By Alec Meer on April 23rd, 2012 at 4:30 pm.
Be it Kickstarter, be it IndieGoGo, be it whatever new flavour of eBusking comes to pass, crowdsourced funding of indie games’ development is a remarkable and wonderful addition to this ever-changing industry. It will lead to great things, I am quite sure. But it does present a number of issues for the media – or at least for this particular site, whose loose remit is ‘post about what we’re personally interested in.’ Lately, that comes with an additional responsibility.
1) If we post about a Kickstarter project, we’re essentially implying our readers should donate to it. Everyone makes their own spending decision based on their own feelings and research of course – but it can still be the case that for many of our revered readership, the deal wasn’t even on the table until it appeared here.
2) Without having played the game(s) in question, and most likely without seeing anything meangingful of it for many months to come, we can’t attest to that project’s quality, to the likelihood of the results being as described, or of it even coming to pass at all. This is why ‘celebrity’ KS projects tend to get covered more frequently here – the odds of a big name pulling off what they promise would seem to be much higher than an apparent unknown living up to their claims.
3) We receive several emails about new KS projects each and every day. That’s on top of all the mails about other indie projects, and mainstream press releases, and updates to MMOs and F2p games and and and. We can barely read about them all, let alone post about them all – and, even more crucially, let alone post about them from an suitably educated position that ensures we’re doing our duty to you guys.
4) If we do post about one, that might well be instead of posting about another KS project – or an already existent indie game that you could pay for (or not) and play right now, rather than months or years down the line.
5) Occasionally an indie or KS-funded game leverages its community to mass-mail us in the hope of posting about it. As well as being a practical complication to doing our jobs (imagine if your inbox suddenly filled with essentially the same message, dozens or hundreds of times over), it presents a huge moral dilemma. Some might argue that it’s passion at play and deserves coverage as a result. I’d argue that’s mob rule – so if we post about it, we’re posting about it for the wrong reasons, because we’ve been battered into submission rather than because we’re enthusiastic about it. If a big publisher did similar, and if we posted as a result, it would be a scandal.
6)This sounds horrifically arrogant, but the extent of RPS’ reach means that we can potentially alter the fortunes of KS projects we do post about. That’s a frightening responsibility as much as it is an exciting one.
The golden ideal, of course, is getting to play some aspect of Kickstarted games before we decide whether to post. Trouble is Kickstarter basically exists to fund games that don’t. Though even that’s changing – we’re seeing more and more projects that are already significantly into development but opt to switch to crowdsourced funding, and that presents a whole new dilemma. Support projects that already have money, or those that don’t.
So, while we do have plenty of our own ideas about how to approach the crowdsourced revolution, I’d like to open it up to the floor. What are your requirements for placing your faith in a KS project? How do you feel about our covering stuff of lesser or non-existent heritage? Should an ambitious but unproven KS game from an ambitious but unproven dev be posted about at, potentially, the expense of an indie game that’s already on sale (edit – I mean this in mean in terms of the quantity of games we can physically, as mere mortals, hear about, research, in ideal circumstances play and then post about in a given day/week/month/lifetime)? How much information should we track down on a KS project before we cover it?
Again, our decisions will be ultimately our own and, as with the Kickstarter stuff itself, mob rule won’t force our hand, but I am very interested in what those outside the gaming press feel are the essential factors and best practices in this brave new world of paying for a game before it exists.
23/04/2012 at 16:34 andrewi31 says:
“Should an ambitious KS game be posted about at the expense of an indie game that’s already on sale?” I don’t understand why this would even be a possibility.
23/04/2012 at 16:43 SpinalJack says:
Because there are only so many hours in a day and also stories need to fit the standard of the RPS website. They have to pick the stories to run.
23/04/2012 at 17:07 Torn says:
I think RPS should report on interesting kickstarters, but only ones that would stand a chance of doing well without RPS linking to them. Maybe let momentum build for a while first.
There are huge numbers of kickstarter projects that are doomed never to go anywhere. I’ve personally seen projects asking for huge amounts of money, promising the earth, and then when you dig deeper it’s one self-professed “ideas person” who has no coding experience. Yeah.
I thought this article “dragged kickstarting and screaming” was almost spot on (apart from the Wasteland 2 project which I’m sure will succeed, but the author’s reasoning is sound): http://odiousrepeater.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/dragged-kickstarting-and-screaming/
It’s probably good to come up with some requirements for RPS coverage:
* If they have a workable game or something significant to show already (like the Faster Than Light project)
* If they are an already-established company with enough people to pull it off, or a team of industry vets that know what they’re doing (Double Fine, InExile, etc)
* If their plan (the nitty-gritty) is sufficiently detailed and shows an understanding of the processes and costs involved, where the money will go, which features are core and which are ‘nice to have’ that may be added if funding reaches another milestone.
* Listing fancy ideas as ‘features’ with nothing to back them up should set off alarm bells. Again, leniency to all of the above if they are people with proven track records of delivering / knowing how to staff-up video game projects.
As to ‘when will the first kickstarter videogames project fail?’ question people are starting to wake up to – I think it has already happened. There are a number of video game projects who have got their funding in 2009-2011 yet have still not launched or produced anything worthwhile.
Personal opinion while I have the soapbox: the following fairly high-profile projects just scream ‘dodgy’ to me and I wouldn’t want to risk putting money on them:
* The Lingering Dead
* Echoes of Eternia
* Your World
23/04/2012 at 17:35 gulag says:
I’m glad someone got in here early and laid the above thoughts out so clearly. I couldn’t agree more. RPS would be losing out if it didn’t cover the KS explosion/bubble, but not every KS funded game is worthy of coverage before it has ticked some or all of the boxes above.
23/04/2012 at 18:12 Belsameth says:
This, basically…
23/04/2012 at 18:25 Arjent says:
Totally agree here. That is the journalistic responsibility; investigate these products/producers before telling us about how great they are. Obviously we know you’ll be wrong sometimes, but a Kickstarter roundup with a little sifting and culling would be great. They should definitely be able to provide you a demo/video of gameplay before it’s reasonable to talk about it in an article.
23/04/2012 at 18:29 Mr-Link says:
I am not sure I agree with all these points, because its the projects that dont have a “workable game” that are the ones who usually the most in need of support/recognition. For example if we follow those points then we would never have heard about something like Takedown which was indeed posted about here and was the reason for me to support them.
But you are right though, there is something to be said for establishing a bare minimum for KS projects, and hopefully in the near future every project worth its salt will have something to show for before asking for money.
In the mean time I think the best thing for RPS to do is have a sort of round up feature once a week or once every two weeks just to post about the new/interesting KS projects out there. It should involve only minimum writing from RPS staff and simply copy past the project summary in the devs words and a link to it, perhaps with a disclaimer in the beginning of the article that it is “guilt free” and rps is not officially supporting those projects in any way. Only the projects that satisfy the minimum conditions and it is actually interesting for the RPS staffers get their own post, which I believe is pretty much whats happening now anyways.
23/04/2012 at 19:16 Torn says:
Well the Takedown guys were industry vets, so at least likely worth considering reporting on. However I personally think their whole campaign approach seems dodgy.
They won’t even have a finished product after climbing down from a $2million ask (or however high) to their $200k target. It’ll be an alpha after which they’re going to try and find VC capital, or – here’s betting – another huge kickstarter round to finish the game.
23/04/2012 at 18:51 Angron41 says:
I completely agree, I would just add that I would like RPS to make sure and have an interview of some kind (even over email) with the creators before posting in order to verify their credentials (as others have said earlier) and in general get a feeling for the project and its future. I just also want to say I appreciate RPS asking its readers to chip in on important stuff like this.
23/04/2012 at 19:07 mercenary-games says:
We also agree.
“Prototypes, or GTFO.” should be what’s demanded of Kickstarters.
It’s hard to see powerpoint decks and personality displays all the time.
23/04/2012 at 19:32 Salix says:
I think if someone already has the reputation then a prototype is not necessarily needed, but otherwise I completely agree with those points.
23/04/2012 at 22:34 JFS says:
Prototypes, or at least screenshots/videos. Or, in the odd case, report it if it’s done by a known and reputable company/name. Basically, what Torn said.
