Originally posted by AxehiltWhile true, the fact remains that crowdfunding provides an opportunity for products to exist based on direct interest, rather than investors' interpretation of what people want (which is strongly influenced by historic trends, not current interest.)
How one can have direct interest into a product that does not exist...?
The fact is rather the opposite - it provides an opportunity for products that would have otherwise never made enough money to pay off for development costs if they were actually had to release first, nor to say products that would have for many other reasons wouldn't be able to make it to release.
How one can have direct interest into a product that does not exist...?
The fact is rather the opposite - it provides an opportunity for products that would have otherwise never made enough money to pay off for development costs if they were actually had to release first, nor to say products that would have for many other reasons wouldn't be able to make it to release.
I don't understand your lack of understanding.
Robot maids don't exist, but if someone invented one and gave it to you (which washed your dishes, cleaned your clothes, and kept your home clean) you would use it. This means you have a non-zero interest in that product. A product which doesn't yet exist.
Your assumption that investors are absolutely infallible is sort of silly. They're smart people, but we see all sorts of products which were invested in fail, and just because we don't see the failure of the products which didn't receive investment that doesn't mean it isn't happening at a similar rate. Nobody here is saying that every product investors avoid touching was a bad move on their part. We could confidently say most products investors avoid are probably bad investments. But some of the products they avoid would have been good investments, and by taking the question directly to consumers before the product even begins development is a much more accurate gauge of the true interest.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by justmemyselfandi But...but...we've only got $85 MILLION! We're just poor, starving indie devs struggling along on a shoestring!
How many business have you managed ? Care to tell us how much a 5 years development project with 200 employee would cost if you were in charge ?
That is still more than Wows devolopment cost of $60M at launch. Sure things are more expensive now but those extra $25M should cover that.
And Wow was a 5 year long project after all.
$85M is enough to make a good MMO if you have the right ideas, there is no good excuse for anything else. In fact do most MMOs have less budget even today. Sure, TOR was over a $100M (not sure how much since EA doesn't want to discuss it, some former people talks about around $120M but it could be more or less) but they spent a lot of it on getting famous actors for voice overs.
Originally posted by Axehilt I don't understand your lack of understanding.Robot maids don't exist, but if someone invented one and gave it to you (which washed your dishes, cleaned your clothes, and kept your home clean) you would use it. This means you have a non-zero interest in that product. A product which doesn't yet exist.Your assumption that investors are absolutely infallible is sort of silly. They're smart people, but we see all sorts of products which were invested in fail, and just because we don't see the failure of the products which didn't receive investment that doesn't mean it isn't happening at a similar rate. Nobody here is saying that every product investors avoid touching was a bad move on their part. We could confidently say most products investors avoid are probably bad investments. But some of the products they avoid would have been good investments, and by taking the question directly to consumers before the product even begins development is a much more accurate gauge of the true interest.
Then the interest would be in research of robot maid, not a robot maid product. 2 different things.
That is like saying that people are interested in MOBAs, therefore if we make one, people will like it - false assumptionm and huge leap there.
You said it yourself - "We could confidently say most products investors avoid are probably bad investments.", and since vast majority of businesses fail, despite being conventionally, risk aware funded, it is legitimate to say that crowdfunded project promote even higher failure rate beacuse of lack of liability and risk awareness.
Originally posted by justmemyselfandi But...but...we've only got $85 MILLION! We're just poor, starving indie devs struggling along on a shoestring!
How many business have you managed ? Care to tell us how much a 5 years development project with 200 employee would cost if you were in charge ?
That's immaterial, isn't it? Especially if it was originally a 2-year plan and 100 employees. That means someone royally screwed up, making the "limited funds" the least of their problems.
It's incredible that a few key words (i.e. - crowdfunded, indie) so drastically channel reality and rationale for a lot of people. Remove those two words from any description or discussion on this topic and you have a whole different response from many here.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The biggest issues faced on any project of this magnitude
1.) - Everyone involved thinks they need to drive a Lamborghini and have beach front property BEFORE they even get started. Money just flows like water because those involved have no experience running a project like this.
2.) - Many don't even take time to read the f'ing manual and expect others to do the homework for them. There is a over abundance of lazy.
