Goddamnit, Kickstarter.

I for one absolutely love kickstarter and what it does for the indie scene... but when I saw this : http://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ive-take-nancy-drew-games-mobile?ref=category

I started seeing red. You cannot tell me that Nancy Drew games cannot get funding and have to use crowd funding as an alternative... I have just always thought of Kickstarter as a last resort... and it pisses me off to no end to see it being abused so bigger companies can make more money.

Hope a jet engine falls from the sky and kills the bitch, Donnie Darko style.

/end Rant

 

yet they have a right to use it...

Edit: are you done jogging in place now?

 

Um... Nancy Drew... um... yeah, I could see them needing to crowdfund. Hell, Nancy Drew - I could see them standing at highway offramps holding cardboard signs...

 

Yeah, I'm over it. Was a knee-jerk reaction. Just like EA's Indie Game Team... Just seems wrong to me that an established dev would need to resort to kickstarter... Ultimately, my fear is that kickstarter will be flooded with bullshit. Don't get me wrong, I also was a little annoyed to see a guy using RPG Maker 2000 get something like 15grand to make his game, lol. Like I said, was just a rant.

I feel mildly stupid now, but happier that I got my frustration off my chest. =P

 

With the life expectancy of game studios these days, I'm not surprised at all, and it may indeed be a last resort.

Consider Double Fine, for instance. They're most certainly an established studio, and I don't think anyone was seeing red when they resorted to Kickstarter. And their prior projects (the ones since Brutal Legend) were success born out of desperation from when the plug was pulled from Brutal Legend 2, and still only barely kept them alive by the skin of their teeth.

 

Why are you mad? There's no ripping-off here. There's no exclusive club. There's not even profiteering.

If I pay $10, I will get the game and a wallpaper and my name somewhere. That is not worth $10 to me, because #1 I don't feel part of something and #2 I don't really support the product. Thus, I do not donate. If someone where to donate $10, they would know exactly what they'd get. What's wrong with that? No one is forcing anyone to fund, the results for your money are very clear, and I can clearly see what the product is. If they receive their $250,000, then they have ~25,000 people who support this product. There's no extra profits because the product is clear from the beginning. If I find a party from Her Interactive CEO's to be worth $10,000, then I was able to get a product that I could not get before. That's not squeezing extra profits, that's touching new markets. But likely, there isn't going to be $250,000 worth of backers for a Nancy Drew game, and thus the kickstarter will fail. It's functioning exactly as it should.

This sort of thing is EXACTLY what you want from bigger companies. A way to let us give SOME sort of input before the game is complete. A way for bigger companies to gauge interest in riskier 'AAA' titles that they'd otherwise not pursue because they're not a 'sure thing'. A way to use our money to perhaps guide development, even if the slightest bit, other the traditional "here's what we made, pay if you want to play it".

What angers me is the RPG Maker 2000 games, where development teams are much less serious and there's a MUCH higher risk that your money is either being misused or intentionally stolen. And it angers me because people don't understand that kickstarter is essentially investment funding where you don't necessarily drive production -- not a "insert $10 now, receive game X months later". If someone wants to pay $10 upfront to receive a nancy drew game a year in the future, more power to them. When they pay $10 thinking they'll play some super epic RPG in the near future, when in reality it never had a chance of becoming fruitful, that's where the 'ripoff' happens. But at the end of the day, us as 'investors' still completely have the say as to where our money goes, so there's no reason to be mad.

Don't fund things you don't agree with, and you've made your case. They can see how many page views they get vs how many investors. You've made your impact.

 

There's competition for funding. There could be the fear of it becoming mainstream rather than indie, and thus - it would no longer be an option for small fries. Etc, etc, etc... that being said, perhaps I'm just being dismissive - but Her Interactive and Nancy Drew's not something I would be overly concerned about unless I was developing adventure games for females. One could see where a person that was trying to do that and was hoping to use KS to fund their game to compete with HI might become frazzled that the established company they're looking to compete with on some level is using the same funding platform.

 

Why would big fries being around stop small fries from being able to use it?

The use case isn't that random people with open wallets head over to Kickstarter and fund the first thing they see. It's people hear of a particular project that interests them and look it up specifically.

Chances of them losing interest because they saw something from a bigger company are pretty slim. If I were heading over there to kickstart the next version if iRacing I wouldn't change my mind at the last second and instead give my cash to Shift 3 just because EA were asking for donations, regardless of how flashy their page was.

 

For people that are interested in supporting a particular title, that will obviously be the case. For people interested in what projects are out there and coming, that browse through the site looking to see if there is something they want to succeed...then it may very well be another case.

If you've got friends, read a particular forum, etc, etc - where you see something - you'll go look. Doesn't mean you'll back. Well, unless you've got money falling out of your pockets.