24/04/2012 at 03:12 opmnxb says:
I would say make it weekly instead of monthly. Something like Cardboard children, mod news, or sunday papers. Maybe even get someone else to do it. It would be neat if there was an ongoing thread, so you could vicariously see how kickstarters are doing.
SD HC SDHC Speicherkarte! 8GB US $ 20,25 http://777.sk/1764
24/04/2012 at 11:13 Optimaximal says:
Wow, that’s some subtle spam!
24/04/2012 at 11:36 muskieratboi says:
Obligatory XKCD post: http://xkcd.com/810/
25/04/2012 at 05:14 emertonom says:
It’s not as subtle as you might think–it’s a trick spambots have been using lately which takes advantage of the structure of threaded comment pages like this. It scans past the first top-level comment or two, and finds a response to a subsequent top-level comment. It takes the text of that comment, appends the spam text and link, and posts it as a reply to a *previous top-level comment*. The result is that in your reading order, the spam comment tends to show up before the real comment, but the real comment was actually posted earlier. The natural text makes it harder to spot as spam just by content, and the contextual semi-relevance makes it more likely that users will read the comment. The tendency of users to quote one another (legitimately) also makes it somewhat challenging to write an automated filter.
It’s not AI, but it is devious. Spambot arms race!
23/04/2012 at 19:21 Zeewolf says:
I don’t quite get why it’s a dilemma to begin with. Thing is RPS posts about things they’re interested in. If they’re normal core gamer types, which they seem to be, then there will automatically be a bunch of Kickstarters they’ll be interested in over the course of a typical month. So the obvious solution is to post about Kickstarters that seem interesting and not post about Kickstarters that don’t. Sometimes the obvious solution is actually also the best one.
I’d also like to point out that RPS posts about rumours of unannounced games, they post about game announcements, cinematic trailers and a bunch of other things where they have absolutely no idea of the quality of the finished product (if there is any). And that’s a good thing. I come here partly to read news, and that is news. Just like a new Kickstarter by Jane Jensen or Shadowrun or the Tex Murphy guys is news. I’d feel that RPS weren’t doing their jobs if they neglected to tell me about these things – and no, I know it’s not up to me to say what their jobs is, but as a reader I come here with the expectation that if there is anything interesting happening in the world of PC games, RPS will try to tell me about it.
23/04/2012 at 21:04 Czechton says:
These are very much my thoughts as well. If the writers are interested in the Kickstarter then they can write an article about why they are interested just like they do for any other snippet of news or small indie project they pick up on. If this seems like too loose of a definition then the writers could perhaps just post about Kickstarters that they themselves have actually donated to and essentially just explain why they have done so.
As one of the other commenters said, a round up could be done every week or two. I suppose this would end up being much like Mod News.
23/04/2012 at 21:30 Deston says:
Very well put Zeewolf – this is exactly my take too.
@ Alec / RPS – clearly one of the big reasons this site works so well is exactly because you post highly enjoyable articles on what interests you, and broadly that tends to align with what a lot of your readership is interested in. It’s why we are here.
I can understand why you have some concern over covering these potentially vaporous Kickstarter projects, but if you spot one that stands out from the crowd or is something you think is worth a mention or a discussion, you should go ahead and post it and make no apologies to anyone for doing so. Whether readers choose to read, ignore, or base major life decisions on it is really down to them and them alone.
I’ve never viewed RPS as a consumerist site here to inform and protect our wallets – though granted there may be elements of it with stuff like Lewie’s excellent bargain bins and Steam sale coverage. But it’s not about “product reviews” or how / where our money can best be spent. First and foremost, it’s always been about games, gaming, gamers and the industry as a whole…
Please don’t change that.
23/04/2012 at 22:30 Ragnar says:
I agree with the above. Post about projects that are interesting to RPS.
Just like with a game review, it’s ultimately up to me to read through everything and make a decision of what is and is not worth my money.
23/04/2012 at 16:52 ffs_jay says:
I think if you’re pushing the promise of something interesting over something that’s actually out there, things have gone terribly wrong somewhere. Besides that, I feel the average indie dev is far more in need of coverage than anyone already known and respected enough to qualify for a kickstarter post on here.
I have no problem with any amount of kickstarter posts, as long as they aren’t eclipsing anything else, especially the little stuff. Some of my best gaming memories of late have been with those little things I’d never had heard of if it hadn’t been for places like RPS.
Full disclosure – I am kind of an upstart indie dev wannabe who’s currently a fairly unknown quantity, so of course this is a pretty skewed perspective.
23/04/2012 at 18:59 mercenary-games says:
The discussion needs to split the two categories :
“advertising and support” for finished products.
debate and criticism for Kickstarter projects.
23/04/2012 at 16:34 Jason Lefkowitz says:
Dear God, no. Anyone can set out to do anything; ambition is cheap. Execution is priceless. I would much rather hear about something that someone has actually accomplished than about castles in the sky.
Since Kickstarter doesn’t investigate the veracity of project creators’ claims of competence and doesn’t verify that project creators are who they say they are, I would say that at a minimum I would expect RPS to vet the project journalistically before covering it. In other words, confirm that the person/people behind the project really are who they claim to be, and that the information they’ve put forward to demonstrate their competence is authentic — that they really did work on previous titles they claim to, they really did create other objects/artifacts they present as prior works or proofs-of-concept, they really do hold any degrees, certifications, or prior employment experience they put next to their name, etc.
This would be valuable regardless of how high- or low-profile the project creator is; if there’s a Kickstarter set up in the name of Will Wright, for instance, it would be a valuable service to confirm that the Will Wright is actually the person behind it.
23/04/2012 at 16:42 Guvornator says:
Yes. This +1. Unless you fellows think there is a good chance of that ambition making it to the game intact.
23/04/2012 at 16:49 Lord Byte says:
This is pretty much the bare minimum! It’s good that RPS and PAR are wondering about the caveat of kickstarters, more sites should do this before actual decent projects get ruined because too many people get burned on loads of horse manure.
Probably because a lot haven’t really been in the post-half-life modding revolution (where a new mod was posted about every 5 minutes, while 99,9% never even made it to a working alpha (I’ve burned many hours working on assets or code that never really got anywhere because the “projectleaders” had more ideas than competence).
23/04/2012 at 16:50 Advanced Assault Hippo says:
Agreed, pretty much.
An RPS journalist is going to have to do a fair bit of research on each individual KS project in my opinion, before even contemplating writing an article. To ensure you don’t fill the wrong coffers through a huge misjudgement on your part.
At the moment, Kickstarter is woefully young and immature. There needs to be more transparency to proceedings before I even consider giving one penny to any of them.
23/04/2012 at 17:03 Simon Hawthorne says:
Wow. I had heard (from where? who knows?!) that Kickstarter actually DID look into projects before putting them on their website. I thought that was really good of them at the time, but must involve a lot of work. This needs to be more widely known.
23/04/2012 at 17:07 Crimsoneer says:
I don’t think RPS should be “vetting” anybody. You CAN’T vet KS projects. There is no actual way of checking anything – people seem to forget that, but it’s true.
23/04/2012 at 17:59 Jason Lefkowitz says:
But you can vet the people behind them, and the statements about them those people make, was my point.
Will this result in the ability to unerringly predict which Kickstarters will succeed and which will fail? Nope. But it would almost certainly improve your accuracy at such predictions.
23/04/2012 at 20:57 pertusaria says:
I agree with this. Some kind of demo or proof of concept would also be nice, and I personally would need that before I paid money, but I wouldn’t want to make it a hard and fast rule for the whole site (since it hasn’t been one so far, and I haven’t had a problem with that).
I’m too poor / cautious to have committed money to any of the Kickstarters so far, and there are too many games I haven’t played (e.g. while Banner Saga sounds lovely, I should probably play King of Dragon Pass before I get excited). However, I have spent money on the advice of this site before. If I’m ever unhappy with the result, I reckon it’s my fault for getting carried away. With regard to unfinished projects, the site’s always been careful to stress that you can’t guarantee completion, or completion to any standard.
Kickstarter is in its infancy. I think it’s great that you’re trying to work out what to do about it rather than just muddling along, but I also think it’ll get a lot easier to do in the next few months. People will start learning what an achievable dream looks like in this field, just like studios and venture capital had to do (in cases where they didn’t just play it incredibly safe).
Cheers RPS!
