Trials of Ascension, Shady Practices and the Big Crowdfunding Debate

[Xargoth6634]

Dual wielding shields has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

[Kyanion]

Yeah well I'm going to dual wield shields while I'm wearing 2 eye patches!

[Deleted]

Yeah well I'm going to dual wield shields while I'm wearing 2 eye patches!

Now equip yourself a Bane mask and you're full turtle.

[Nihilan]

I literally cry myself to sleep at night because ToA is not yet live to the public. When i saw that wicked demo video... I'm not going to lie. I peed myself a little.

[Edge-]

Dual wielding shields has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

Disagreed so strongly. I've wished I could do this for so long, especially when I was tanking on my pali in WoW. Seriously, there's so many awesome thematic things you could do in terms of offensive/defensive abilities.

[Chrysia]

The more I read about it, the more ToA reminds me of Daikatana, except Daikatana had actual game developers behind it, even if they did completely fuck it up.

[Stonecloak]

I really don't like kickstarters, unless somehow investing in the game gives stock. Other then that it's just donations for usually nothing.

[Edge-]

I really don't like kickstarters, unless somehow investing in the game gives stock. Other then that it's just donations for usually nothing.

Usually backers are rewarded with the product (usually at cheaper than retail) and other perks (depending on how much they spend backing it), not "nothing".

[Deleted]

I literally cry myself to sleep at night because ToA is not yet live to the public. When i saw that wicked demo video... I'm not going to lie. I peed myself a little.

I don't think we will ever get to play it ourselves though. But I'm looking forward to the day their Kickstarter launches and the public starts to critisize it. And not just people from this thread, but also new people who just found out about it.

[Stonecloak]

Usually backers are rewarded with the product (usually at cheaper than retail) and other perks (depending on how much they spend backing it), not "nothing".

I don't think a demo or some in game item is anything worth the money they ask for, and I haven't seen discounted full copies either. Regardless, to me it's worse then dlc, and I can see a trend happening where more and more people and companies do it. If you make a profit from it while making a game then wtf? The money for the actual game is for the cost of development. Your not supposed to pay for development as well. It's a lot of clever hyping and promising.

[Edge-]

I don't think a demo or some in game item is anything worth the money they ask for, and I haven't seen discounted full copies either.

Not a demo, the full game. Though many times it will also include a demo.

And there are a number that have provided either limited quantities of donation tiers for cheaper versions of the game, or simply cheaper versions of the game for backers. Can't think of any specific ones off the top of my head, but I know I've seen quite a few of them.

Regardless, to me it's worse then dlc, and I can see a trend happening where more and more people and companies do it.

Right now it's pretty much limited to super small indie teams and larger indie studios (like Obsidian) looking to fund games they can't get support from big publishers on. I don't see what's inherently wrong with it, it's already churned out some great games and there are more promising games on the way. Far more compared to those that have flopped (which are more often than not very small games).

And I don't see what's inherently wrong with DLC, either. I mean, some developers/publishers have definitely exploited it and released overpriced/shoddy DLC, but as a concept it's actually fantastic. I'd take DLC over proper expansions any day, as that allows me to choose specific pieces of content I want rather than having to pay for a bundle I many not be completely interested in.

The money for the actual game is for the cost of development.

That's...not how it works. You need the initial money to make the game. If you can't get funding from an investor/investment group/publisher, then you don't make the game. The money from sales goes to pay back the money invested from an investor/publisher, yes. But seeing as crowdfunded games have few/no debts from investment (many are subsidized by private investment alongside crowdfunding), they don't have to pay things off. It's essentially taking super early pre-orders to fund the game.

Your not supposed to pay for development as well. It's a lot of clever hyping and promising.

Again, either you fund the development costs before it launches, or you pay back the loans the company incurred developing it by purchasing it after launch. It's functionally the same thing, the former simply gives developers a lot more control over their product.

[Stonecloak]

Not a demo, the full game. Though many times it will also include a demo.

And there are a number that have provided either limited quantities of donation tiers for cheaper versions of the game, or simply cheaper versions of the game for backers. Can't think of any specific ones off the top of my head, but I know I've seen quite a few of them.