3.) - When it comes time to go to work, (that nasty four letter word) people vanish as if by some magical wave of a wand.
A decent MMO can be made with little or no up front cost but 1 to 3 are the BIGGEST reasons these projects go out of control AND fail.
So if the real criticism is a single poorly managed Kickstarter campaign (Star Citizen) then criticize that specific team for promising, getting more money than their target, and then failing to deliver. Don't criticize their excuse (which is always going to be accurate.)
If you miss the days of buying games when they released, then my suggestion might seem weird but: buy games when they're released. Nobody forces you to pay early. It actually does help these games get made for them to get a lot of early money, and it enables types of games that might not otherwise get made, but nobody's forcing you to do it so if you feel it isn't worth it then you shouldn't even create a discussion around it -- you should just avoid paying early.
I can't believe the OP even mentions limited resources. That is the real world. I don't know what he does for a living but if he is asking about paper or plastic it might be forgivable to not understand limited resources.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Then the interest would be in research of robot maid, not a robot maid product. 2 different things.
That is like saying that people are interested in MOBAs, therefore if we make one, people will like it - false assumptionm and huge leap there.
You said it yourself - "We could confidently say most products investors avoid are probably bad investments.", and since vast majority of businesses fail, despite being conventionally, risk aware funded, it is legitimate to say that crowdfunded project promote even higher failure rate beacuse of lack of liability and risk awareness.
If you wanted to nitpick, you'd actually go in the opposite direction from where you went:
Pre-existing technologies enable research.
Research develops products (the maid.)
Products provide value (the chores.)
Value is what people actually have interest in.
So what people actually care about is the value (#4). It doesn't specifically have to be a robot maid (#3). But people definitely don't care about the research (#2), and they probably don't even think about the combination of pre-existing techs (#1) which made the research possible.
I don't know where you're going with your MOBA example. What I'm describing is much simpler:
Investors have to guess at what the market's interest is in a new MOBA. Do they enjoy that genre? Is the market saturated? Do players have the time and desire to try a new MOBA? Probably, but it's just a guess.
When players crowdfund something, they've indicated with certainty that there is interest. You know that not only is there interest, but there's enough interest that people are putting up money even before the product is built!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by UnleadedRev "The thing to remember is that we work with limited development resources. ...."Every freaking developer seems to use this excuse over the past few years despite massive kick starter programs, early access, and founders programs.Even worse....the same Devs that brag about the money they raked in from these programs (such as SC), are the same ones that now whine they have limited this and limited that....With those kind of funds rolling in they should not have limited anything...especially development resources!Tell you what...if Devs keep this up and/or the one big Kickstarter/Founder program for a game that does not make it, will be the ruination and end of all things Founders/Kickstarter/Early Access.I have already started cutting back as a result to almost nothing....case in point the Connie in SC....I regret ever buying it or even backing SC at this point.Same with Eternal Crusade...which I now believe has hit its peak with Founders due to what was promised in exchanged for money being changed...and they can spin it anyway they like...the result is the same.Founders purchases and other types of early access money will stop as we keep hearing gamers say:"I am just going to wait and see how it all sorts out".I miss the good old days where you buy the game when its released, and if it stinks it sinks.All this Founders and Early Access nonsense is just a way to get money and avoid spending publisher money on something nobody buys because its lame.
Pretty much exactly. I have in the past backed games, but recently I have realized it's just a terrible idea and I will not spend one more cent on a game that is 'In development'. These money grubbing hucksters can figure it out. The promise of; No corporate overhead, we can make the game we want translates to me as: No on forces us to adhere to time lines, no one forces us to produce what we say we can produce, no one forces us to be accountable. All a bunch of crap and thus far, not one 'Indy' game that made these sky high promises has delivered.