23/04/2012 at 16:35 Alexander Norris says:
If it looks promising* and you have reasonable expectations that the money will actually go to funding the game and that the game will be released, you should post about it!
* particularly good or particularly clever or liable to change gaming for the better or just plain interesting.
Also,
Isn’t this a false dilemma?
23/04/2012 at 16:59 El_Spartin says:
It would be if they were running out of stories to run, what that is essentially saying is “There is one spot open on day X to have a story, and we think A KS-Game or an indie game that already exists should fill it, which one should it be?”
23/04/2012 at 17:00 RagingLion says:
I agree. There should be the potential for someone unheard of to get coverage if it is particularly clever or novel a concept and interests the Hivemind. For someone unheard of preferably they will already have ample material available to judge their in-progress work ala FTL. Hopefully people will get used to Kickstarter soon and the system will self-regulate anyway so that all those with more to prove will realise this and only go to Kickstarter once they have something of real substance to show.
Having just one weekly post that updates on all current interesting Kickstarter projects as RPS has already done once might be a good idea to avoid lots of unneccessary posts with only the really interesting or deserving ones being giving their own posts.
23/04/2012 at 18:57 mercenary-games says:
We propose a different route for Kickstarter projects.
They need to be debated, not adored.
So far, the current media stream just shows adoration for the amount of fuel gathered for any project.
There’s too much pies-in-the-sky attitudes.
Debate needs to be sparked. Criticism needs to fly.
And you can’t debate a project if they are going to be ignored.
23/04/2012 at 16:35 mrsamsa says:
I hadn’t really been on board for kickstarter until I saw Grim Dawn. I knew about the game, and was excited for it before the KS, but I still think they did KS right, for me to want to support it. They showed they have a lot developed, that they self-funded it, and that the KS funds would make the game better, faster, and stronger.
23/04/2012 at 16:36 suibhne says:
Not comprehensive, I know, but I’d suggest two criteria: KS projects that are newsworthy because of who’s involved (Double Fine, Tim Fargo, ex-Iron Lore, etc.), and KS projects that are newsworthy because of what they’re trying to do (much harder to pin this down).
You’re a news/commentary/analysis site – mostly not an advocacy site. Be led by newsworthiness, not whether a specific project just looks interesting.
24/04/2012 at 14:54 yougurt87 says:
Although I agree with both of your criteria, I think in particular the ambitious one should be met with skepticism, and they should only report on projects that actually seem viable. ex: Your World
There are so many things wrong with this, that scream don’t donate to this. The lack of professionalism, lack of any proof of concept, and last I checked he only has one single person working for him (according to Ellwood.) However, what he promises is very ambitious. The dilemma here becomes that they shouldn’t write about it, because like Alec said, even a negative review will affect that kickstarter. Just because I might find it a waste of money, doesn’t mean everyone will.
23/04/2012 at 16:37 Armagetiton says:
In response to not being able to post about them all, why not make say a monthly post featuring ALL of the interesting kickstarter projects? Just make one post, and list them all there.
23/04/2012 at 16:41 Brun says:
I like this approach. You can make it weekly if you’re finding volume is high enough to include 5-7 Kickstarter announcements per week. Otherwise make it biweekly or monthly.
If you guys find a Kickstarter that’s truly unique, revolutionary, or otherwise special, you can give it its own article. But really, cases like that should be awesome games that just happen to be funded by Kickstarter (in which case you’d be posting them regardless of funding source), not Kickstarter games that you think are awesome.
I’m sure the Kickstarter stuff is a great way to fill up the site on slow news days, but I’d rather there be fewer articles about it.
23/04/2012 at 16:49 Ninja Foodstuff says:
How would this be better than just having a link to http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/games
23/04/2012 at 16:53 Hoaxfish says:
While I agree you can get a lot from the “discover” thing on Kickstarter itself, it’s kinda “blunt” in terms of navigation with just a list of everything going (even if you just go to “Video Game” subsection it still includes iOS only games).
Also, I’m not sure there is a “all” section, since I can only see staff picks, popular this week, recently successful, and most funded (I generally use popular this week).
23/04/2012 at 17:09 phlebas says:
The “popular this week” section is the “all” section. Click through and you can see all projects in the category ordered from most to least popular. Would you prefer them ordered by start date/finish date/target amount? Bad luck.
23/04/2012 at 16:56 Brun says:
Because this passes it through the filter of Castle Shotgun and its residents, whose esteemed gaming palettes are the stuff of legend.
23/04/2012 at 17:52 Burning Man says:
Also no we are not lazy in investigating these games ourselves STOP IMPLYING IT
23/04/2012 at 16:50 Hoaxfish says:
Yep, I support this approach… all-in-one. Maybe a split in coverage between “new” kickstarters (i.e. these are new, we haven’t mentioned them before, initial video/pitch), and kickstarter “updates” (we have mentioned these before, here are their new changes like additional backer goals, bulletpoints of changes since last covered, etc).
23/04/2012 at 17:11 xsikal says:
I’d suggest making it weekly instead of monthly, but otherwise, I agree…
I’d like to see a single post each week summarizing the new kickstarters for that week which RPS finds interesting, as well as any updates to existing kickstarters which seem worthy of mention.
This would both keep the newsfeed from being overrun by kickstarter coverage and provide a standard for where and when that coverage could be found.
23/04/2012 at 17:35 Jim Dandy says:
I was thinking along these lines too. A brief monthly round-up of the interesting projects in the arena with no critical content and implied caveats. You could even use kickstarter-logic to determine the stories you cover critically or with more detail; ie poll the readers on the monthly round-up then cover the winners, which is pleasingly recursive.
23/04/2012 at 17:52 rlr149 says:
this.
23/04/2012 at 18:19 LintMan says:
I don’t like the weekly/monthly “roundup” idea very much. Multiple projects limped into one article means far less time looking into and discussing each one. This seems like the worst of both worlds: the implicit endorsement by RPS remains, but now with more shallow coverage/scrutiny. Yay?
My take: RPS should cover “newsworthy” KS projects. What’s “newsworthy”? Well, use the mostly same criteria as for othe rnews posts. Would a new retro-legendary game announced by Tim Schafer or Brian Fargo be news? Yes, very likely. Would a cool gameplay trailer/demo of a game in development by a small indie startup like the FTL guys be news? Yes likely. Would some unknown guys with a cool big ideas but nothing to show for it yet be news? No, not really.
The other thing RPS maybe should do with KS stories is be up front in saying if any of them have donated, Or maybe try to explicitly emphasize that the article is NOT an endorsement.
23/04/2012 at 18:27 Arvind says:
This is the best idea, especially with the sheer number of the kickstarter projects popping up. Maybe make it bi-weekly, since most of them have a time limit of 30-ish days.
23/04/2012 at 18:49 InternetBatman says:
I would say make it weekly instead of monthly. Something like Cardboard children, mod news, or sunday papers. Maybe even get someone else to do it. It would be neat if there was an ongoing thread, so you could vicariously see how kickstarters are doing.
24/04/2012 at 00:32 Shortwave says:
I also agree that a MONTHLY round up of kick-starters done without bias, up to user digression is very likely the best way you guys could go about it. Honestly, I get annoyed when I see a lot of kick-starter articles but sure, I’m still willing to take a glance but usually I feel like this is just a new trend which seems to reflect the world of per-purchasing. Which I’ve now learned is usually quite regrettable and will only break my moral on it if it’s been done by a company which I feel has been honest and met up to their expectations in past game, just as a kickstarter NEEDS to show me that they can be trusted and actually know what they are doing without giving out false promises or pipe dreams. But I find kickstarters even worse since there’s usually no proof of concept or created by someone I’ve never even heard of. I actually don’t think it’s ethical to even ask for a penny unless you at least have something worth showing, pre-alpha raw as hell, I don’t care honestly BUT something more than a ramble and a plee needs to be accomplished. There also needs to be some form of actual legal guarantee that if the project fails I’ll be getting my money BACK without a single bit of hassle. (Honestly not sure if this is a standard but…It must be??) But I dunno, I might be a bit extreme but I just hate paying for something that doesn’t even exist yet. : / I’m willing to look, and to change my opinion. Much like theres never been a single MMO I’ve ever liked, yet’ I HAVE tried every single one ever released for at least an hour.. Ha.