Right now it's pretty much limited to super small indie teams and larger indie studios (like Obsidian) looking to fund games they can't get support from big publishers on. I don't see what's inherently wrong with it, it's already churned out some great games and there are more promising games on the way. Far more compared to those that have flopped (which are more often than not very small games).

And I don't see what's inherently wrong with DLC, either. I mean, some developers/publishers have definitely exploited it and released overpriced/shoddy DLC, but as a concept it's actually fantastic. I'd take DLC over proper expansions any day, as that allows me to choose specific pieces of content I want rather than having to pay for a bundle I many not be completely interested in.



That's...not how it works. You need the initial money to make the game. If you can't get funding from an investor/investment group/publisher, then you don't make the game. The money from sales goes to pay back the money invested from an investor/publisher, yes. But seeing as crowdfunded games have few/no debts from investment (many are subsidized by private investment alongside crowdfunding), they don't have to pay things off. It's essentially taking super early pre-orders to fund the game.



Again, either you fund the development costs before it launches, or you pay back the loans the company incurred developing it by purchasing it after launch. It's functionally the same thing, the former simply gives developers a lot more control over their product.

That makes no sense. A company that doesn't get funded by anybody and then asks for funding from fans. So that means the player puts more money into it. How is that not completely obvious?, and for a decent size company its a dream in profit. Getting funding without even having to produce what is promised, and how exactly besides blogs would you know the developers intention? At least in a big company they have to produce the product because they where helped with funding, and somebody believed it was a good idea. So essentially rejected ideas then go kickstarter. That's even more of a red flag imo.

If I want to buy a game. I'll pay 50-60 dollars for the finished game. Dlc isn't always bad. A lot of times it is though. Some games seem to offer more game for a price, and im fine with that, but not when the dlc should have been included from the start. Then they can produce half finished products and gain more profit which is ultimately what kickstarters, and a lot of dlc does.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you have every right to view it as you do. I'm just going to have my ow opinion on it as well. I'm sure there's a couple of honest kick starters, but I can see the dishonest ones taking advantage of eager players.

[Deleted]

I'm not a fan of funding companies on Kickstarter. But I do like the concept. If it helps people finishing their game then good for them.

Regarding DLC, everybody hates day 1 DLC. I also dislike Season Passes.

Games like Borderlands and Skyrim had really great DLC. Money well spent. Everybody loves free DLC, just look at Killing Floor, still updated and played today. Same for Payday 2, a perfect mix of free and paid DLC.

I also hate DLC in FPS games like CoD and BF. The community comes up with better maps and mods simply because there's way more options. I played a lot of custom maps and mods in CoD1, 2 and 4. And I played a hell of a lot of custom zombie maps. Nowadays community modding tools are gone because no money gets earned that way. Still love Blizzard and Valve for those.

[Edge-]

That makes no sense. A company that doesn't get funded by anybody and then asks for funding from fans.

Niche genres don't get a lot of investment. Want to make a tactical top down police shooter? Good luck finding a publisher who will fund it, but folks on Kickstarter/other crowdfunding sites may like the idea enough to fund it.

Want to make a large scale space sim? Well, there's no market for that right now, so publishers/investors aren't looking to dump money into such a risky venture. But crowdfunding? Hey, guess what? There's a whole lot of people who actually do want a large scale space sim, they just didn't have any games on the market to spend money on to prove they existed.

A small team looking to make a game without needing to answer to a publisher or investors who may want to shape the game to their wishes? You can crowdfund to see if people actually want to play the game you want to make.

So that means the player puts more money into it.

20k people spend $20 a piece on a game after launch, paying off the games $400K budget.

20k people want to back a game at $20 a piece, cover the games $400k budget.

What is the difference in these two situations beyond when the money is given to the developers? I fail to see how players put more money into it in the second scenario compared to the first.

How is that not completely obvious?, and for a decent size company its a dream in profit.

Getting a game funded isn't profit...that's money that's being spent on the development. The money from the sales of the game after it's finished is profit. Just as the money that a developer earns after paying back a publisher/investor who funded the development of the game is profit.

It's literally identical.

