As I said I don't think the episodic release is beneficial at all, take the recent Resident Evil game, it suffered because of it and though each Episode may get media attention that's not always good attention and many of us take no notice at all.
As for making a better game because they get revenue from sales, I dont think that's really the case with this game, due to it being full price they are basically preorders.
The issue was Red Thread didn't ever get the funding required due to the typical Kickstarter ask for as small a target as we can campaign. They have also said they won't use Kickstarter again, This is the right decision, but I think they mean any type of crowdfunding.
Red Thread were lucky and caught the tail end of the Kickstarter craze, if they did it today, chances are it would fail as many other known devs are finding out, they don't get the funding they need, due to the fear they are likely to fail, they set to low a target and even then most are failing.
The mistake these sort of projects keep making is to use Kickstarter as the means of CrowdFunding. They are relying solely on gaining public attention, in a very short period of time.
It's the very worst method of CrowdFunding a game ever thought of.
Early Acces on Steam is much better, yet still pretty awful for various other reasons.
Primary amongst them being Valve taking a very large slice of the Funding meant to make the game.
The best method, of CrowdFunding any game, is the most successful method ever used.
Star Citizen's method is the way to do any game CrowdFunding.
To head off the inevitable, "but it was a Kickstarter" posts.
RSI (Roberts Space Industries) had already raised $2 Million and Kickstarter hype was then at it's maximum.
The backers asked RSI to take advantage of the hype and another $4 Million was raised.
The crucial fact is that a failed Kickstarter wouldn't have stopped development.
The RSI CrowdFunding method is a proven success. Even if the Game never releases.
Despite those who would claim backers have been ripped off, paying too much for ships/game, the reality is all backers haxe invested in an idea and a proven developers reputation.
The successful return for that investment will be a great game. However all investments are risky and if it fails then backers would get no return. No-one ever bought any ships at all and backers must be prepared to lose that money.
So why did Star Citizen do so well?
Firstly, no time limit was set to raise the funding. This is crucial, when the project starts is the absolute worst time to set make or break limits. Having a project starting target is fine. Taking the money plege,d only once this target is reached. The one thing a project should never do is stop taking the money when offered due to an artificial time limit.
Stretch Goals is another thing RSI did right, they started out Great and got worse as more money was raised.
Until they finally stopped completely, but fund raising never stopped.
This seems to be the wrong way round, but it's not. Stretch goals must be substantial early on to help raise interest and enthusiasm (hype). These will be fully costed and funded. Later ones will not be fully costed and funded, if they are bigger and better each time. They will cost more than has been raised and the dreaded feature creep issue is the result.
By promising a smaller reward each time, more and more of the money is "spare" and can becomes the contingency fund for the entire project. There will always be unforseen costs and anything left over can fund extra bonus content.
The project should, at least, break even at release. The backers get the return of their investment and actual sales become pure profit, this is when using Steam or GOG, to actually sell the game is viable.
The biggest issue with Steam's early access is, backers funds are going to the retailer, not to making the game.
The single most important aspect RSI got right is the open development process, involving the investors, in the developemrnt, from the start.
Consider this;
BGS (Bethesda Game Studios) started working on Fallout 4 at about the same time as RSI started Star Citizen, we all know it, yet even now we must wait for E3, before they actually announce that Fallout 4 even exists.
Star Citizen's investors are involved in testing every aspect. Even providing content for it.
BGS gets modders fixing their broken game after release, if at all.
RSI involves modders in testing and fixing their game before it's even an alpha release. Allowing them to just add even more content afterwards.
This is the real reason the investors keep coming and the funds keep rising, the existing investors are involved as much or as little as they wish to be, this instills the all important confidence, in the project, which in turn fuels the confidence of further investors to also back the project
The final key aspect is keeping the workforce size in check. RSI was just Chris Roberts at the start. Many of RSI's key staff joined after the money to pay them was available, though I'm certain they knew well in advance and may even have done some of the groundwork.
Now I don't expect most games to match or beat RSI's CrowdFunding World Record, by using these methods, however if it's ever beaten it will be using those methods.
Whatever a projects size, to succeed the investors require confidence. This is the model to use to provide that confidence. Without investor confidence, the projects destined to fail to raise the funds.
That applies, whether it's a crowdfunded project or not.
Kickstarter is a blind bet, now the hype has gone, against the odds.
Independent and open project CrowdFunding is still a bet, but one where the cards are shown to all involved.
Speaking of continued investment
Star Citizens last strech goal was at $65 Million.
Current Total is $82+ Million
Post edited May 15, 2015 by UhuruNUru
