.jpg?i=1349273716)
Kickstarter essentially asks people without knowledge of the risks involved to fund a project, says Free Radical founder
Some crowdfunding campaigns that haven’t been able to raise money through other avenues should be a red flag to anyone who contributes, the founder of Free Radical has said.
Speaking to NotEnoughShaders, Stephen Ellis, who recently formed a new UK studio Crash Lab, said that whilst he was happy to see some developers raise funding through websites such as Kickstarter, potential contributors should be wary of a company's need to take to crowdfunding in the first place.
He explained that Kickstarter was essentially asking people without knowledge of the development process and the risks involved to fund a project, which could have dangerous consequences for games that run over-budget, and questioned how developers would then go on to obtain extra money.
“Essentially, Kickstarter is asking people who don’t understand the risks and challenges of the industry to fund it,” said Ellis.
“I’m sure that there will be some high-profile successes as a result but I expect a fair amount of disappointment too. Game development is fundamentally a creative endeavour, which doesn’t sit well with budgets and schedules. Things often don’t go according to plan, and games frequently require more time and more money than the developers initially thought.
“Publishers deal with this all of the time, but what happens when a Kickstarter project spends all of its money without completing development? Does it get abandoned? Do they ask for more money? Do they release an unfinished game? None of these are going to be acceptable to the people who have contributed.”
Ellis went on to say that he had been asked many times to set up a crowdfunding campaign to develop a new TimeSplitters game. But whilst the IP is currently owned by Crytek, he said it would not be possible at the moment anyway as such an FPS title would cost several times the money than the top games have garnered so far on Kickstarter.
“I think that the novelty of Kickstarter and the surrounding press coverable were a large part of the reason that Double Fine were able to raise as much as they did,” he said.
“I don’t expect games to be routinely funded that way, and I don’t expect that figure to be significantly exceeded any time soon. However, FPS’s are much more expensive to develop than point & click adventure games. To put this in context, Double Fine Adventure raised about as much money (before fees) as it cost to develop GoldenEye 007 on the Nintendo 64 in 1997.
“A modern FPS would require several times as much funding, and I don’t think that that is currently achievable using Kickstarter.”
I agree with some of the concerns, but this article reads like "that's not the way we do things around here and i hate change"
It is a red flag, a big giant flag that reads "This game is not a Call of Duty clone". And that's precisely why so many Kickstarters are doing so well.
If you see kickstarter as a pre-ordering service then yes you're going to be disappointed if it's comes in late or vanishes altogether; but that's not what kickstarter really is - it's a chance to put a few quid into something that you would like to see happen that you're prepared to support.
I've contributed towards Crate Entertainment's "Grim Dawn" kickstarter project but have no interest in a free copy of the game (except perhaps to gift to a friend) - I'll still buy the game on release regardless, I just wanted to show some support for the devs to try and keep it out of the greedy hands of a publisher.
I think it's good to see some different opinions on crowdfunding and Kickstarter, although my intention in writing this was not to completely scare people and developers away from it, as I'm sure it also wasn't Steve Ellis' intention when he made these comments.
Kickstarter, and crowdfunding in general, is obviously fantastic for the industry, and also for consumers as it brings their relationship closer than ever as well as helping generate games that perhaps wouldn't otherwise make it to release. But certainly, there is room for improvement in how such a scheme works, in my opinion, to help protect everyone involved.
The time will prove that you are very likely right.
Change is here. See my how to posting: http://crowdfundingnow.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-to-crowdfund.html
It think you are mainly right with this article, but what happens if you back a project that never reaches the necessary funding and it gets abandoned, are the t-shirt or memorabilia enough to keep you happy, or should they give the money back.
I think crowd-sourcing is great but more rules need to be created so that backers and sellers are better protected against risks
I think most people on Kickstarter know that some projects won't get done for one reason or another, but don't lose too much sleep over it. Providing the % of failed projects remains small, it remains a viable alternative to the VC fund raising game for some developers , and anyone who has been through that delightful experience, can't help but wish Kickstarter all the best, and the same to developers looking to fund their dream there.