23/04/2012 at 16:37 timmyvos says:
In my opinion Kickstarter could be a great way for the indie community to flourish, but nevertheless I have not backed a single project. It’s too likely that the goals aren’t met, the quality is lower than expected, that the funding isn’t enough and it gets cancelled before the release or that it’s some kind of scam and they make off with my money. Maybe if they release some actual footage or gameplay I might think about buying it, but only when I can start to play it immediately.
23/04/2012 at 19:12 mercenary-games says:
Kickstarter projects do prove themselves with prototypes, this link goes to ours.
We do respect this caution, and we back it up by providing potential patrons with something they can already see.
24/04/2012 at 11:37 Shortwave says:
I hate to say this, I didn’t want to but it’s bugging me.
Is it really necessary to continue linking your project like this?
I’m sorry but I noticed you do this in a few comments and it’s very unprofessional.
And the condition of your website is not helping at all, it’s a huge mess. No offense.
Simplicity is your friend. Get to the point, show us what you have and stand back.
It’s just overwhelming and a total eye sore.
I really hope I’m not coming off as rude and being uncalled for.
I just think you’re going about this the wrong way right now.
It’s generally seen as very annoying to simply inject your links like that online.
When anyone does it, in any situation where it’s not requested.
But honestly, good luck with your project. It does seem interesting.
I will check back on it and see how it’s progressing.
And sorry if I come off as a jerk, not my intention.
Good luck guys.
23/04/2012 at 16:39 bobbobob says:
I prefer to read RPS’s comments, features and opinions on things they already know about, rather than just guesses and concept art. Some of the big kickstarters are ‘news’ and should be covered as such, but it’d swamp the site with pipe-dreams if you covered every fan project, community remake and kickstarter there was.
How about some kind of round up, like the Bargain Bucket?
23/04/2012 at 16:46 DrScuttles says:
…..”Kick the Bucket“?
A (semi) regular feature does seem like the fairest way to go. Maybe dedicate time to ones that are more interesting stories.
23/04/2012 at 16:49 bobbobob says:
It HAS to be called ‘Kick the Bucket’!!
23/04/2012 at 17:00 ffs_jay says:
Perfect :)
23/04/2012 at 17:04 Lord Custard Smingleigh says:
It’s decided then. Get to it, RPS. Your masters have spoken!
23/04/2012 at 17:14 frenz0rz says:
I am in favour of this. Make it so!
23/04/2012 at 17:21 Hoaxfish says:
I don’t know… we don’t want to get too much bucket-themeing.
I’d like to suggest “Start Kicking” or “Teenage Kicks”
Though actually that presumes coverage of Kickstarter only… and not the other competing sites.
23/04/2012 at 17:48 Phantoon says:
I’m a fan of Lewie P working more for any reason.
23/04/2012 at 18:04 TheWhippetLord says:
This pleases me.
24/04/2012 at 07:44 LionsPhil says:
I approve of this in its entirety.
23/04/2012 at 16:39 SAeN says:
I refuse to back a kickstarter unless they can clearly demonstrate what they are trying to make. And they must explain how the sum of money they claim to need was decided upon, and how it will be used. I’d have enough faith to back a project given that information.
23/04/2012 at 19:04 mercenary-games says:
Agreed.
Speaking from our own project, we already have prototypes ready for download.
Some projects that simply have a powerpoint deck and a pitch are missing out on a good opportunity; test the concept with the audience.
23/04/2012 at 16:40 BrightCandle says:
Kickstarter makes the relationship between investor and company quite muddy. Right now they are offering the product + other bits as part of the offering, but realistically investors should be profit sharing when it comes to games. When its a production run of some t-shirt its a bit different, but developing the game and funding it is the design process not production of an actual product and thus the investor is taking on more risk.
I would rather you cover real games that we can play imminently than Kickstarter projects. I think we will all get tired of hearing about projects we can preorder so far ahead its not even an egg yet with all the promise in the world but 0 delivery. Its easy to talk about a good game, much harder to develop one.
23/04/2012 at 16:57 bottleHeD says:
Return-on-investments is explicitly prohibited under KickStarter’s rules – http://www.kickstarter.com/help/guidelines
23/04/2012 at 17:10 Hoaxfish says:
There is at least one alternate to kickstarter which does support the investor-return idea… apart from it being based in Norway I can’t remember the details, or find the article I initially read about it in.
23/04/2012 at 18:49 soco says:
@BrightCandle: “Kickstarter makes the relationship between investor and company quite muddy. Right now they are offering the product + other bits as part of the offering, but realistically investors should be profit sharing when it comes to games. ”
This is why they chose the term “Backer” and not “Investor”. Kickstarter is not investing, it is an extended pre-order. There is no expectation for profit sharing, and would be illegal to approach it in that manner in some countries.
Their model is set up so that it is effectively an online store for things that won’t exist unless a bunch of people pre-order them.
23/04/2012 at 18:50 InternetBatman says:
You’re not investing when you donate to a kickstarter. You’re making a sight unseen purchase.
23/04/2012 at 18:56 Jason Lefkowitz says:
You will notice if you browse through the site enough that Kickstarter scrupulously avoids using the words investor or investment. (They prefer words like backer and pledge.) Companies that offer investment opportunities are subject to all sorts of regulations that Kickstarter would prefer not to have to deal with, so they take great care to present themselves as offering something that (whatever it may be) is not an “investment.”
Similarly, they explicitly prohibit offering “Financial incentives (ownership, share of profits, repayment/loans, etc)” in exchange for pledges — if you could sell equity in a corporation in exchange for Kickstarter pledges, that would make those pledges dangerously investment-like.
23/04/2012 at 19:27 Soon says:
I suppose anybody who seriously wants to invest could get in touch and make a proposal external to Kickstarter. I imagine mixing both forms of funding would put a lot of people off, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it exploited this way.
23/04/2012 at 16:41 Meat Circus says:
I think the RPS Hive Mind should satisfy itself that the project in question stands a reasonable chance of delivering, before drawing attention to it.
Beyond that? Stick to the interesting new concepts, and old ideas being given new life,
23/04/2012 at 16:43 Luringen says:
I don’t back anything without knowing they can pull it off. I want proof, either it’s tech videos proving they have some foundations of the game ready, or a demo.
23/04/2012 at 16:45 TheCze says:
I think the best thing would be a regular feature on new and interesting kickstarter projects
23/04/2012 at 16:46 JohnB says:
I vote no Kickstarter projects. BrightCandle is right, and I would rather see games that someone was so motivated to make that they did it without begging for money first. That’s passion. I stopped being interested in Kickstarter projects after the Star Command guys showed how they mismanaged their funds and ended up with nothing. If someone wants to make a game, they’ll do it. I want to give money as a reward for a good job, not for a poster and a bunch of concept art.
23/04/2012 at 16:48 Lewie Procter says:
I have no idea why anyone who is serious about making a game, and wants funding via crowdsourcing, wouldn’t knock together a playable prototype before asking for money.
Even if it is totally rough, and has programmer art, I’d be much more willing to fork over cash to something I can already try an early version of.
23/04/2012 at 17:08 RobF says:
Yes. Boggles the mind that isn’t a default setting for people.
23/04/2012 at 17:31 Brise Bonbons says:
Exactly so. It seems like making an early build available has been key to the success of many projects, Minecraft being the prime example. If you’re asking for people to put money up on faith, the least you can do is put some of your time on the line to knock out a proof of concept.
Having a reputation in the industry is great and all, but it shouldn’t be a free pass for developers to ask for our help entirely risk-free. Nor should we be in a position where we only fund “sure fire” projects run by authoritative creators of old, or the Kickstarting system risks becoming just as stale and conservative as the corporate publishers.
“Kickstarter: For the times you want regurgitated games of an older, more refined vintage”. < I don't want to live in that world.
23/04/2012 at 18:37 Lemming says:
Alot of them have more than just programmer art. I’ve seen plenty with videos of alpha footage, and that should be the minimum for getting coverage, IMO. Nice simple line.
23/04/2012 at 18:48 mercenary-games says:
We at Mercenary Games demand a new form of Kickstarting.
“Prototypes, or GTFO.”
We don’t try to sell personality, and we dare to prove ourselves.
We don’t criticize the veterans for simply putting a pitch, they deserve it.