Keep your indy sand box, and making games the way 'you want' when you actually get around to making a game I may take notice and re-open the wallet, until then my motorcycle hobby needs more attention.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Originally posted by Axehilt If you wanted to nitpick, you'd actually go in the opposite direction from where you went: Pre-existing technologies enable research. Research develops products (the maid.) Products provide value (the chores.) Value is what people actually have interest in.So what people actually care about is the value (#4). It doesn't specifically have to be a robot maid (#3). But people definitely don't care about the research (#2), and they probably don't even think about the combination of pre-existing techs (#1) which made the research possible. I don't know where you're going with your MOBA example. What I'm describing is much simpler:Investors have to guess at what the market's interest is in a new MOBA. Do they enjoy that genre? Is the market saturated? Do players have the time and desire to try a new MOBA? Probably, but it's just a guess.When players crowdfund something, they've indicated with certainty that there is interest. You know that not only is there interest, but there's enough interest that people are putting up money even before the product is built!
I don't understand your lack of understanding. I can't put it more simpler than I did /shrugs
What don't you understand? I'd like to help you reach understanding.
If your posts are so simple that they lack supporting evidence or logic, that's too simple. You can't expect me to take "people are interested more in research than robot maids" at face value. The interest lies at the far end: in what those maids can do for you.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by UnleadedRev I miss the good old days where you buy the game when its released, and if it stinks it sinks.
I think I see the source of your frustration. Founder's options, early access keys, and good old crowdfunding are investments, not purchases. By their nature, they are risky ways to part with your money. If it frustrates you, then you are quite right in curtailing your use of these methods. Instead, you should wait until there's an actual finished product. The nature of the financial transaction changes decisively at that point, not a moment earlier. Decide when you hear the reviews if you want to purchase it or not. Purchases that fail to meet the advertised descriptions are worthy of refunds.
All this Founders and Early Access nonsense is just a way to get money and avoid spending publisher money...
Exactly the point. Publishers aren't making the investment, the crowdfunders are.
... on something nobody buys because its lame.
Crowdfunding is not buying. Here is the exact location of the frustration that many people feel. If you find that you make poor decisions in estimating the worthiness of developers to actual produce their intended product, then you should stay out of the investment market. Spend your money only on finished product purchases instead. (And buy only after you read fair reviews, obviously.)
"The thing to remember is that we work with limited development resources. ...."
No-one has unlimited resources, so the statement is unarguably true. The problem then is why the statement is being made in the first place. It's almost always used as an excuse for delayed production, so it seems that the problem is developers not setting realistic goals for various milestones (or worse, making expansive, grandiose promises in order to get funding, without having a solid clue how they'll realistically achieve them). This is endemic to the industry. It's unprofessional and is harming the credibility of the industry in general.
Its all blah blah blah, we now buy unfinished, broken games in the name of Early Access (Alpha, Beta), or worse...spend a lot of money on Founder Programs just to wait 5 years for a game that never see's the light of day.
When it does come out in any form, it is not the same game you originally supported.
Had what ends up being delivered was what they pitched when you first considered the Founder program, you would not have bothered.
They got your money.
Gone are the days where you signed up to be in a BETA....and then played and tested it for free.
Its all blah blah blah, we now buy unfinished, broken games in the name of Early Access (Alpha, Beta), or worse...spend a lot of money on Founder Programs just to wait 5 years for a game that never see's the light of day.
When it does come out in any form, it is not the same game you originally supported.
Had what ends up being delivered was what they pitched when you first considered the Founder program, you would not have bothered.
They got your money.
Gone are the days where you signed up to be in a BETA....and then played and tested it for free.
Those problems are self-created and imaginary:
Don't like the quality of Early Access? Then don't buy Early Access!
Others do feel it's worth it. That's why you won't see free betas much anymore.
Don't like the amount of money you might spend on a Founder program? Don't spend it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Its all blah blah blah, we now buy unfinished, broken games in the name of Early Access (Alpha, Beta), or worse...spend a lot of money on Founder Programs just to wait 5 years for a game that never see's the light of day.
When it does come out in any form, it is not the same game you originally supported.
Had what ends up being delivered was what they pitched when you first considered the Founder program, you would not have bothered.
They got your money.
Gone are the days where you signed up to be in a BETA....and then played and tested it for free.
Those problems are self-created and imaginary:
Don't like the quality of Early Access? Then don't buy Early Access!
Others do feel it's worth it. That's why you won't see free betas much anymore.
Don't like the amount of money you might spend on a Founder program? Don't spend it.