Getting funding without even having to produce what is promised, and how exactly besides blogs would you know the developers intention?

...that's how every developer gets funding. They build/show off a prototype/show a plan, pitch it to developers/investors, and either get funding or don't. The same as crowdfunding. They build/show off a prototype/show a plan, pitch it to the "crowd", and either get funding or don't.

At least in a big company they have to produce the product because they where helped with funding, and somebody believed it was a good idea.

Most crowdfunding sites have clauses that developers need to do everything they can to produce the product using the money they earned (I know Kickstarter does), or they face possible legal action from backers.

Not to mention, taking the money and running is a terrible idea. Why take a small(ish) amount of money and leave, when you could create the product, earn profit from the sales after it's finished, and then continue on to develop more games? Taking the money and running is a short term gain, and it's something that thus far (at least in the gaming side of crowd funding) has been extremely rare.

If the backers think the game is a good idea, they back it. If they don't, they don't.

Just like publishers, you know?

So essentially rejected ideas then go kickstarter. That's even more of a red flag imo.

So Star Citizen is a "rejected" idea? Pillars of Eternity? Broken Age? Dreamfall: Chapters? Elite: Dangerous? Wasteland 2? Faster Than Light? The Banner Saga? Shadowrun Returns?

Those seem like a lot of games that wouldn't have normally gotten funding from publishers/investor or would have been heavily altered by them to fit a more "mainstream" appeal category, but have either 1. Seen huge interest from folks who have been happy to throw a ton of money behind them and/or 2. Successfully launched solid games that have been popular in their given niche (and beyond).

If I want to buy a game. I'll pay 50-60 dollars for the finished game.

And that's cool. Crowdfunding isn't for everyone. That doesn't mean that it, or the games that come out of it, are bad.

Dlc isn't always bad. A lot of times it is though. Some games seem to offer more game for a price, and im fine with that, but not when the dlc should have been included from the start.

Agreed. It can be good. It can be bad. So can...well...everything. Games can be good or bad. Expansions can be good or bad. Patches can be good or bad.

Then they can produce half finished products and gain more profit which is ultimately what kickstarters, and a lot of dlc does.

*source needed for this

Of course you have every right to view it as you do. I'm just going to have my ow opinion on it as well. I'm sure there's a couple of honest kick starters, but I can see the dishonest ones taking advantage of eager players.

Which dishonest ones? Are they a majority?

[Stonecloak]

Niche genres don't get a lot of investment. Want to make a tactical top down police shooter? Good luck finding a publisher who will fund it, but folks on Kickstarter/other crowdfunding sites may like the idea enough to fund it.

Want to make a large scale space sim? Well, there's no market for that right now, so publishers/investors aren't looking to dump money into such a risky venture. But crowdfunding? Hey, guess what? There's a whole lot of people who actually do want a large scale space sim, they just didn't have any games on the market to spend money on to prove they existed.

A small team looking to make a game without needing to answer to a publisher or investors who may want to shape the game to their wishes? You can crowdfund to see if people actually want to play the game you want to make.



20k people spend $20 a piece on a game after launch, paying off the games $400K budget.

20k people want to back a game at $20 a piece, cover the games $400k budget.

What is the difference in these two situations beyond when the money is given to the developers? I fail to see how players put more money into it in the second scenario compared to the first.



Getting a game funded isn't profit...that's money that's being spent on the development. The money from the sales of the game after it's finished is profit. Just as the money that a developer earns after paying back a publisher/investor who funded the development of the game is profit.

It's literally identical.



...that's how every developer gets funding. They build/show off a prototype/show a plan, pitch it to developers/investors, and either get funding or don't. The same as crowdfunding. They build/show off a prototype/show a plan, pitch it to the "crowd", and either get funding or don't.



Most crowdfunding sites have clauses that developers need to do everything they can to produce the product using the money they earned (I know Kickstarter does), or they face possible legal action from backers.

Not to mention, taking the money and running is a terrible idea. Why take a small(ish) amount of money and leave, when you could create the product, earn profit from the sales after it's finished, and then continue on to develop more games? Taking the money and running is a short term gain, and it's something that thus far (at least in the gaming side of crowd funding) has been extremely rare.