But, if a new developer goes out there, and tries to roll with pure personality points, plus powerpoint decks.
We call BULLSHIT.
We prove this with our own project. We have very rough prototypes out, and we need criticism and debate. We don’t ask for handouts, but we do ask for a smarter audience with a critical eye.
23/04/2012 at 18:56 InternetBatman says:
I agree with you on principal, but I think that’s much harder for larger projects. Larger ones require larger teams to merely get the alpha right, and that requires a lot of operating cash. I’m pretty sure Tim Schaefer went the kickstarter route because Doublefine didn’t have that kind of cash.
It’s a tricky balance, and I’m not quite sure what the right answer is. Out of the three games I’ve funded (Doublefine, Wasteland, Shadowrun), I’m only sure about Doublefine’s ability to make a good game.
Also, I think programmer art normally looks like crap and it makes it less likely they’ll get funding. It gives a bad first impression and I get the feeling that a lot of Kickstarter is about first impressions.
23/04/2012 at 20:48 Brise Bonbons says:
That is a valid issue, but I think established companies should take on some risk as balance to that taken by the backers.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll probably back Shadowrun, since it seems like they could still use a bit more money, I like the IP, and they seem to have an interesting spin on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward genre. I didn’t for Wasteland 2, because I felt like they had enough cash to work with by the end, and my limited funds were best spent on other kickstarters, or games that are playable and deserve support (Crusader Kings 2 being at the top of my list, but a donation to Dwarf Fortress or a pre-order of Xenonauts would work too).
I think there’s an important point in that fact. There are a lot of subtle forces at play here, and few black and white absolutes. A great concept with an unknown team that’s trying to flesh out a mostly-complete product, could fairly be held to different standards than an “allstar” team asking for large amounts of money to simply begin work…
23/04/2012 at 23:03 Skabooga says:
Indeed, I too backed Double Fine’s prototype-less Kickstarter, but it is a very short list of companies/individuals for which I would do that. Even for developers with an established history of making games, making games in genres I enjoy, not having anything to see or play has stayed my hand from donating.
23/04/2012 at 21:36 D3xter says:
Maybe because imagination can sometimes be stronger than reality? Maybe Double Fine/Wasteland 2 would have gotten a lot less money if they had shown exactly what they are planning, for instance if Wasteland 2 turns out to be powered by a 3D engine it might have turned off all the people that wanted pixel graphics/drawn backgrounds and the other way around.
As it stood, everyone could imagine their “perfect game” into it, wether it be more like Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle or Grim Fandango. Double Fine also wanted to make a “tablet adventure” basically with the $400.000 with only 3-4 people on the project max., so showing a “prototype” of that might not have been very helpful indeed.
As such, you are REPORTING on the KickStarter and I am to decide if I put my money into it or not, trust me I wouldn’t base my decision if to invest into or buy something on one site alone, you don’t have that kind of power. If anything you can only highlight something I might find interesting :P
23/04/2012 at 16:48 SpinalJack says:
A playable demo and a concept that I’m interested in like FTL.
I wouldn’t put money down otherwise.
23/04/2012 at 16:48 Grimgrin says:
If I see RPS post a Kickstarter project this is what I do: I read about the project, I look to see how much money I would have to put down to get a copy of the game, and final I help it with money or I don’t. If your worried that what RPS post or doesn’t post is a problem, do a big list post of all the game kickstarters going on now, make a weekly thing. Yes, sooner or later one of this KS thing will fall though and it will be on the head(s) of the person/people that started it, not on RPS, and frankly if your not prepared for that when you donate your money your being foolish.
In summary: RPS making people aware of KS stuff is a good thing, but responsible for the project lies the people that started it, and the responsible of donators money lies with the donators.
23/04/2012 at 16:49 Cooper says:
It seems like th sort of thing that would do well for an irregular feature.
Make a note of interesting KS projects. Contact those behind them. If they get back to you with anything interesting (especially if it’s with an alpha version or something like that) then you have added veracity / content for the RPS site.
Produce a ’roundup’ of interesting KS projects. RPS then acts as a filter for its readers without any specific project being highlighted as ‘this is THE one you gotta support’.
Sufficiently interesting KS projects can always then get theirt own news posts.
23/04/2012 at 18:20 Dizzard says:
I don’t think kickstarter is just going to go away though, that’s the problem. So I don’t think ignoring them completely is going to be very fruitful. These “kickstarter funder mobs” could start appearing more frequently over time.
It could potentially turn into a situation where a growing part of the games industry is being largely ignored by your site. Which would be disheartening to see.
I’d agree with what others have said to have one giant post every now and then (3-4 weeks?) where you lump all the projects that show promise and then let your intelligent readers sift through them and make their own minds up.
Really though I think all of this will be a whole lot clearer a few years down the line when we know what has happened with the current kickstarter projects.
23/04/2012 at 16:50 Casshern says:
Mhh, I’ve red all RPS’s kickstarter stories and I haven’t backed any of them.
Even though I like ex: Tim Shafer and the games he made in the past, I won’t fund him money because you’re basically giving them money for a few years. It’s not even an investment because you won’t get more money in return after the years have passed. You’re just giving money in advance that you could have used for other things.
I’d rather help people out in need, or buy myself stuff that I can use now.
23/04/2012 at 16:50 etho says:
My vote would be for something like a weekly column that could point to the smaller, but still sort of interesting projects that might not demand a full article. But still with the option of posting full stories about higher profile projects. That way you can still give exposure to some of the projects that might not interest everybody but keep the site from being flooded with kickstarter stories.
23/04/2012 at 16:52 BlackestTea says:
First: I think it’s great you guys think about your responsibilities in this regard to such a great extend in the first place. Many sites don’t and either completely ignore kickstarter or are flooded with news from there – neither of which I find very desireable. Kickstarter is a really exciting thing and should be posted about. However, I agree with the above notion that generally, it is important that kickstarter projects should not receive coverage at the expense of exciting existing things (there are exceptions to this, of course, the Double Fine and Wasteland were top-line news that needed to be covered, for example, but this concerns smaller projects). Further, I think you can make a distinction between posting about a kickstarter project and implying that people should fund it. All you need to say is “this looks exciting for these reasons, this is the likelihood it will come to pass, these are potential pitfalls – go and have a look if it interests you”.
That aside, I think that smaller kickstarters should definitely be posted about, there are super interesting projects out there and people get confused by the mass of stuff, so some guidance as to what is actually noteworthy and interesting would be appreciated.
There should definitely be some sort of hierarchy involved, though. Projects that are already in development and can show in-game material, alpha versions etc. are definitely preferable (given that they actually seem to need the money). Projects that are not as far should present a clear vision of what the final product is to look like and how they want to get there. Also, projects that have some sort of prior/additional funding (such as by the devs themselves) are definitely preferable.
However, I guess this is all very commonsensical. In the end, this site lives from RPS posting stuff the authors are excited about and that should also be the rule with kickstarter and similar projects. I am sure this can be done in a fair manner, without compromising the integrity of the site (an example of this done well, in my opinion would be .
I disagree with this, therefore. Newsworthiness is part of what makes a project compelling, but this site isn’t just about news.
23/04/2012 at 16:53 X_kot says:
If an RPS editor is sufficiently interested in the concept and thinks the project has a good chance of completing, I am perfectly content with reading KS posts. This is a game blog based on your experience and opinions, and I appreciate hearing your thoughts on upcoming games.
23/04/2012 at 16:54 Ninja Foodstuff says:
To be honest, I’d be happy for you just to use your best judgement. In the same way that I don’t come here to find out what the art director of Peggle had for breakfast this morning, I’d rather you decide if something is interesting and then write about it if so.
23/04/2012 at 16:55 TheWhippetLord says:
I think that you should be very wary of kickstarter news coverage unless there’s something otherwise interesting about the game (Schafer, Fargo or Avellone count as interesting for this purpose.) Otherwise maybe corall KS news into a roundup once a week (it couldn’t really be less frequent due to the limited duration of KS projects,) with a list of vaguely interesting KS games under a big sod-off disclaimer saying that you don’t endorse them, haven’t really looked etc. You could then see if the commenters go wild about anything in particular and follow up. Would that work, or would it still take too much time (I am unfamiliar with the workflow of you fancy creative types,) or maybe it’d come across as too half-arsed for RPS?
