Kickstarter

[jack1974]

The problem is that I have zero faith on the fact that the funded games will reflect the promises. There was a roundup of many KS projects a few months ago on RPS (but I can't find the link anymore) in which in practice, NONE of the games were out by the promised deadline, and some looked very behind. Since AFAIK the companies/people have no obligations towards people who funded the games, I can imagine that their motivation isn't that high anymore (unless they're famous names of course). So I really think there's some major flaw in this KS system.
It's easy to sell dreams/ideas, much harder to deliver something tangible based on those ideas/dreams

[Lonestar51]

SW development being behind schedule? *Gasp*, never heard of it before.

Except at RockPaperShotgun of course.

Well, to be honest, I never took the dates as more than rough guides and maybe hopes. I have been surprised, however, by the number of developers whose games I backed and who sent me invitation for Beta in the last month - and I really do not have the nerves for beta-testing in my spare time right now. Some developers, unfortunately, do send updates on what they do only very seldom and do not show progress videos or so.

But in the end very much of the kickstarter projects is a matter of faith. Often there are new guys (and I tend to back more of them than established studios), trying new things. If the result will ever be finished, let alone be fun to play, cannot be certain before. One can hope and back, or doubt and not back.

[jack1974]

Ah yes that was the article I read indeed
Of course everyone can choose what to do, as long as they're not expecting any miracles. Your attitude is good for example.

[Jaeger]

Setbacks happen even with a team of experienced developers. What matters though is how the people behind the projects communicate with their backers. Those that leave backers in the dark are risking turning their good faith into cynicism.

[Lonestar51]

Of the game projects I have backed (and where funding succeeded) there is just one where there is not at least once a month an update on the kickstarter homepage. And for this I would probably get updates on the forum, but I do not look into the forum of this project. Communication is not an issue for me. Maybe because I am so smart to pick the right projects but more likely because developers noticed that communication is important. Especially after the RPS article in the link above.

However, after backing some (maybe too many ) projects, and seeing the first finished games, I notice one special risk has too high an occurence:

If the result will [...] be fun to play, cannot be certain before.

Maybe I should stick with games where I can play a demo in the future...

[jack1974]

As developer I thought to use Kickstarter (well, more likely Indiegogo since it's not available here), but I really don't like to "sell ideas" to people. Even for the various games I have currently in progress I get weekly emails/posts/comments asking when they will be out, that they rule, and so on. But the most "risky" thing I'll probably ever do is preorders (and when had the problems with BH2 I was super stressed).
I don't know, I think depends mainly how you are done. Both as developer and player, I am comfortable taking/giving money ONLY if I have something to show. I don't like to sell ideas/dreams. I don't like even free-to-play games and other mind-tricking system. I like to think of my customers more like friends who enjoy same thing I do, rather than cows to milk

[Lonestar51]

I don't see "not US or UK" as an issue. I have backed two polish teams and one from danemark, and that is just from the top of my head. There are some ways around it.

But I can see how you do not want to sell something which is not yet there, and that it would feel ... strange ... asking people to put money in your dream.

And dream is what it is, in the end: For me it was a consideration if I can get a similar game from someone else, without Kickstarter (paying now, waiting 1 or 2 years before playing). But now that I have seen (played for a short time, and no desire to play more) a few examples, I may well decide not to back any more kickstarter projects. (Maybe the low quility is due to the time pressure: They promise a delivery date, which is impossible to reach anyway - and then they feel obliged to ship a game in a "no fun" state now rather than going back redisgning everything. They have also stated there are some features - which may or may not be fun. Too bad if people have given you money for these "no fun" features - what do you do?)

So, generally speaking as a gamer, I tend now a lot more to prefer the traditional model where the developer creates the game using his own resources, and I pay after it is finished. As long as it is possible it is certainly the way to go.

[jack1974]

Those teams used someone they know from UK/US, since there's no other way. But is also a pain, because you need to transfer the money, who is paying the taxes on it, bla bla bla (tons of bureaucratic stuff).
I think beside the "pay once is done" system, is already much better the alpha funding. At least you can play SOMETHING, you can influence the game development, give suggestions, and so on. That is already much better than pay $100 now, and "maybe you'll get a somewhat similar game to the IDEA/DREAM we promised SOMETIMES in future. Unless we need more money and we'll do another KS in a year or two"

[Sylrissa]

When it comes to KS projects, I do tend to prefer ones that have something to show you, like here is this really rough alpha build we got running either as a demo, or at least as a video to show off for the kickstarter campaign, I feel like having that tangible early work in progress helps to ease peoples fears about backing the KS project.

[Jaeger]

I thought it was crazy that InXile collected millions from their Wasteland 2 campaign and started Torment: Tides of Numenera a year later, even though the former hasn't finished development yet.

Crowd funding is an opportunity for developers to make games without being under the thumb of publishers, and instead give what they and their fans want. With the extra funding, it also possible for a developer to expand or polish the game beyond what they are capable of doing with just their own money.

Out of the projects I backed so far: one of them was finished on time, while the rest are long way off before the deadline. With that said, I'm not compelled to invest in any more projects for a while when there are already games I can purchase immediately.