If the backers think the game is a good idea, they back it. If they don't, they don't.

Just like publishers, you know?



So Star Citizen is a "rejected" idea? Pillars of Eternity? Broken Age? Dreamfall: Chapters? Elite: Dangerous? Wasteland 2? Faster Than Light? The Banner Saga? Shadowrun Returns?

Those seem like a lot of games that wouldn't have normally gotten funding from publishers/investor or would have been heavily altered by them to fit a more "mainstream" appeal category, but have either 1. Seen huge interest from folks who have been happy to throw a ton of money behind them and/or 2. Successfully launched solid games that have been popular in their given niche (and beyond).



And that's cool. Crowdfunding isn't for everyone. That doesn't mean that it, or the games that come out of it, are bad.



Agreed. It can be good. It can be bad. So can...well...everything. Games can be good or bad. Expansions can be good or bad. Patches can be good or bad.



*source needed for this



Which dishonest ones? Are they a majority?

I don't really know what your trying to do. I can easily say let me see 100 percent valid sources that say kick starters are all honest, and companies never profit from them. Star citizen has been delayed a large amount of time. Your telling me they won't get more funding for it? I don't think your understanding my argument. I understand how they work. I just don't think it benefits the player at all. not a hard concept here. Player A pays 50 dollars for a game. Player B pays 100 dollars for development and then final product. which is better as a consumer? To me that's an easy answer.

I mean I guess if you trust a company a lot and are absolutely exited about their product then maybe I can see doing it. I still wouldn't though. I'm sure a couple of kick starters were successful, but even then you do not know if the kick starter was profitable. It very well could be unless you can provide evidence that it doesn't happen that's actually tangible.

[Edge-]

I can easily say let me see 100 percent valid sources that say kick starters are all honest, and companies never profit from them.

1. I never said all kickstarters are honest, because that's not true. There have been scams. However, they're in the extreme minority, otherwise the platform would not have the consumer confidence that it currently does.

2. Creators are legally obligated to do everything in their power to fulfill all backer rewards. That's not to say they can't overvalue their project and pocket some of the money, but that's entirely up to backers to back it to those levels. Remember, it's in the creators best interest to set an initial goal that's achievable, as Kickstarter is an "all or nothing" platform. If they don't meet the goal, they get no money. If they meet the goal and have no further stretch goals, then sure, the rest becomes money they can either pocket for the company or spend on their project. That's entirely up to backers, as many backers treat crowdfunding as "pre-ordering" rather than donating (which it's far more akin to).

Star citizen has been delayed a large amount of time. Your telling me they won't get more funding for it?

You're right, it's not uncommon for projects to be delayed, even with AAA games (see both Bloodbourne and Battlefield: Hardlines recent delays), that's the nature of game development. Delays happen.

I never said it wouldn't get more funding, though. They're continuing to crowdfund and expand the scope of the game through their website, that's why they're up to $70M. I don't see what's wrong with that, as folks are clearly still keen to get in early and help grow the games development. It's not as if the game is coming out all at once, it's being released in chunks to prevent the developers from being overwhelmed.

I just don't think it benefits the player at all. not a hard concept here. Player A pays 50 dollars for a game. Player B pays 100 dollars for development and then final product. which is better as a consumer?

Player A spends $50 on a finished AAA game, cool!

Player B spends $100 on backing a game that would have otherwise never been funded by developers, but they really wanted to play, getting the game as well as a bunch of other goodies (think along the lines of a collectors edition) for the additional money spent. So not only are they very likely getting what is the equivilent of a collectors edition, but they're helping ensure that a game that they want to play will get funded and created.

Remember, many of these games would never get funding from big publishers. Publishers aren't really interested in funding lots of small projects, they're looking for big money projects with big returns. That mean staying with "safe" games/genres. Crowdfunding has allowed for a ton of smaller games and games from genre's that aren't currently "big" to be created. And that's cool.

I mean I guess if you trust a company a lot and are absolutely exited about their product then maybe I can see doing it. I still wouldn't though.