23/04/2012 at 16:55 noclip says:
In your mind, write the post you would write about the game as if there were no Kickstarter project (“new indie game from unknown developer promises X”… usually not worth covering; “indie game Y nearing completion and taking pre-orders”… might be worth covering). If the result is worth publishing, post it. That having been said I personally would also err on the side of covering smaller projects over larger ones.
23/04/2012 at 16:55 jezcentral says:
The KS situation is too important/interesting to ignore at the moment, so I would like RPS to cover it. However, I would be more interested in projects headed by people who have done it before, so you know the project has pedigree and a better chance of being finished.
If there are others that RPS find particularly interesting, though, I’m sure I will, too.
What I’m not interested in is a big list of new projects that I would have to research individually to see if any are worthwhile.
23/04/2012 at 16:56 bill says:
I vote that you don’t simply post about the existence of things unless you have something valuable or interesting to contribute. not only kickstarter.
I realise web blogging is all about posting as many posts as possible, as quickly as possible, with as little content as posible, but wading through a dozen “i heard there is an interesting game but i haven’t played it yet” and a dozen “game x has a patch” posts to find a post that actually has something to say is kind of tiresome.
If the writers haven’t even bothered trying the game/demo or contacting and interviewing the makers, then they clearly aren’t that interested in the game themselves… so why should we be?
Personally I think the interesting point of kickstarter is that it helps new guys get off the ground – its use by rich guys to make more profit for themselves based on their fans isn’t that interesting to me.
But I can go to kickstarter and see what new ideas are there… why would I need RPS to duplicate that?
But if an amazing sounding idea pops up then by all means post about it… but please at least make it an interview or something.
23/04/2012 at 17:22 SpinalJack says:
Luckily RPS isn’t a blog. There are regular sizeable articles and no cat memes.
23/04/2012 at 16:58 Guvornator says:
“If we post about a Kickstarter project, we’re essentially implying our readers should donate to it.”
So only post about things you are excited about. The readership here seems pretty mature, certainly enough to make it’s own decisions. One of these, incidentally, was to read RPS in the first place. Long story short, I trust your collective judgement enough to at least read about something you are excited about. That’s right, you fuckers brainwashed me ;-)
23/04/2012 at 17:39 Henke says:
Seconded. Relax RPS, we’re not gonna throw money at whatever you happen to post about. I read RPS pretty much every day and haven’t donated to a single kickstarter yet. I wanna see something actually come out of this model before I feel comfortable investing in something.
23/04/2012 at 16:59 pakoito says:
What RPS really needs is a subforum for “look at my game” “come test my game” posts and requests and a huge link to it on the top of the screen. If they bother spending some minutes writing you they may spend them posting in the forum too. If one post has lots of views or answers maybe they may be worth a look. Your own community can be a filter too.
23/04/2012 at 17:09 noclip says:
The problem with that is the amount of noise. Look at something like the TIGSource forums — there are simply too many I-copied-this-game-from-my-childhood games to be able to tell if there are any diamonds in the rough.
23/04/2012 at 17:25 pakoito says:
We are the ones filtering the noise, rather than them on their mailbox. That’s the point.
23/04/2012 at 17:02 Soon says:
Gallantry of the project leads. With facial hair rating as a tie-breaker.
23/04/2012 at 17:02 Stormtamer says:
From the one’s ive backed, im going on either strength of the name, or the names behind it.
Two i did recently were Starlight Inception, and The E-Paper Pebble watch (know its not gaming, but it still kinda fits my Gamer criteria too)
The Starlight Inception one, has one of the guys from Lucasarts behind it. I used to play nothing but Lucasarts games, and someone from there trying to create a new game, about a game type i like makes it even better.
The watch one, id never heard of the people before, but they had already created a Blackberry version of the same thing, and other than being on a phone platform ive never used, i would trust them to make something good and deliver on it.
Same would be similar for games. Maybe a good indie dev made a game ive never heard of for PSN or XBLA, id trust they would make it for PC based on them getting it through the approval of Sony or Microsoft, and reviews of the Playstation or Xbox version, so i would feel better backing it.
With my faith though, comes the downsides, which is what i can see as a problem for you RPS guys.
The Starlight Inception project is from a company that have only made educational games, that kinda just look like Second Life, and like alot of projects, even in the mainstream, you can have an awesome idea, but it not turn out the way people like.
The watch has something similar. While i think they can do it, theyve gone from make around 800 watches for their goal, to 40,000+. This could have an impact on games too, because if it gets too popular, the company might raise lots of money, but still only deliver a game worth the initial funding, and while theyve met their goal, the hype the product or game created by being so popular didnt.
For you guys on the site, im with ‘bobbobob’. Do a round up every week of the ones ending within that week, and let the readers decide, and if your really interested in a project personally, just stick it at the top of the round-up.
That way you can still kinda push the one you want, while still not directly promoting it.
23/04/2012 at 17:04 ilaros_belt says:
The problems you’ve presented with reporting on Kickstarter are, IMHO, kind of overblown. RPS, like it or not, is a legitimate editorial outlet, and as such your readers (myself included) rely on you to vet and curate TONS of games for us. We read reviews with your opinions and suggestions for games every day, and make decisions based on that info.
That you can either positively or negatively effect the industry via the promotion of Kickstarter projects is totally secondary to your responsibility to report, just like it is with most news entities.
The whole idea of Kickstarter is to get people excited about ideas, and involve the public in their fulfillment. If you see and idea that you think is worthwhile, then report on it, you’re just playing a role in that infrastructure, and that’s not a bad thing.
RPS is probably my favorite gaming blog, but to be honest, this kind of “what should we do” article is a little immature for the image you guys cultivate. If you want to play with the big dogs (which I totally think you can and already do to a huge extent), you’ve got to own your decisions and show some cojones.
23/04/2012 at 18:28 mendel says:
The “big dogs” give you questionnaires to fill out for market research. I’m happy I’m getting honest questions here.
23/04/2012 at 19:16 InternetBatman says:
I completely disagree. These discussions are critical to the health of news site. Without them you get disasters like the Gawker redesign.
24/04/2012 at 03:49 Skabooga says:
I do agree with the idea that RPS are already vetting and deciding the fortunes of a number of games.
In much the same way, the games RPS decides to show trailers for, the games given positive reviews, hell, even the games RPS chooses to review at all can drastically alter the fortunes of the studio behind it. Without RPS, I wouldn’t have even heard of the game ‘Lone Survivor’ or ‘To the Moon’. Even games you give negative reviews to, developers would rather have that than no review at all, what with the “no such thing as bad publicity” dynamic.
So in the end, many of the same principles guiding your judgement of what to review or preview can certainly apply to which Kickstarters you cover. It is this judgement which makes RPS the high-quality publication that it is.
23/04/2012 at 17:05 crazydane says:
I think it might be good if you guys did a monthly round up of kickstarter projects or something like that. In my opinion it’s fine for you to talk about what you’re personally interested in so long as you put some kind of proviso at the beginning saying that these are your opinions. Also say that the projects might not actually come through, you aren’t saying that people should invest, but rather they might just find them interesting to hear about.
23/04/2012 at 17:06 lifeasclarity says:
I’ve been curious about the of a weekly/monthly Kickstarter round-up, similar to the Bargain Bin. I’ve seen games the Hivemind found terrible listed on the Bargain Bin before, if memory serves. Just a thought.
23/04/2012 at 17:12 Eddy9000 says:
I think kickstarter is a big phenomenon, and stories about kickstarter have been interesting to read about as part of the way our gaming culture and production of games is changing.
Regarding articles on individual games kickstarter projects, it is kind of hitting the point for me where I load up RPS and feel disappointed that there’s another article on another game being kickstarted, it feels like I’ve reached my saturation point for articles about kickstarting games honestly. But then hearing about games that I’m personally interested in, like the double fine one is, well, interesting.
I wouldn’t normally be as bold as to offer suggestions, not being a journalist or connected to the games industry in anyway, but as you invited them I would suggest thinking about the agenda of RPS, or if you don’t like agenda the elements that make it different from other blogs, and report on games being kickstarted that are consistent with this. Personally I come to RPS becasue I like the critical approach to gaming, the positioning of games within wider culture and the attention given to games that challenge or play with traditional notions of gaming. If RPS focused their kickstarter related articles on games that met these areas then I’d be happy with that. (Actually this is just a really long-winded way of saying ‘post about what you’re interested about’ like the guy before me did)
I also support the idea above for having a forum where developers can post news about their various kickstarter projects and link to them.