There's still competition. Then there's just this: http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/games/popular?ref=more#p1

With your example - I've never heard of iRacing. I have heard of Shift. So if I'm there browsing games, I see Shift...I'm going to click it. iRacing? Er...what? Oh, that was there? Um, well - wish them all the best...I guess.

I like RPGs. I browse there looking through what RPGs are in the works. If an established company that's put out games I have enjoyed in the past has something there, I'm going to be drawn to that. They have a track record. It's just what it is.

 

Yeah something feels a bit 'off' about this, they want $250k to port their quote 'most successful' games? That just doesn't add up, if they were that successful why do they need kickstarter? Why do they need $250k to port existing games? Even if one assumes they were built in bespoke engines and therefore need to be re-created from scratch in an engine that supports mobile, it still seems like alot.

Have to wonder if this is more about marketing, attracting publishers or simply looking for a way to continue a company that actually is not as successful as its #1 PC games imply.

Ultimately though I don't think there is much problem having them do a kickstarter, if the people want it, it will hit the funding goal, if not it wont. Its basic market forces and I would not at all be surprised to see more established companies using this method in the future simply as a means of circumnavigating publishers and gauging market response to product proposals. Why risk getting venture capital for a game with unknown 'saleability' if you can raise it via kickstarter instead.

 

What I'm driving at is that critical masses of backers don't seem to come from random passers by who wander over to kickstarter.com without already having something in mind. They come from projects that already have small communities where that community helps spread the word about that project in particular and grows as a result.

 

#1 Adventure Game. Adventure games don't exactly rank up there as far as games go..heh.

It's partnership thing with Adventure Mob. http://adventuremob.com/games/nancydrew/

There was the thread here about another of their games and KS: http://adventuremob.com/games/lsl/

Oh look, here's another KS from them: http://adventuremob.com/games/freshbiz/

 

You should be afraid of bigger titles. They're encroaching on our markets regardless of what we do. But I wouldn't say they're taking our funding. I'd be more worried about "pop culture" kickstarter games (double fine, castle story, shadow run, etc) because a lot of people are going to jump on those boats because everyone else is jumping on those boats (for good reason). But no one is going to jump on an EA boat because it's EA (perhaps the opposite, such as your case).

But if I'm investing large capital into a project, it's because I like what I see and I see potential and want to be a part of that potential. If someone else is putting a better product out, I should need to bring mine "up to par" -- especially if their asking amount is about the same. It means either I'm asking too much, or my work isn't worth as much as I think it is (not talking about profits here, talking about budget estimating). That's just pure competition, and it sucks but you'll find the exact same thing when it comes time to get sales, so what's really the difference? You find out early if it's worth pursuing. Thus, still a good thing,

 

Ok I see the point! But don't worry about it, kickstarter is not a completely isolated arena! If you're competing against big titles, kickstarter will only refuge you so much... just because your project is in kickstarter, and AAA is not, doesn't mean you're not competing. Especially because AAA titles are better known than indie titles, that means chances are if someone knows about your project, they know about the competing AAA project.
What I'm trying to say is that your best shot will always be to innovate (not compete against the established AAA genres). That's the one thing big companies will never do, because they need to secure that profit, and they can't secure profit by winging it like indies do.
If you're giving something an AAA company can give better, faster, more reliably, then there's no place you can hide, not even in kickstarer! You must not hide at all, on the contrary! You must be able to give something that they can't compete against, the sort of things that you know people want, but AAA rather not focus on, because another FPS is a safer bet!

 

The one thing the bigger projects and (double fine, castle story, shadow run, etc) type projects do is bring new people to kickstarter.

Once someone is familiar with kickstarter and have had a successful backing they are much more likely to look around at other things to back and might find a much smaller project who didn't have the press coverage and backing to get noticed otherwise.

I personally have have backed sever (5+) not because they were games i'd pick up if i saw them at the store or on steam but because they were doing something interesting and looked like they could really use the help.

 

Companies could eventually also use kickstarter for exclusive bonuses or materials. It doesn't have to be a 'funding' attempt with the way the mechanics are, it could work just as easily as a shop with limited supplies for a larger title and a chance for customers and fans to get something exclusive or semi exclusive.

Lots of flexibility there.

 

Kickstarter = way to get money from the public.

Why are you surprised?

 

I don't see a problem.

Kickstarter/Crowd funding isn't only for small Indies and also bigger projects or well known companies can fail. I guess it was Double Fine who also examined this a bit and came with Kickstarter to the conclusion that bigger projects entering the arena, also increases the interest of other Kickstarter projects, so Indies benefit as well. Secondly Fargo setup his invest a certain percentage into dingsbums campaign.

If this upsets you, then it might be a good idea to kickstart on your own project, if you have some substance to offer.

 

So much hate for someone so young.