Agreed. I will agree that I miss the days when BETA was exclusive and meant something. I also miss the days when people actually contributed to a BETA. The think that the OP is missing is that somewhere along the line people stopped giving a crap. There was a time when a beta invite was worth something. So much so that people started selling them. Once that happened, the actual TESTING aspect just died off. So now it's a "million monkeys, million typewriters" approach where you just throw as many people at it as are willing to pay for it and hopefully get some good data out of it that's helpful. It's not 100% about the money, it's also that the old model stopped working. Thanks Internet.
Very true, if you decide to buy something then be a man and take ownership of your decision. If you chose to pay in advance for a product before it had been proven thrm that's the purchasers fault. An unscrupulous publisher bake try to take advantage of your impulsive. To but something, but ultimately it's the purchaser who hits the buy button.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by justmemyselfandi But...but...we've only got $85 MILLION! We're just poor, starving indie devs struggling along on a shoestring!
How many business have you managed ? Care to tell us how much a 5 years development project with 200 employee would cost if you were in charge ?
A better question might be ... why has it taken five years? Especially when nothing substantive has been released to show for those five years, 200 employees, and $85 million. Perspective, my friend.
It hasn't taken 5 years. That's the point. So maybe do some research first. Perspective my friend. He's making the educated assumption that we wouldn't see anything for a minimum 5 years since that seems to be the general timeline for most any MMORPG. Currently it's been like half that time.
My post was directed at the poster above me who quoted the time expended as 5 years. It was his quote, so I took him at his word and threw it back at him. Perhaps your condescending response to "doing research, and perspective my friend" should have been directed to him. Lashing out at me instead of at him makes your point about doing a little research a bit ironic. Especially since it's been more like 4 years (since 2011) and not 2.5, as per your implication. My suggestion to you is to make certain that the contents of your own post are accurately researched, and you are on firm ground, before deciding to be condescending about that same subject with another poster. It will save you from coming across a bit less foolish next time.
Originally posted by justmemyselfandi But...but...we've only got $85 MILLION! We're just poor, starving indie devs struggling along on a shoestring!
How many business have you managed ? Care to tell us how much a 5 years development project with 200 employee would cost if you were in charge ?
25 million for salary
5 million for incentives
10 million for health insurance and workman's comp
5 million for incidentals
5 million for hardware
10 million for taxes
10 million for out of house development
Leaves around 15 million floating around in the slush fund.
Personally I feel my numbers are very generous for a 5 year kickstarter project that had clearly set direction objective and guidelines at project conception.
If I was a traditional investor who had loaned the money on the established business plan and model that was presented for investment, well lets just say there would be some real problems with money and time management decisions.
Oh and the financial numbers would be EXACT and accounted for, something kickstarter does not require.
Money is NOT the only "resource" we need to develop games, programmers are also part of "resource"; albeit most important "resource". i may have billions of $ but that doesn't ensure i will get the best programmers in the world to write game code for me. companies ask programmers to send sample of their work and more than 99% of them turn out to be horrible, not up to standard at which they want, company then have to find the "promising" ones from all of these trash and start training them. And after 6 month turns out only 1 or 2 of them can actually write up some code that is up to expectation. You can talk about how so many other making mmo with less money and programmers but how many of them are actually good? "resource" never only mean "money", keep that in mind.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
@psiic, 25 million for salaries over 5 years is a mile off, I work In pension industry devrloping transactional systend and our group spent 10 mil last year alone simply maintaining and extending existing systems.
25 million at average say $70k a head is what 66 people. 66 people to cover all engineers, designers, leads, producers, artists, testers, project managers etc seems very low.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by jesteralways Money is NOT the only "resource" we need to develop games, programmers are also part of "resource"; albeit most important "resource". i may have billions of $ but that doesn't ensure i will get the best programmers in the world to write game code for me. companies ask programmers to send sample of their work and more than 99% of them turn out to be horrible, not up to standard at which they want, company then have to find the "promising" ones from all of these trash and start training them. And after 6 month turns out only 1 or 2 of them can actually write up some code that is up to expectation. You can talk about how so many other making mmo with less money and programmers but how many of them are actually good? "resource" never only mean "money", keep that in mind.