The first bit is the big part. It's up to backers to research the teams behind the products they back. I've only funded a few games, but that's because I was totally confident in the teams making them. There are others I've wanted to fund but couldn't because I didn't have enough faith in the team. It's kinda like buying a game off the shelf without reading reviews. You're trusting that it's a good game, but you have no guarantees.

And if you wouldn't crowdfund projects, that's totally cool. It's not for everyone. But it's not inherently bad/flawed/sketchy, either.

I'm sure a couple of kick starters were successful, but even then you do not know if the kick starter was profitable.

Quite a few have been successful (or are very much on their way to being successful), actually. And as for profitable, remember, they don't have development costs to cover once the game is finished. Development costs are already covered, meaning that any money from post-launch sales will pretty much start going directly towards their profits (excluding things like paying for any PR/marketing they may have done before launch etc.)

[Deleted]

Yeah well I'm going to dual wield shields while I'm wearing 2 eye patches!

You must have a lot of vision.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think we will ever get to play it ourselves though. But I'm looking forward to the day their Kickstarter launches and the public starts to critisize it. And not just people from this thread, but also new people who just found out about it.

This already happened with the first Kickstarter. I pretty much gave up on the game actually being funded from that point onwards really, but I hung around because I liked the people and some of the forum discussions were interesting if you discount anything in the General Discussion section.

If there's one thing I've learned throughout my life, it's that no matter where you go or what you do, people don't change much, or at all. ToA may claim to be different, reinvented, and innovative, but all it really is now is different bones under the same skin. I'm sure Kickstarter critics are going to leap on the fact that ToA has already been a failed concept. The new stuff won't even matter. It will fail simply because it is still ToA.

[Deleted]

More generally on the topic of Kickstarters though, I think one of the biggest issues is that there are only very few large success stories. Sure, a lot of games have been funded, but it's only going to be later this year that many of the games funded a while back will be shipped. Obviously, some will be operating on shorter time frames and have been released in previous years, but the fact remains that, as far as I am aware at least, we have yet to see enough exclusively KS-funded blockbuster games to make defining statements about the platform's ability to deliver games of high quality.

Moreover, Kickstarter was not designed specifically to cater towards Video games, which is why I think occasionally games like ToA which to an unaccustomed eye might look like a convincing game are able to slip through their 'strict' protocols for being listed on the site. I have no doubt in my mind that this is what happened. This leads naturally to a question of responsibility; if hard enough evidence is shown that ToA is a Scam after it goes onto Kickstarter for a second time, who is responsible? Is it Kickstarter's internal division in charge of video game projects?

We know FC to be responsible for ToA to be developed, but to whom do we point for allowing ToA to happen? You're always going to have failures and gimmicks in the Entertainment industry, but if this is what you say it is, it cannot be tolerated.

[lawow74]

Remember the good old days? Where ToA Traffic was 80% Portuguese? =P

Yep. We provoked another OSHIT moment with them, when we pointed to irrefutable proof of them juking site metrics. Just like their psycho reactions to early 90's-quality screenshots and the overenthusiastic, perfect spelling 'community' posts their forums were sooo flooded with.

They're gonna do everything they can to clean up and fake they're a 'real' game, including their so-called preview articles on a 'real gaming site' like TTH. All to prepare for the next Kickstarter.

[Deleted]

Remember the good old days? Where ToA Traffic was 80% Portuguese? =P

Holy shit man. It's just perfectly clear that they messed with the traffic. It's so sad this is actually funny.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. We provoked another OSHIT moment with them, when we pointed to irrefutable proof of them juking site metrics. Just like their psycho reactions to early 90's-quality screenshots and the overenthusiastic, perfect spelling 'community' posts their forums were sooo flooded with.

They're gonna do everything they can to clean up and fake they're a 'real' game, including their so-called preview articles on a 'real gaming site' like TTH. All to prepare for the next Kickstarter.

Don't forget the big amount of game updates shortly before the Kickstarter. Waited weeks, maybe even months after their combat footage for new game updates. We didn't get any, only store uodates and dragon crap. Now we get atleast 1 update every week. Seems tactical to me.

Pretty sad actually. I'm trying to see behind everything they do that it's some wicked marketing scheme. I just don't trust it at all.