23/04/2012 at 17:13 Max.I.Candy says:
can crowdsourced funded indies be called ‘crowd-fundies’ from now on?
as for the questions about it all, my (not very helpful) input is that i trust your opinions as they’re usually the same as mine anyway.
23/04/2012 at 17:17 Baresark says:
I have been saying for a little while now that what needs to happen is there needs to a column just for this. That way there is one or two people handling this and it doesn’t fall on a choice between everyone on what to cover. Especially since it has exploded so much. Total Biscuit has even started a video blog that is just about Kickstarter. This is just common sense to me.
23/04/2012 at 17:21 Baresark says:
Haha, also: You guys aren’t the only people out there covering this kind of thing. But what is constantly covered by the other websites such as the Escapist and PC Gamer is the big names which cost big money. I am part of a group of indie developers, so my opinion may be biased, but covering the ones that look promising and fall into the 5-10k range would be nice. I seem to recall FTL getting a lot of attention here, that was great because I knew about the game but I didn’t know there was a Kickstarter for it till it was almost over.
23/04/2012 at 17:20 S Jay says:
Keep as it is, it is good.
23/04/2012 at 17:21 jalf says:
Treat it like any other project, I’d say. You write about Tim Schafers games because he’s got a proven track record. You don’t write about some guy no one’s ever heard of who’s decided that he’s going to make a game.
You might write about the same guy’s game once it’s 70% complete, because by then it’s looking serious enough to spend time on.
Apply the same to Kickstarter. Would you have written about this game if it hadn’t been on Kickstarter? If so, write about it. If not, spend your time elsewhere.
Of course, right now there’s a bit of a “wow” factor to kickstarter projects. It’s kind of a new thing to apply KS to games, so hey, it gets (and deserves) more coverage. But once the novelty has worn off, I don’t see why a project should get special treatment (favorable or not) just for being on Kickstarter.
23/04/2012 at 17:23 Torgen says:
That’s a good metric.
23/04/2012 at 17:45 sneetch says:
I’d go for that, jalf, it makes sense.
The presence or lack of presence on kickstarter should be irrelevant, it’s the game that’s interesting. If the game sounds exciting to you then cover it the same way you would any other game.
If you want, you can stick a big “we take no responsibility and make no guarantees about this game” notice at the end of the articles but I take that as a given.
23/04/2012 at 17:21 Torgen says:
PLEASE, Hivemind, feel free to add various degrees of disclaimer to any and all Kickstarter and other stories where people want money, if it’s something that stands out, but you don’t want to endorse it or imply that you do.
23/04/2012 at 17:24 Moraven says:
Reminds me of Penny Arcade making a change on what advertisements appear on their website. I forget the game but they got a lot of flak for advertising (indirectly, via banner ads) a game that was received rather poor in general.
From then on they planned to only have ads for games they actually played and enjoyed. This was due to similar reasons described about reporting on KS projects. Their readers who saw the ads believed since they were advertising the game it must be decent and worth checking out.
23/04/2012 at 17:25 fyro11 says:
If a crowd-sourced project hypothetically needs RPS to go from ZERO to hero, it’s too risky to feature IMO.
23/04/2012 at 17:26 Dinger says:
Developing a game is a difficult, risky business. Many ambitious projects started by the big gaming publishers get canned before they ever get sold. Indie projects have likely an even higher turnover. Of the KS projects RPS has covered so far, I’m willing to bet that more than one will never be in a state that it should be sold to the public.
There are plenty of KS games to cover, but, frankly KS is not a good funding platform for a team that hasn’t proven itself capable of bringing a game to market. I would consider it irresponsible for RPS to cover projects run by teams with little or no experience without pointing out that to readers. I’m sure some of the RPS writers already regret one or two KS stories.
Last year, a story ran in slashdot about a KS flashlight project, and no doubt, that generated a lot of sales. Of course, the team thought they’d have a product out in a few months, and I’ve seen some animosity around. This is from a KS team that asked for money with a working prototype, but just didn’t have the experience to handle the mass production on time.
Now go figure about a small, indie studio with a “great idea” and the need for money.
In short, ideas are cheap. Good implementation is worth its weight in gold.
And that’s the problem: you can’t satisfy the spam-mob. If you dedicated a whole wing of Castle RPS to a risk-assessment team that evaluated each project and gave it a score that reflected its likelihood of ever seeing the light of day, you’d be spammed for judging a project “high risk”. Yet we know some of those projects will make it, and some that claim to have AAA credentials and use fake screenshots won’t.
If you’re going to cover a KS story, commit to covering it all the way until release, or until the developers admit defeat, are sued, or what have you. I
24/04/2012 at 06:19 Baresark says:
I have an idea. How about you take a look at projects and if you find it interesting, you write about it. That means if you don’t find it fishy either, obviously.
People are crazy. What is this thing about only people with a proven record. It’s hard to shake things up if you only want people who have made certain games doing it. In the end, RPS doesn’t choose anything for people, they make their own decisions. I also do not think RPS is out to act like our parents and tell us what we are and are not allowed to buy. I have backed a bunch of projects, big and small. I, like anyone else who does it, understand that it’s a risk.
24/04/2012 at 06:20 Baresark says:
Sorry, that wasn’t supposed to be to your post, I quite frankly don’t know what happened. I was trying to post at the end of the comments.
23/04/2012 at 17:27 lithander says:
I’ve backed 4 projects so far.
* Double Fine Adventure. I love Double Fine’s previous work and would probably buy this anyway. Also, the behind-the-scenes episode promise to be fun. Lastly: the project got so much attention that I thought it being impressively successful would influences how publishers think about niche games.
* Banner Saga. The devs have industry experience and a working prototype of allready impressive quality so I believe in the success of the project. The idea/graphics are so unique and appealing that I really want to be able to play it. I’d rather risk a couple of $$ then missing out on a great game. (When I backed it was far from meating the funding goal)
* Shadowrun Returns. Good IP, promising idea, probably something I’d buy anyway.
* Wasteland 2. Experienced developers and ambitious goals. I moan about declining complexity in games (especially the trend of replacing tactical combat with action combat) so this oldschool approach to RPG is something I wanted to support.
That said: Kickstarter might provide the funding but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to make a great game. Devs still need to know what they are doing. If I were a backer of this project I’d feel like my money was wasted.
23/04/2012 at 17:28 DrGonzo says:
I think you are overthinking it way too much here. If it looks good, or looks like it will be good then post about it. That’s the only rule I think that matters and that you should stick to.
We can make up our own minds and you are not responsible for what happens with the kickstarter.
23/04/2012 at 17:30 asshibbitty says:
I posted earlier about a regular feature like that but now I don’t like that idea anymore. It’s IMO too formulaic for RPS. Just post what you like and maybe add a nice “For Kickstarter Developrs” link on top.
Make it show a goatseMAke it explain your policy on random pie in the sky crap.23/04/2012 at 17:35 Demiath says:
As a fan of particular gaming niches which don’t get a whole lot of substantial coverage on RPS, I think an overarching mission statement á la “this is the stuff the RPS writers personally tend to get enthusiastic about and are therefore likely to post about” is far more interesting for me as a reader than being presented with some kind of abstract journalistic approach to Kickstarter projects specifically (the latter being far more of an “inside baseball” kind of internal process than the former). What RPS can be expected to cover and not should be reasonably clear, regardless of where in the production pipeline a particular game is.
23/04/2012 at 17:35 Jimbo says:
I don’t take your pointing out the existence of something to be a de facto endorsement of it, so I guess carry on informing your readers if you think it’s something a sufficient number of them would be interested in. They / we are smart enough to look into it and decide for ourselves whether it’s something we want to support or not.
For instance, I chose not to support Banner Saga (I didn’t understand what they were offering) or Tactical Hardcore Shooter Project Delta (because I don’t trust unnamed private investors to make good on their promises), but I’m glad I was informed of their existence so that I could then look into them for myself. If RPS hadn’t posted about them I never would have heard of them at all.
