'll reiterate that I don't think it's terrible. I do, in this particular case, question the idea of a guy who has his own money and own connections going to the public to get a game done.

[Quinton]

Well, they provide a publishing / discovery platform and an escrow service ("party A will receive payments from parties B..Z provided the total committed payments reach $N by time T"), and some level of vetting of completely pointless stuff (though it's not clear how much is done here and how valuable it is).

I think there's definitely value in the service -- there are plenty of projects of the "there is upfront cost that requires a certain production volume to be feasible to offer reasonable per-unit prices" style out there, combined with the sort of direct "vote with your wallets" thing (if enough people decide to commit, there's a signal there of sorts).  Providing the same thing on your own (accepting payments and possibly having to issue refunds, or whatnot) is nontrivial for most people and runs into some trust issues for others.

Is 5% too steep for the service provided?  Possibly.  I certainly thing they could provide better post-funding management of contacts.  Most non-trivial projects end up having to build some external-to-kickstarter system for getting necessary feedback from backers, etc.  There's probably room for competition in the crowd-funding space -- lower cost (better for project runners), more diligence (better for backers), more flexible rules (better for people wanting to take chances on projects outside of the mainstream), and so on.

I certainly agree that there are some pretty cynical projects out there looking to cash in on past glory, and other projects where the creators seem either ignorant of the time/cost of doing things, hopelessly optimistic, or perhaps uncaring of the high chance of failure (if not outright scammers).  This particular project is not one I'm very enthusiastic about.

I don't think it's horrible for people who already have money to seek funding from others to do things -- saying the only way you should be able to accomplish anything is traditional funding or directly out of pocket seems a bit much.  I do think that for best chances of success and just to be not shitty people about it, you're better off both providing some evidence that you can actually deliver (meaningful prototype, etc), and reasonable value to the backers for their contribution, especially since they are entering into a no-strings-attached agreement here.

If I sought traditional investors for a project and failed, there's still a possibility of them getting some money out of sale of IP, assets, etc.   Crowd funding backers pretty much get nothing.  If I sought traditional investors for a project and it was wildly successful, the investors would usually get a better return on their investment.  Crowd funding backers quite likely will not see anything extra even if the game they funded goes on to sell millions of units, etc.  It's probably important for all parties involved to understand this, and one could argue that Kickstarter does not educate as much as it could here.

[Paelos]

I agree with your last point the most, and I would like to see Kickstarter provide more education to the userbase.