Developers cashing out before completion?

[republic]

Edit

[Jarhead0331]

IIRC y'all had lots of problems when it was first released but I'd agree its not what the thread topic is about.

Yes...definitely in poor shape at release. No question about it the release was a disaster, but the developer stuck with it and definitely made it into a really good game.

[James Sterrett]

For me, at any rate, the key is to go into these things thinking like an investor, not a purchaser.

Checking my stats on Kickstarter, I've backed 44 projects.  Quite a few of them failed to fund - the marking on the page is not always correct but my rough count from memory and spot checks is that around 10 fall into that category.  Of the remainder, 3 have fully delivered and around 20 are maintaining good commo with backers on progress, have improved playables out, or, in one case, I'm waiting for the product to arrive in the mail.  The rest have bad comms but have not yet broken their schedules.  Which does leave 10 I'm not sure of (and in all honesty they may be failed projects too).  :)

I try to figure out why I'm throwing money at a project, why I think it will come through (or why I don't care if it fails).  A playable demo goes a *long* way to convincing me that there will be a worthwhile final product. 

If you add pay-for-beta-access to the list, then I'd tank in another 3:  Minecraft, Kerbal Space Program, and Mount & Blade, all of which have been major addictions for me and cost me around $10 due to an early purchase.  I've gotten more gameplay out of each of them than some full price purchases.

So, overall, I'm quite a fan of this early access/Kickstarter thing....  but my expectations are set in accordance with the risks of the system.

[MIGMaster]

It really is a crap shoot - especially when you add in the fact gaming time is vaulable in today's fast- paced world. I really like supporting the little guys when possible but it really has to be a quality experience.

I would hate to be a small developer trying to develop something that'll keep gamers engaged and meet expectations with very miniscule resources.

[son_of_montfort]

Good point montfort.  I imagine those who preordered Sword of the Stars 2 feel even worse than I do,  Legends of Pegasus as well.

Sots2 doesn't belong in this thread. That game was finished and is quite good in my opinion.

Actually, they would have been better off releasing SOTS2 as an early access alpha (which is essential what they did release). They pretty much followed up on what some of these early access games never accomplish, turning a rough alpha into a nice finished product. Which reminds me, I need to sink some time into SOTS2.

Ted, I don't think that it is underhanded. I just think that many indie devs are overly ambitious and get flummoxed when trying to achieve these ambitions, even with the outpouring of funds given to them.

What is interesting is that some of these games get hundreds of thousands for games that take much less to develop. So the devs have to decide how they justify the excess. Sometimes, that leads to taking the wrong path towards unending development time.

[MengJiao]

I dont bother with that process.  if a dev cant make a game and complete it without my money then theres a problem somewhere with their business model IMO.

   I pretty much agree.  I don't mess with Kick-starter.  On the other hand, I've played some fine Alpha/early access games on Steam.  ARMAIII was a lot of fun in the Alpha as was Sir, you are being hunted and TAke on Mars.

   Plus, you have to wonder about someboby's reputation if they are using it to raise money on Kick-starter.  If their rep is so good, why can't they raise money off of venture capital or something?

   Though on yet another hand -- I would have put money into Battle of Stalingrad except that I wanted to play some other flight sims before they were superceeded by BoS (CLOD and now DCS).