 

Seriously? Age doesn't change that she's still e-begging online and obviously already has enough money to fund the indie game, btw it looks pretty bad :/

 

So what? You're honestly offended that someone wants to make a "nancy drew" game? Is it because you don't kill people in it? And why are you assuming they have enough money? How could you possibly know this? You don't. You seem to assume that your opinion is fact. This is not always the case.

 

Considering they've only managed to raise about $5,800? No, I'd say that it does require crowdfunding.

 

Maybe... or maybe people are feeling the same as me and refusing to help... All I know is that I think The Other Brothers is more deserving of funding than this F***ing overly-expensive re-port of a pre-existing game. That is just my opinion personally.

And you had it right... I don't know what kind of financial situation the developers are in, but when you go bragging on your kickstarter with:

"More than 200 million books sold in 22 languages."

"The company, with 26 awards to its name, designs, develops and publishes high-quality mystery adventure games, and is the world leader in the mystery games category. Her Interactive's Nancy Drew games have sold more than 9 million copies. This success is buoyed in part by the ever-increasing numbers of girls and women becoming avid game players. Nancy Drew players now include moms who have introduced their daughters to the girl detective, making her one of history's longest-running iconic figures spanning generations. As the number one PC mystery/adventure franchise since 2004, unit sales of the Nancy Drew series have exceeded those of Harry Potter, Myst and Tomb Raider games."

"Per the NPD Group/Retail Tracking Service: The Nancy Drew series is the #1 PC Adventure franchise in units for 6 consecutive years outselling Harry Potter, Myst and Lord of the Rings."

I find myself wondering why the hell you are coming to me for money? Sounds like you have plenty more than I currently do. And with such a huge backing, why is it that you need my help? Furthermore, this isn't a new game? We are just porting a pre-existing game over to iOS. Since when has it costed a quarter of a million dollars to port pre-existing everything? For that kind of money I'd expect to be paying a programmer to develop software to streamline the porting of all of the Nancy Drew games?



As I have already said, I feel silly for getting so worked up so quickly and ever more-so for deciding this place would be the proper outlet for my ranting... but as somebody who strongly supports Indies, its a little annoying to see established brands and companies fighting for funding in what seems like a fairly small market. I was mad to see an indie team such as Other Bros to be struggling so much for funding when they have done such a fantastic job and then here comes the people at Nancy Drew expecting everyone to shell them out a quarter of a million dollars to rehash an old game onto iOS out of what seemed to be a fairly established brand, especially among adventure titles.

That said, whatever? It isn't like I can actually do anything about it... but I don't think this project adds to the integrity of kickstarter.
I do hope they manage to port their game... and I am 100% sure that they will, with or without kickstarter.

 

When I first read this, well this part mainly "Is it because you don't kill people in it?" - it's rather odd, imo, what came to mind.

Imagine a Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys, Scooby Doo crossover. Imagine Frank, Joe, Fred, Daphne, and Velma are kidnapped by some...body...thing. That leaves Nancy, Shaggy, and Scooby to rescue them. Nancy can team up with one or two of the others as she progresses. If she rescues Daphne, then Daphne becomes available.

Now...picture this:

​

Hello there, Miss Drew.

Sucker Punch that bitch up... and yes, you've got Nancy Drew killing S***! BAZINGA!

How about a little Burton love?

​

A hint of Tarantino?

​

Did I mention the Sucker Punch angle?

​

The soundtrack comes together:

Tiger Army - Rose of the Devil's Garden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgu53pXahww
KMFDM - Juke Joint Jezebel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKxosfl1E2g
Tune Up! - Forever Young: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QG_hG2TpU
Daft Punk - One More Time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGBhQbmPwH8
Violent Femmes - Gone Daddy Gone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekL7o8BQkZM
Shiny Toy Guns - Rainy Monday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QcmI_fQCc
Nekromantix - My Girl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVApYFiTTGw
Giant Drag - Wicked Game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOMLU_pLjME
Rusko - Everyday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDAX2aVWAag
Miss Kittin - Kittin is High : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cRDEHnD3Bs
Wolfsheim - Heroin, She Said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-PyUSxcqXg
Hole - Doll Parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD9xK9smth4
My Chemical Romance - The Ghost of You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCUpvTMis-Y
Pop Will Eat Itself - Babylon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boTvsR7Mxrk
Bauhaus - She's In Parties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCg4i1f_oDY
Evanescence - Everybody's Fool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhC1pI76Rqo

Coming 20xx... Nancy Drew: Don't F*** With Nancy Drew.

I'd buy it.

edit: I actually made that into a playlist. It's funny how it would work for one of my projects if I had the bazillion dollars to license it (get the approval even to try to license it, and all that jazz)...

 

I'm going to focus on this specifically because I think you're overestimating the adventure game market. Mostly in that it doesn't exist at all.

