Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

Thanks nin.

The PA Report - How Valve “devalued” video games, and why that’s great news for developers and players.
Those seem to be wise words, and gamers are increasingly sensitive to the price of the games they play, but when you look at the data you see that Valve has done something magical: The company has found a way to charge less, and earn more. This isn’t a purely selfish move, as developers also praise the pricing structure of these sales. The issue of game pricing is much more complex, and mysterious, than most are willing to admit.

Wired.com - We Don't Need Game Publishers, Hardware Makers or Retailers.
But something critical has changed. While publishers, retailers and hardware makers might still be adding value, they are no longer required. Using the miracle of the internet, game creators can make videogames — good ones! — and sell them to game players without any involvement from traditional publishers, retailers or hardware makers. And when creators don’t have to put their work through the gauntlet of middlemen, with everybody down the line taking their cut of the profits, they can sell those games much more cheaply.

The PA Report - The ugly side of Kickstarter- the risks in backing game dev campaigns are greater than you think.
Of those projects that do manage to ship, some will be good games and some will be awful, with most winding up somewhere in the middle. This is the reality of game development in the real world, and projects funded by Kickstarter are no different. The unfortunate truth is that many backers of game projects are buying the ability to wait 18 months to play a mediocre game.

View
27. Re: Op Ed Apr 19, 2012, 11:23 Creston
 
InBlack wrote on Apr 19, 2012, 07:24:
What about accountability? What happens if a 2 million Kickstarter project fails? All the cash is spent on office accesories, salaries, outsourcing but the end result is Duke Nukemish failure?? Who is responsible? I dont know....I would like to see cool projects come out of it but too much of it smells like a damn con.

Basically no one can guarantee that any of what is promised ever gets done. You are putting up capital and someone else will either reap the rewards (and you will get your game) or fail miserably (you will get nothing) without any repercussions.

When people put up their own money, there is an imperative to succeed. With someone else's money there is also an imperative, but when there is no accountability and the money doesnt have to be paid back.....

I don't agree that there is no accountability. First of, the Big Three in the Kickstarters right now (Double Fine, Fargo and Weisman), are doing frequent updates, and Double Fine is even doing an entire documentary on how the process is going.

Now, there is no strict accountability in the sense that nobody is sitting there making sure they reached this or that milestone, but these are also experienced studios that will likely work MUCH better without some jackass publisher whining that he wants to see the feature his 4 year old daughter loves so much working by next Friday.

If one of these guys fails to deliver on their game, they will earn an absolute SHITLOAD of bad word of mouth and hatred, to the point where I can see it'd be hard for them to ever get a good game going again.

And, again, I think people drastically underestimate how liberating it is for these guys to be able to make the game they WANT to make, without some cunt publisher interfering. These guys want to make this game, and want to make it awesome, just as much as we want them to.

All that said, if a project fails, then yes, everyone is out of their money. And said developer is likely done making games, because they'll never get another dime in kickstart funds, and even publishers might be wary of doing business with them, since they blew through a lot of money without anything to show for it.

So there is accountability, but not necessarily monetary accountability. Fargo, Schafer and Weisman are held accountable by their reputation.

I might be wrong, but I think all three teams will deliver fine games.

Creston

This comment was edited on Apr 19, 2012, 11:33.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
  1. Apr 18, 21:07 Re: Op Ed mag
  2. Apr 18, 21:17  Re: Op Ed Sepharo
  3. Apr 18, 22:22   Re: Op Ed RollinThundr
  4. Apr 18, 22:30    Re: Op Ed ASeven
  5. Apr 18, 23:02    Re: Op Ed Sepharo
  7. Apr 18, 23:41     Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  10. Apr 19, 00:35      Re: Op Ed Creston
  12. Apr 19, 02:22       Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  13. Apr 19, 03:02        Re: Op Ed The Half Elf
  14. Apr 19, 03:36         Re: Op Ed Wowbagger_TIP
  15. Apr 19, 03:46          Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  16. Apr 19, 04:05          Re: Op Ed killer_roach
  37. Apr 19, 12:04           Re: Op Ed ASeven
  17. Apr 19, 05:08          Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  19. Apr 19, 07:11           Re: Op Ed briktal
  20. Apr 19, 07:24            Re: Op Ed InBlack
  21. Apr 19, 07:28             Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
>> 27. Apr 19, 11:23             Re: Op Ed Creston
  29. Apr 19, 11:29              Re: Op Ed Beamer
  31. Apr 19, 11:31               Re: Op Ed Creston
  33. Apr 19, 11:43                Re: Op Ed Beamer
  39. Apr 19, 12:05                 Re: Op Ed Creston
  41. Apr 19, 12:50                  Re: Op Ed Beamer
  24. Apr 19, 11:17           Re: Op Ed Creston
  26. Apr 19, 11:21            Re: Op Ed Beamer
  30. Apr 19, 11:30             Re: Op Ed Creston
  32. Apr 19, 11:36              Re: Op Ed Beamer
  34. Apr 19, 11:51               Re: Op Ed Creston
  35. Apr 19, 11:54                Re: Op Ed nin
  40. Apr 19, 12:07                 Re: Op Ed Creston
  45. Apr 19, 20:05                  Re: Op Ed Dev
  46. Apr 19, 21:19                   Re: Op Ed Parallax Abstraction
  47. Apr 19, 21:43                    Re: Op Ed nin
  43. Apr 19, 18:55                 Re: Op Ed xXBatmanXx
  38. Apr 19, 12:05                Re: Op Ed ASeven
  42. Apr 19, 15:00              Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  18. Apr 19, 07:05         Re: Op Ed Dev
  6. Apr 18, 23:34   The risk of failure IS greater than you think. IMAPC
  8. Apr 19, 00:26    Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. PropheT
  9. Apr 19, 00:34     Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. xXBatmanXx
  11. Apr 19, 01:56    Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Cutter
  22. Apr 19, 10:07    Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Prez
  23. Apr 19, 11:11     Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Beamer
  25. Apr 19, 11:19      Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Wowbagger_TIP
  28. Apr 19, 11:24       Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Beamer
  36. Apr 19, 11:54        Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Wowbagger_TIP
  44. Apr 19, 19:58      Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Dev
  48. Apr 20, 00:07       Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Beamer
  49. Apr 20, 07:44 Re: Op Ed Dades


footer

Blue's News logo