Why does the crowdfunding aspect of this have to exist? Square Enix is a huge company, they could easily implement a program to support and curate indie devs without thrusting all the financial risk onto the consumers.
If used responsibly and without excess, this is actually kind of a cool idea for a large company like Square/Eidos, with tons of older franchises and games people would like to see re-released/remade/revisited. Again, if done responsibly, this is a trend I'd like to see visited by other large publishers for the purposes of giving fans a single place to focus their efforts when trying to get the attention of said big publisher.
I think a lot of comments here regarding Square's library seem misguided - this has nothing to do with tapping their catalogue of IP's. They're just jumping into the Kickstarter pool and offering to be a quasi-independent auditor of ideas that will ensure the success of the ones that they feel have potential and public support. They certainly have the cachet to serve as that middle man from a public perception standpoint, but I wonder if they have enough experience with small games to effectively operate in the role of publisher.
@ll_exile_ll: Because these aren't games that would be developed internally by Square Enix. Developers just pitch to SE, and those deemed well thought enough are allowed to enter the crowdfunding phase. Square Enix is thus able to assist smaller developers without spending their own resources on development of these projects, and developers get more direct assistance in their planning and pitching than Kickstarter provides.
@ll_exile_ll: Because these aren't games that would be developed internally by Square Enix. Developers just pitch to SE, and those deemed well thought enough are allowed to enter the crowdfunding phase. Square Enix is thus able to assist smaller developers without spending their own resources on development of these projects, and developers get more direct assistance in their planning and pitching than Kickstarter provides.
But SE could still do a small developer outreach program and make their back catalog of IPs available to indie devs that have a good pitch, but instead of making the fans fund it they could do it themselves. Crowdfunding is supposed to be for small developers that can't get funding and/or publisher support, not for one of the biggest publishers in the industry to avoid taking financial risks on niche projects.
Are you just trying to bait me into an argument or do you really not understand why this initiative is, for lack of better word, on the unethical side?
They are abusing crowdfunding process. They have the money to fund these projects themselves, but know with the lower budget of these projects they can sucker their fans into funding it without taking on any of the risk. Like I said before, crowdfunding exists so small developers who can't get traditional funding can go directly to the consumers and bypass publishers.
I think it's good that Square Enix wants to work with small developers, but either go all the way or don't do it. This is is tainting what crowdfunidng is supposed to be, no better than the stories people like Brad Muir have told about dreadful pitch meetings with publishers where they want some sort of proof that the game will be a success.
They are basically saying "We want to work with small developers to bring out new kinds of games and explore our back catalog, but only if we don't have to personally shoulder any of the risk."
@ll_exile_ll: And how are you an expert on Square Enix's budget? What is crowdfunding "supposed" to be? It's certainly not the idealistic creative Nirvana that some mistakenly consider it.
@ll_exile_ll: And how are you an expert on Square Enix's budget? What is crowdfunding "supposed" to be? It's certainly not the idealistic creative Nirvana that some mistakenly consider it.
So they can spend so much on Tomb Raider that it's deemed a failure with 4 million copies sold, but they can't afford a small project with a budget of likely less than $1 million? You can't honestly be trying to assert that they can't afford to fund games of a kickstarter budget (like $250k to $1.5 million). And I have no idealistic notions about crowdfunding. There have been numerous cases of poor delivery and shady practices. This is one of them.
I really don't feel like continuing to talk to a wall, so either actually address what I'm saying and come up with a real counterpoint or just stop responding to me.
@ll_exile_ll: It's not what they can or can't afford, it's what projects they're willing and able to finance versus letting the community support directly. Kickstarter and crowdfunding in general aren't just for the little guy, and the little guy has badly fucked up on more than one occasion. Like that Takedown tactical shooter that turned into a clusterfuck. Or Double Fine stretching their money too thin and cutting Broken Age in two. Square Enix is offering an alternative. That's it.
Having an independent party vet the ability of the dev to deliver the product should hopefully give backers more protection from getting ripped off. Right now Kickstarter/indiegogo is really potentially vulnerable to scam pitches.
This is kind of the part I'm excited for with kickstarter, was to see this model move to larger things. People complain about EA mucking about the production of Mass Effect in order to juice a few more sales... But what if Casey Hudson went to the public and said 'we can make this AAA game that costs 30 million dollars with absolutely no corporate oversight if 500 thousand people pre-order it for 60 bucks". Would you do it?
According to Rockstar, GTA5 cost 280 million bucks. Let's assume that's about 200 in actual production costs and the rest for marketing and events and so forth (the real number is likely way higher). Could three and a half million people pre-order it for 60 bucks and bypass corporate interests entirely? Can there be a direct developer-consumer relationship that results in comfortable salaries for the developer and a satisfaction surplus for the consumer?
I'm curious as to why. The way I see it, only games desired by fans get made, so fans get what they want, the 3rd parties developing the games make some profit so they get what they want, and if Square makes money by allowing others to use their IPs, they can funnel it into more expensive "AAA" titles that fans also want (like, the next Final Fantasy, or Tomb Raider, or whatever). Everybody wins, right?
I'm a bit conflicted about it because it just seems like a kickstarter with less benefits because SE is slapping their name on it and i don't know if the dev will keep IP rights if making something new.
On the other hand it could bring new blood into making games and getting their name out there. It also could bring back some IPs that SE would not touch.We will see hopefully it will be a good thing but i would keep my expectations low on what comes of it.
Essentially this is the full scale change from games as product to games as service. It's a subtle difference, but it's the difference between buying a deck or a porch for your house, and paying a craftsman to build a deck for your house. The difference between selecting meals from a menu and hiring a chef to prepare pasta for you. Buying a painting, or hiring a painter.
It will probably cost the end user more, but it will also be more likely to give the end user exactly what they want. It's the middle step between the consumer merely selecting options that have already been created, and the consumer creating their own content for their own consumption ('if you want something done right, do it yourself').
Log in to comment