I think Rock, Paper, Shotgun made a good observation in their article on this[1]:
> And it’s impossible not to observe that on a day when gamers give a million dollars for a game that doesn’t yet exist, Ubisoft’s customers couldn’t play games they’d paid for and received.
The old model of publishers having excessive power over game developers can't die quick enough.
Yes but consider this is Tim Schafer. I see his name on a product, 99% of the time I'm going to pay. I saw Trenched on xbox arcade and bought it immediately, whilst any other game it'll be 2 weeks or more before I buy it even though I have the points to get rid of.
Similarly I see a John Scalzi or Terry Pratchett book and its bought, no thinking necessary. Again, if I see Futurama on TV it's going to be on.
Would I pay $20 in advance to get this? Yes, I pre-order shit regularly. Would I pay it 6 months in advance? Meh probably.
I think that's exactly the point. People want to buy stuff from whoever they like. This is the same as the Louis CK show. I like these guys, they're releasing something new, I'll pay (and wait for it if needed).
Whether or not this would work for indie/unknown developers is a whole other story, I think. The main point is direct funding.
"Whether or not this would work for indie/unknown developers is a whole other story, I think."
I agree that the jury's still out for the little guy, but I'd argue that the little guy simply needs to hustle that much harder to get noticed.
In theory, there's little reason why a compelling-looking presentation about a video game, from a relative unknown, wouldn't catch fire if marketed correctly. Look at the Elevation Dock, for instance. Different category altogether, but the video demonstrates the appeal of the product, the thought that went into its design, and the personality of its creator (unknown to the general public prior to the Kickstarter project).
A "Startup Tim Schafer" would need to be his (or her) own marketing team. He'd want to -- probably need to -- crack the top Kickstarter listings, and hopefully earn some press pickup, by making an undeniably killer presentation. And he'd need to make damned sure to ship something in the end. (While it's true that Kickstarter isn't technically a pre-sales site, a lot of users seem to treat it that way. If you're an upstart developer with no AAA track record, your Kickstarter launch is your track record; you'll have a razor-thin margin of error).
No doubt Tim Schafer has a lot of advantages over Startup Tim Schafer. But the hill isn't impossible for Startup Tim to climb. If anything, I think the existence of Kickstarter makes things a lot easier for him. Kickstarter can be an excellent marketing tool every bit as much as it's a funding tool.
Agree, and this will be true for every art/media creation soon enough. We are seeing the future here, and we can expect more and more developpers to jump on the wagon.
In a way, change is all good for the middle-men as well, since they will have to work hard to provide value on top of what the developpers are doing. Which is what they should have always been doing.
Which is interesting in light of electromagnetic's sibling comment.
While croudsourced funding and whatnot are supposed to promote long-tail indie productions, here we're seeing that a large part of this project's quick success is due to Tim Schafer's reputation. If it were Joe Jones wanting $400k to make I doubt he'd get it so easily even if the game were the exact same.
It is natural that Mr. Nobody is not going to get funded at this level without the slightest credential. After all, it's like marketing yourself: you have to make people believe you can deliver something of value, and track record is essential. My original comment was rather considering the current high profile developpers who are attached to publishers by contract. They may decide, following this example, to start some projects using the same model with their reputations. Then, you'd have to wonder how publishers would react once they realise they are not (as much) needed anymore.
Going it yourself you still have the chicken-and-egg situation of getting known and making products. What it allows you to do though is start small and lay progressively larger eggs. ;)
Well that's understandable, it makes sense that a developer would want to build up their reputation before attempting a bigger budget game like this. Just make a few smaller games and use the success of those to help raise funds for a larger one.
> And it’s impossible not to observe that on a day when gamers give a million dollars for a game that doesn’t yet exist, Ubisoft’s customers couldn’t play games they’d paid for and received.
The old model of publishers having excessive power over game developers can't die quick enough.
[1]: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/09/double-fine-kicks...