 

An adventure gaming market exists, especially in germany (and a few other countries in europe) but it's a niche market. If you're after babes and cocktails in the first place then you don't develop adventures. Plus they are hard to make as you need to be able to tell tales, it requires writing skills, ... Writing an adventure with global interest is only possible by having some oldskool track record (like for instance, ex LucasArts) or having a damn fine product like Machinarium or being different like The Dream Machine. The majority of adventure games these days just is good enough to please the lower needs of the fans. This way there are more but also less convincing adventures being produced which can't step out of the niche.

What can sound surprising is the budget they are asking for as, although it is at the lower end of the budget range, others are doing complete new games for this money already, maybe starting with 300k and going up to 900k. On the other side i've never played one of their games.

 

It's tempting: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/Home.aspx

To make my Nancy Drew game, ahem - I'd have to change the names of course. Darcy Wren...yeah.

Then again, this book: http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Game-Development-Unity-All/dp/1430234229 addresses First-Person-Adventure...hrmm.

 

AGS is Windows only. Some companies are trying to do their own port for OS X. There exists a fan base which wants to port AGS to Linux on their own. Then there exist a couple of others, more advanced and more cross platform adventure engines, but they also don't exist for all platforms and sometimes have their own issues. If you're new to adventure gaming i would take one of those because they can safe you a lot of time and let you focus on the game. If you know what you're doing and have the budget, then i would implement an adventure framework in Unity. And if you want source code access and can't afford this Unity licence, then i would build it on some middleware where source code access is a no brainer.

 

I preferred text adventure games. I never really got that far into graphical adventure games, and I can't think of a single 3D one I played. It was kind of interesting how Funcom worked to add elements of adventure games into their MMORPG The Secret World. Some people championed it while others complained...complained...complained...complained. They're definitely what you'd likely consider your everyday gamer's kind of game.

Considering what some people do with real world pseudo adventure gaming and geocaching, I'm somewhat curious as to how it could evolve as augmented reality technology matures...and people could have real world adventures with virtual items, mix of real/virtual puzzles, tied in with an interactive story.

 

Sounds like witchcraft.

 

examine desk
"On the wooden desk stands a Apple computer, the screen is turned on."
look at the screen
"Several windows are opened on top of a background image."
look at the background image
"You can only see a fraction of the image as most of the image is covered by the windows."
move the cursor into the lower left corner
"You can't move the cursor, something is missing."
take the mouse and move the cursor into the lower left corner
"As you reach the lower left corner of the destop area, all the windows dissapear."
look at the background image
"The background image shows a wonderful picture of the Sombrero galaxy."
move the cursor out of the lower left corner and back into it again
"The windows appear on the desktop again."
examine windows
"There are four windows opened, named Sublime Text 2, Console, Chrome and VLC."
select Chrome
"The Chrome window is now on top."
examine Chrome window
"The browser window shows a forum discussion."
read and grasp discussion
"You read the text and follow the discussion through several pages. The discussion seems to be about design vs. options."
enter url www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSUPzp7xeFg and press return

 

If anything you should be happy, there almost no way they will raise 250k. It was a bubble, she was probably selling to a market (IE girls) in a time when there wasnt that many games that targeted young girls, once developers found out there was a "gold rush" and it quickly became saturated with similar other games (just like anything else), now the competition is too high and they are probably SOL. Its the same thing with the these teen girl novels and why they are the number 1 selling stories for teen girls.

 

As stated above funding is competitive and raising funds is as well. I love the idea of kickstarter and I think it's a semi valid argument that allowing AAA studios to post on the site will allow for user input. Yet in all honesty I don't really see big studios changing their story based on what a few, small donators (is donators a word?) feel. The other possibility is that kickstarter could lose a lot of it's credibility with the exponential growth of it and the bigger studios taking advantage of it. To conclude what I'm "getting at," I'd say, while big companies have every right to be on kickstarter, if they are taking even one penny away from a developer who needs it more they are disgracing the very morals kickstarter holds and is based upon.

 

kickstarter is getting whored out now like there is no tomorrow. I wonder how long this bandwagon will ride till the wheels fall off?

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

It's not like Kickstarter is new. It's been around for a little while.

 

We never said it was new however like most companies or organizations it's growth has been exponential and many bigger companies are trying to adopt it.

 

I've personally been waiting for companies like EA to hold series at ransom on kickstarter, it's going to happen eventually.

 

@Pikrat
People have a fixed time and money budget anyway. Therefore it doesn't matter if you spend your money in retail, a online store or at kickstarter. You're primary buying games not investing into kickstarter. Crowdfunding will work as long as there are projects people are interested in which for some reason (might be real, might be fake) otherwise won't see the light of day. Indie games need to be good, not protected in some sort of way.

 

Why would they do that?