Nah, the industry knows its stars. Resumes, experience history, contacts, who you know, and recommendations go a long way. What you speak of is only applicable when dealing with entry level talent and unknown entities. These are rarely taken into consideration when dealing with big budget, AAA, endeavors. I'm sure you wouldn't attach your work and reputation to an unknown rookie's level of quality and production. Neither to they. Most of the talent in AAA projects is well known and comes highly regarded.
Comments
How one can have direct interest into a product that does not exist...?
The fact is rather the opposite - it provides an opportunity for products that would have otherwise never made enough money to pay off for development costs if they were actually had to release first, nor to say products that would have for many other reasons wouldn't be able to make it to release.
you sound like the people who think everyone own you something.
every designer would hope to have more resource to work on things. Just look at Destiny how much they spent and how limit they come out with.
Looking at the number of workers some of the larger game studio have compare those to indie games. You can see the difference is pretty big.
I don't understand your lack of understanding.
Robot maids don't exist, but if someone invented one and gave it to you (which washed your dishes, cleaned your clothes, and kept your home clean) you would use it. This means you have a non-zero interest in that product. A product which doesn't yet exist.
Your assumption that investors are absolutely infallible is sort of silly. They're smart people, but we see all sorts of products which were invested in fail, and just because we don't see the failure of the products which didn't receive investment that doesn't mean it isn't happening at a similar rate. Nobody here is saying that every product investors avoid touching was a bad move on their part. We could confidently say most products investors avoid are probably bad investments. But some of the products they avoid would have been good investments, and by taking the question directly to consumers before the product even begins development is a much more accurate gauge of the true interest.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That is still more than Wows devolopment cost of $60M at launch. Sure things are more expensive now but those extra $25M should cover that.
And Wow was a 5 year long project after all.
$85M is enough to make a good MMO if you have the right ideas, there is no good excuse for anything else. In fact do most MMOs have less budget even today. Sure, TOR was over a $100M (not sure how much since EA doesn't want to discuss it, some former people talks about around $120M but it could be more or less) but they spent a lot of it on getting famous actors for voice overs.
Then the interest would be in research of robot maid, not a robot maid product. 2 different things.
That is like saying that people are interested in MOBAs, therefore if we make one, people will like it - false assumptionm and huge leap there.
You said it yourself - "We could confidently say most products investors avoid are probably bad investments.", and since vast majority of businesses fail, despite being conventionally, risk aware funded, it is legitimate to say that crowdfunded project promote even higher failure rate beacuse of lack of liability and risk awareness.
That's immaterial, isn't it? Especially if it was originally a 2-year plan and 100 employees. That means someone royally screwed up, making the "limited funds" the least of their problems.
It's incredible that a few key words (i.e. - crowdfunded, indie) so drastically channel reality and rationale for a lot of people. Remove those two words from any description or discussion on this topic and you have a whole different response from many here.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
From my experience with this.
The biggest issues faced on any project of this magnitude
1.) - Everyone involved thinks they need to drive a Lamborghini and have beach front property BEFORE they even get started. Money just flows like water because those involved have no experience running a project like this.
2.) - Many don't even take time to read the f'ing manual and expect others to do the homework for them. There is a over abundance of lazy.
3.) - When it comes time to go to work, (that nasty four letter word) people vanish as if by some magical wave of a wand.
A decent MMO can be made with little or no up front cost but 1 to 3 are the BIGGEST reasons these projects go out of control AND fail.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
I can't believe the OP even mentions limited resources. That is the real world. I don't know what he does for a living but if he is asking about paper or plastic it might be forgivable to not understand limited resources.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
If you wanted to nitpick, you'd actually go in the opposite direction from where you went:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pretty much exactly. I have in the past backed games, but recently I have realized it's just a terrible idea and I will not spend one more cent on a game that is 'In development'. These money grubbing hucksters can figure it out. The promise of; No corporate overhead, we can make the game we want translates to me as: No on forces us to adhere to time lines, no one forces us to produce what we say we can produce, no one forces us to be accountable. All a bunch of crap and thus far, not one 'Indy' game that made these sky high promises has delivered.
Keep your indy sand box, and making games the way 'you want' when you actually get around to making a game I may take notice and re-open the wallet, until then my motorcycle hobby needs more attention.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I don't understand your lack of understanding. I can't put it more simpler than I did /shrugs
What don't you understand? I'd like to help you reach understanding.
