Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter finishes at $3,335,250
kickstarter.com
kickstarter.com
Here it is.
Yes, Double Fine (and Brian Fargo with the Wasteland 2) come in with a pre-existing reputation worth millions, but while you're there, poke around on Kickstarter's other projects. I never had before, and I am astonished what is on there and has been successfully funded with no apparent name-brand power that I'm aware of. Just look at this stuff: http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/games/most-fu...
There are things that targeted $10,000 and handily blew past them.
Relevant to HN's interests as I browse through: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/meetpoint/startup-fever-...
Anyway, back to my point. I think it's time to stop theorizing about how maybe the commission model might work someday in the future maybe sorta, because it's happening now. (The fact that I never even considered browsing around on Kickstarter is itself a testament to my own subconscious bias against the idea.)
Will people pledge money, knowing that the game will be equally available to everyone (i.e. they aren't getting exclusive access in return)? Maybe special bonuses (like doublefine's) will compensate? But what if they also are copyright free...?
Perhaps people paying more than the purchase price indicates that they don't mind others getting it for less? Here are the distributions (the last three aren't representative, because the number of units was limited):
$ 15 47,946
$ 30 24,636
$ 60 1,090
$ 100 11,530
$ 250 900
$ 500 148
$ 1,000 100 SOLD OUT
$ 5,000 10 SOLD OUT
$10,000 4 SOLD OUT
Or because it clearly gives power and responsibilities to the consumer. If the game sucks, I will still have paid for it. The role of the investor suddenly was forced onto me as a consumer, and I really don't want to have to do that. Going through kickstarter and reading up on each person's credentials is not worth my time, I'd rather have a third party do that (and they will only do it if they have Copyright to protect their guesses.)
DFA was a perfect storm. Amazing and funny front man in Tim Shafer. A proven studio that has released multiple games of similar small scope in recent years. Plus a pair of guys (Tim + Ron Gilbert) who practically invented the genre in the early 90s. Amazing, awesome, and wonderful that they were so successful but not necessarily a sign of things to come.
Wasteland 2 on the other is a different story. A front man with strong pedigree, but most people have never heard of. A game that came out in 1988 and only ever sold 100k units (plus lord knows how many pirated copies). A studio that few have heard of.
With DFA it's easy to say that this Kickstarter fad is just a fad. With Wasteland 2 it shows to have a little more leg. I can't wait to see what large scale project is successful next.
In those days 100,000 units sold meant a big hit. The original sales numbers for Secret of Monkey Island were in that neighborhood.
Kickstarter really could revolutionize the industry. This is incredible. We've seen small indie games on the order of $10k being funded all the time, but not $1M budgets. That's not enough for a AAA game, but it is enough to run a small studio rather than a couple guys in a basement.
Oh, and most importantly, the type of game promised (an old-school hardcore turn-based CRPG) is radically different from what's fashionable today, even among indies. They're not just making a sequel, they're reviving a genre. This is truly exciting.
Yes, I'd say this is starting to look like an actual phenomena rather than a fluke.
While I don't see it being easy to do initial angel funding on Kickstarter, it clearly is possible to raise significant amounts of money if you either have a good product and/or a name.
I think the two can coexist. This was a great way to revive a game genre with following that is still to small for a AAA publisher to go after.
I think people who want to be successful with crowdsourcing like this will need to follow that pattern and attack small undeserved niche markets.
I agree that the two can coexist (and probably have to). Kickstarter might work for areas with untapped potential when the game is published by a recognized personality with public goodwill on their side. But to be honest, to actually do something novel and unproven, or with a budget that is larger than goodwill can provide, someone needs to take a bigger risk. And to make that happen the I think the risk-takers will need equity. So while I am happy to see this Kickstarter project grow so big, I don't think traditional publishing should or will go away, lest we end up with only the games that someone can pitch to public backers in a Kickstarter video.
