Yeah? So what Grim Dawn is doing there?

I just see how many "famous" game designers think now "hey, easy money!" and they start dozens of projects, not having even the completed project on a table.

I'd love to back a kickstarter, but only when the game is IN DEVELOPMENT and then they need some money.

Because I can see such projects as a way of saying "well, we're not going to work for free, so back us up".

I don't support this. But it's just me. I don't like paying for things that MAYBE will be released in next several years. I don't like the hype being made even before single texture was made.

This is why I find it "meh". It's like every single Sierra (or whatever) oldfag thought "it's time to take some money upfront".

I am really pesimistic with all those projects.

After longer thought, I would be happy to back a project that is like half-way there, but for some reason, it can't be finished without donations. Not supporting begging for money before anything is done.

PS. Well, these are not great amounts of money they are trying to gather, but still, I would rather see something's done, before throwing my money at them. I don't buy all those "I am famous game designer, so give me your monies".

Nobody sane would invest in business, for things that aren't designed even on a paper (yet).

Kickstarter should kickstart projects, and "in development" is very wide term.

They already have idea about it, so it's in development. At the very beginning, but still.

And if you don't support it, then don't. Why do you bother about this project then?

They had the game concepts done, and the backers could vote on which one they are going to do. They don't have more than preliminary work done because they don't have the money for it. Development costs money they don't have.
They do have designed the first game on paper. Not the whole thing, but it's more than idea floating in Jane's head. They also have preliminary work on the art.

Newsflash: a Kickstarter pledge is not an investment.

Hm... Ok. I just hope at least ONE overhyped kickstarter project WILL NOT be a total failure. One can only hope.

Well, I know for sure Grim Dawn won't be.

So you want to support bad business sense by people that jumped into something without any proper concept or ran over budged due to bad management?

Your whole post is actually the difference of what A) kickstarter is about and B) good business sense.

You map out a project, then you go looking for money and then you start development. And that is excactly what Kickstarter does. Starting a project with the hopes that you might get some money to finish it, is a sign that you shouldn't be doing this stuff in the first place.

Now, if you are simply impatient and can't wait 2 - 3 years for a project to come to fruition, than Kickstarter is simply not a concept for you.

Hm. I just wonder how all that indie devs can finish a project without any fundings at all, and make great games, but "famous names" can't even start them?

This is why I said about do something first - ask for money later - Something more close for alpha funds, like it is (?) in Grim Dawn case.

But yes, it appears kickstarters are not for me. Not because i'm impatient, but I won't trust with my money to people who are famous but:

a) still not a single company wants to give them a single dollar for it
b) spent all the money from previous games on booze
c) when kcikstarters becaome fancy started to puke out ideas from left to right

And please don't start all that "no company wants to invest in their project because they're not profitable" because the speed in which Kickstarters are funded shows it would be a good business decision. If they only had anything more to provide than empty promises

You don't need half million monies to design first level, for example. Or 15 minute demo.

When it comes to investments, game designers, musicians, movie makers HAVE TO provide a sample, demo, whatever, because they will not see a single dime out of it. It is how it works, SimonG. (unless your name as a director, band, etc is enough for investors to throw you money) You need to give something first, to get money. Are their famous names enough to keep a promise? I'm not so sure.

Nobody pays for promises. (unless it's politics)

Most companies are still in the opinion that adventure games are dead, despite the constant proof to the contrary.

Just because someone can make great games doesn't mean they are going to be rolling in money. Especially if they were on someone else's payroll.

Many of them had plenty of ideas before, they just didn't have the funding.
Jane Jensen is a game designer and writer.

In gaming it happens all the time. It's called a "pre-order".

Or naivete / naivety

Actually, that was the concept of the Silicon Valley. It has become such a success because the financial backers down there were deeply involved with stanford university and had some technical aptitude. Many now successful projects were only funded because down there people were willing to make a leap of faith. Nobody gave them the whole shebang of money right now, but they came with a concept to the backers, they gave them enough to start and provide a prototype of some sort, etc, and then they received gradually growing funding.

It is very similar to what kickstarter is doing. Many of the kickstarter games won't be made on the money of the kickstarter itself, but it is used to get going and get some bigger backers on board (publishers, etc.). The whole point of kickstarter is to kick start a project, not to fully fund it.

Actually, the more I think about it, there more the similarities to Silicon Valley become obvious...

Even in industry, in most cases, you need to present a working prototype. Like it was with "Polish" graphen , mechanical hand, for example. University first made a prototype, then looked for investors to produce it. Nobody would pay for sketches.

It's almost always like this.

Maybe sometimes it's like they invest PART of the money to fund the prototype creation, and then the rest of it - if it's successfull. Not the whole amount at the beginning.

The whole point of kickstarter is to be different. Kickstarter is meant for projects that can't find conventional backers, so people can show that there is general demand in the product. Once that is secured, they have a much better chance of getting founding.

And I think it's general consensous that the industry is often out of touch with the actual consumers. Especially in videogames, as the DF and Shadowrun Kickstarter showed. Kickstarter is providing creators with an alternative to get initial founding. If a project has no mass appeal, it will fail. And nothing has been lost, no big investment and not a year of the creators life.

Kickstarted projects are meant for a niche, yet profitable markets. It is a leap of faith, no doubt, for me as backer as well as for the creator. I am willing to take that leap on the projects I've backed so far (with all in all rather substantial sums, so I'm really into something). And, on a second note, many of the "bigshots" I've funded (DF, Wasteland, Shadowrun, Larry) already gave me so much fun in my life, that they earned the money twice over.

But in many ways, so were many of the internet startups back in the '90s. And as countless "pets.com" died for one google or amazon, so will a bunch of kickstarters fail in the end. Only time will tell if that was right.

I have a much bigger problem funding projects that ran out of money half way.

You've got fair points, but if anyones stating today "I know that my game I will make in next 3-4 years will cost exactly 500,000" is full of crap.

I wouldn't be suprrised, if we saw some "we need more money" kickstarters later. And if not, we will see unfinished projects.

Thanks for your points, though. I can understand now why so many people are backing these projects.

Btw, have there been any successfully backed and kickstarted projects from people who *can not* refer to some former successes - like Tim Schafer can and Ms. Jensen? I mean, I'm not quite sure yet what to make of this whole kickstarter thing either, and ... even though I think that keeveek has a point, I don't see that (specific) problem when it comes to people like Schafer and Jensen. (Since both have a specific style and both have proven to be able to make great video games.) But apart from those "big names"? Hm.....

Edit: And I mean "projects" that are bigger than "Hey, I need 1000 bucks to make a platformer where you play as Ron Paul and discover how chemtrails destroyed WTC 7."

I think this is a good example:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/64409699/ftl-faster-than-light?ref=live

I also pledged to this, although only 10$.

For non gaming:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/singularityco/singularity-and-co

This is one I backed with no "big shots" attached. It looks very promising, and was worth a 25$ gamble for me.