If your posts are so simple that they lack supporting evidence or logic, that's too simple. You can't expect me to take "people are interested more in research than robot maids" at face value. The interest lies at the far end: in what those maids can do for you.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think I see the source of your frustration. Founder's options, early access keys, and good old crowdfunding are investments, not purchases. By their nature, they are risky ways to part with your money. If it frustrates you, then you are quite right in curtailing your use of these methods. Instead, you should wait until there's an actual finished product. The nature of the financial transaction changes decisively at that point, not a moment earlier. Decide when you hear the reviews if you want to purchase it or not. Purchases that fail to meet the advertised descriptions are worthy of refunds.
Exactly the point. Publishers aren't making the investment, the crowdfunders are.
Crowdfunding is not buying. Here is the exact location of the frustration that many people feel. If you find that you make poor decisions in estimating the worthiness of developers to actual produce their intended product, then you should stay out of the investment market. Spend your money only on finished product purchases instead. (And buy only after you read fair reviews, obviously.)
No-one has unlimited resources, so the statement is unarguably true. The problem then is why the statement is being made in the first place. It's almost always used as an excuse for delayed production, so it seems that the problem is developers not setting realistic goals for various milestones (or worse, making expansive, grandiose promises in order to get funding, without having a solid clue how they'll realistically achieve them). This is endemic to the industry. It's unprofessional and is harming the credibility of the industry in general.
Its all blah blah blah, we now buy unfinished, broken games in the name of Early Access (Alpha, Beta), or worse...spend a lot of money on Founder Programs just to wait 5 years for a game that never see's the light of day.
When it does come out in any form, it is not the same game you originally supported.
Had what ends up being delivered was what they pitched when you first considered the Founder program, you would not have bothered.
They got your money.
Gone are the days where you signed up to be in a BETA....and then played and tested it for free.
Those problems are self-created and imaginary:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Agreed. I will agree that I miss the days when BETA was exclusive and meant something. I also miss the days when people actually contributed to a BETA. The think that the OP is missing is that somewhere along the line people stopped giving a crap. There was a time when a beta invite was worth something. So much so that people started selling them. Once that happened, the actual TESTING aspect just died off. So now it's a "million monkeys, million typewriters" approach where you just throw as many people at it as are willing to pay for it and hopefully get some good data out of it that's helpful. It's not 100% about the money, it's also that the old model stopped working. Thanks Internet.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
My post was directed at the poster above me who quoted the time expended as 5 years. It was his quote, so I took him at his word and threw it back at him. Perhaps your condescending response to "doing research, and perspective my friend" should have been directed to him. Lashing out at me instead of at him makes your point about doing a little research a bit ironic. Especially since it's been more like 4 years (since 2011) and not 2.5, as per your implication. My suggestion to you is to make certain that the contents of your own post are accurately researched, and you are on firm ground, before deciding to be condescending about that same subject with another poster. It will save you from coming across a bit less foolish next time.
25 million for salary
5 million for incentives
10 million for health insurance and workman's comp
5 million for incidentals
5 million for hardware
10 million for taxes
10 million for out of house development
Leaves around 15 million floating around in the slush fund.
Personally I feel my numbers are very generous for a 5 year kickstarter project that had clearly set direction objective and guidelines at project conception.
If I was a traditional investor who had loaned the money on the established business plan and model that was presented for investment, well lets just say there would be some real problems with money and time management decisions.
Oh and the financial numbers would be EXACT and accounted for, something kickstarter does not require.
Nice post OP, hammer on the nail.
Why I never dabbled in kickstarter in the first place.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
25 million at average say $70k a head is what 66 people. 66 people to cover all engineers, designers, leads, producers, artists, testers, project managers etc seems very low.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Nah, the industry knows its stars. Resumes, experience history, contacts, who you know, and recommendations go a long way. What you speak of is only applicable when dealing with entry level talent and unknown entities. These are rarely taken into consideration when dealing with big budget, AAA, endeavors. I'm sure you wouldn't attach your work and reputation to an unknown rookie's level of quality and production. Neither to they. Most of the talent in AAA projects is well known and comes highly regarded.