In any case, I fully expect both sources of funding to produce plenty of gems, so I would fight to make sure both can survive and be strong.
Sure, they might not be as good at judging potential to execute as a seasoned team of investors, but they'll be a lot better at gauging interest levels.
I also wouldn't underestimate the potential of having a lot of tiny investors becoming product evangelists; if you've got a thousand people putting $50 apiece into a project, that's not only a thousand first users, it's also a thousand real people that will happily post links to Facebook, mention the product in a blog, recommend it to their friends, etc. Especially because they presumably were interested in it in the first place.
You are not a mob when you are in your house browsing Kickstarter, you are a person and if you can think for yourself, you will.
We had crowd funding for centuries, it is called "the stock market". As you said, now we can cut the middleman (and their abuses).
Those middleman had been abusing the system too much, e.g Renting your own shares without your permission to speculators (short selling)
On top of that, the expected reward is likely different: a traditional investor is looking for a financial return, and analyses the project in terms of its ability to deliver that return. But the motivations of Kickstarter contributors come from their qualitative desire to see the project itself completed and to enjoy the product it generates. There's also the possibility of prestige and networking opportunities that can come along with being a top-tier contributor.
The crowdsourcing model appears to exist in a grey area between traditional investment, pre-ordering as a consumer, and charitable giving, and it's probably too early to know for sure what its limitations are. It's actually possible that funding new and risky projects will in some cases be easier via crowdsourcing.
Personally, I don't really see their point. It's not an investment, it's a purchase... With a slight bit of risk. Some of the higher tiers are collector's items and a part of history, and unavailable otherwise. The lower tiers have the game for less than it will probably retail for.
I personally feel the risk is very low for both this and Wasteland 2, but others feel differently.
"$2.7MM!?! And it looks like our hourly rate is going up! Um, people... three million dollars... that was the budget of Grim Fandango!"
This has been such fun to watch happen.
A common argument from copyright supporters is that it wouldn't be possible to fund such movies without heavy copyright enforcement. But after watching the recent success of Kickstarter and Lois CK. I feel it's getting easier to convince artists that a better world is possible.
So they really got what they wanted plus three million in the end. (Minus ten or so percent, right? Five for Kickstarter, the rest for Amazon.)
Now I see that the Wasteland 2 project also says it is Windows only, but "Maybe" they will add mac compatibility if they get 1.5mil.
This suggests that Kickstarter needs a new feature: Pledges that are conditional not just on the project succeeding, but pledges that are conditional on the project exceeding successive tiers of ambition.
If this were new IP and/or new devs, it wouldn't be nearly so crazy.
I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's not going to be a free ride in the future just because these 2 groups did it. They're going to have to work hard for it... Probably a lot harder than these 2 projects did.
The fact should be firmly established now: it is feasible to bootstrap the funding of games and even the creation of game companies.
Of course it's not going to be easy, and for some people it's going to be harder than for others. But it's always been that way. Making games has always been hard, it's a rather brutal industry that is not very rewarding for most of the people in it.
That's not the case with these kickstarters.
I am sure some shameless lobbyists or companies are thinking of how to put Kickstarter out of business.
One of the projects that got me really excited was Nataly Dawn's:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/555488012/nataly-dawns-f...
She wanted to raise $20,000 to record her first solo album. Nope, she got $104,788. This is the kind of thing that can change someone's life, and it's exciting to see it happen to independent artists.
Plus, people aren't "voted off the island" each week...
I'd love to see stats about Kickstarter - for each category, what are the percentages for funded or not. For each category, a graph plotting how much people asked for, and how much they received. Stuff like that.
100 backers at $1,000 a shot.
$38 per pledge.
Oh and exceeding the goal by nearly $3 million.
Second... if you don't try to pace the AAA games on graphics quality or the other de rigeur time and money sinks that add disproportionately little to the final experience, you can do a lot with that amount of money.
I need to change careers.
The common XBLA game probably loses money.