23/04/2012 at 17:40 Bluerps says:
I think, what your are doing right now is fine – post about Kickstarters that have a high probability of actually producing a finished game (because it has persons behind it who know what they are doing, or because it was nearing completion when the money ran out, or for similar reasons), and ignore the rest.
If the question is, if a finished game should be ignored in favor of a Kickstarter, then I think that in most cases, the finished game should get preference. Though there might be exceptions. If a Kickstarter is particularly interesting, and the finished game is not, I’d like to read about the Kickstarter instead.
23/04/2012 at 17:42 Deano2099 says:
You’re over-thinking it.
Take Kickstarter out of the equation. Is it worth covering?
Tim Schafer making a new adventure game would have been news even without KS (albeit maybe not to the same extent).
Wasteland 2 being announced would be news.
Al Lowe remaking Leisure Suit Larry would be news.
Jane Jensen making a new adventure would be news.
Some random guys making something random would not be news.
Some random guys making something that looked incredible, either through concept or prototype would be news.
I’d just treat them like any other game announcement (albeit one that might get canceled really quickly).
23/04/2012 at 18:10 Durkan says:
<—– What he said. Couple of points in no particular order:
I'd just carry on as you are – RPS coverage is not an automagic "FUND THIS NOW UNDERLINGS!" command. You're good – but not that good.
Your the journalists – you tell us if it's newsworthy :).
I'd just blanket ignore any project that usies crowd bullying.
23/04/2012 at 20:49 Brise Bonbons says:
Great wisdom is contained in this post. I failed twice to say it this elegantly, but I am officially endorsing this view of things.
23/04/2012 at 17:47 mercenary-games says:
Would like to discuss this topic directly.
We are Mercenary Games, operating on Kickstarter as well.
1. If we post about a Kickstarter project, we’re essentially implying our readers should donate to it.”
Absolutely not. Maybe for the rest of the Kickstarters out there looking for a hand out.
We aren’t. We’re looking for debate, critique, and discussion. We would like to test the concept we want to deliver. We aren’t trying to sell the idea first hand, we do want to engage our patrons and we desperately seek any kind of insight they have.
One point that seems to be missed all the time about Kickstarter : a patron can pull their pledge AT ANY TIME. This means, if a patron isn’t satisfied with a projects progress, or they find some news that would change their decision, they are able to pull their money off, and take their vote elsewhere.
2. 2) Without having played the game(s) in question, and most likely without seeing anything meangingful of it for many months to come, we can’t attest to that project’s quality, to the likelihood of the results being as described, or of it even coming to pass at all. This is why ‘celebrity’ KS projects tend to get covered more frequently here – the odds of a big name pulling off what they promise would seem to be much higher than an apparent unknown living up to their claims.
We agree. Though it’s impossible to “play the game” when the game isn’t even completed. We understand the issue, and provide a solution. We give the patrons our prototypes.
Again, we test our game right from the beginning. We have prototypes available on Desura.
We aren’t a complete game yet, but we do have something that a player can tweak. We want to show our development efforts live.
6. 6)This sounds horrifically arrogant, but the extent of RPS’ reach means that we can potentially alter the fortunes of KS projects we do post about. That’s a frightening responsibility as much as it is an exciting one.
Absolutely.
Bury a project in criticism, or make it rise to the top.
Welcome to Crowd Funding. Game Critics now have a direct say in the success and failure of a pitch. You’ve all wanted this power, and the responsibility is also yours.
Take it. :)
4. 4) If we do post about one, that might well be instead of posting about another KS project – or an already existent indie game that you could pay for (or not) and play right now, rather than months or years down the line.
No you don’t. If you don’t find a project interesting enough, ignore them.
You are after all, the leaders of this community.
It’s understandable how you see the issue of playability; being able to play something now, or being able to play something “down the line”. I say, demand prototypes. If the kickstarter project can’t even show any working engine, alpha or otherwise, than all they have are power point decks and “personality”.
We choose a different route at Mercenary. We want to be tested on our concept.
And we refuse to be ignored. We’ve been having a hard time trying to reach media outlets, because everyone seems to think Kickstarter is about getting a handout.
We propose something different, we’d like your criticism, and a debate. We do realize we have to prove ourselves, and we will with our prototypes.
23/04/2012 at 18:16 MasterGeorg says:
I made my post before I read yours; thank you for reinforcing what I just said.
I’m not a developer so I don’t know half of how hard it is, but as I said, I’ve seen companies like Dapper Swine, and you (though I didn’t know about you until now) fall apart because you think everyone is on your side, but then they won’t give you any news coverage and won’t contribute to your projects, despite the fact that you meet every single one of the needs expressed through these criticisms.
Ultimately, who do we blame? Media being lazy? People being lazy and only following celebrity developers? I don’t know, but I’ve seen many people in your situation, and right now you and Dapper Swine are, I think, in the same boat. Glad for the corroboration though, it reinforces my theory.
23/04/2012 at 18:24 mercenary-games says:
I made my post before I read yours; thank you for reinforcing what I just said.
You’re welcome.
I’m not a developer so I don’t know half of how hard it is, but as I said, I’ve seen companies like Dapper Swine, and you (though I didn’t know about you until now) fall apart because you think everyone is on your side, but then they won’t give you any news coverage and won’t contribute to your projects, despite the fact that you meet every single one of the needs expressed through these criticisms.
We have other means of funding our project, Kickstarter isn’t the only avenue. As we speak, we have 4-5 angel investors (and vulture capitalists), ready to swoop in…..
I do agree about “news coverage”, however, we don’t want handouts from anyone. We want to test the concept, and if people like it, they can support us now. Or bury us.
It seems the discussion about Kickstarter projects needs to evolve from “support them!” to “lets debate the project.”
Ultimately, who do we blame? Media being lazy? People being lazy and only following celebrity developers? I don’t know, but I’ve seen many people in your situation, and right now you and Dapper Swine are, I think, in the same boat. Glad for the corroboration though, it reinforces my theory.
The Hivemind is a very fickle mistress.
No one is to blame for this. It’s all about the communities that support and debate a project. Crowd funding shouldn’t be a popularity and personality display.
It should be sparking debate and criticism.
We aren’t Yogventures. We don’t depend on an established fanbase. What we do need are critical eyes and ears.
And thumbs.
23/04/2012 at 17:49 Gabbo says:
I don’t really care whether you cover Kickstarter projects or not, just as I know you can’t and don’t cover every other PC related game/news in the entirety of the industry. If you do cover them, outside of Schaferian situations where a rather well established name is trying their hand at the model for a pet project, I’d hope you cover them because one of, if not all of the Hivemind (maybe even Kieron) are intrigued by the game’s concept, not because it had backers mass email you about it (barring some cross over between those two things that surely occurs from time to time).
23/04/2012 at 18:21 mendel says:
Well spoken, Sir.
23/04/2012 at 17:57 Funso Banjo says:
I realize you don’t care what other sites do, but on (site removed, despite being a larger site, I don’t want us to be accused of using comments on another video game review site to attract visitors, we’ve been accused of it before) we strictly never post KickStarter news, because each of your stated issues is most certainly correct.
It’s the only safe route for a website with the responsibilities and readership one such as yours has. Anything more is a hit to your reputation, whether perceptible or not.
23/04/2012 at 18:02 Maldomel says:
I don’t think you should talk about kickstarter projects anymore.
The games are not done, and there is all kind of stuff out there waiting to be funded, so yes it is a bit frightening to know that essentially your project could get a boost because it has been mentioned here.
As you said, it is only bothering you when you check for emails, and you cannot play the projects, so there is no way to know if the devs will deliver, and if they will deliver something good.
Remember when this kickstarting thing came up? With Tim Schafer. He is well known in the industry, and has a legendary status with gamers. Of course you couldn’t pass up on the opportunity to talk about what he was doing with his new project, and how he planned on achieving it. But he is the exception, like those remakes of old games or those guys gamers already know about. They are exceptions. You know they will deliver, and we can be sure it will be good (it better be!). The rest of the projects are…less reliable, because they no big names to back up their game, or no experience. So you really don’t know if donating money will be useful.
Also, kickstarter and crowd funding in general are getting pretty big, not only with games, but in all domains. It is a new mean of getting things done without the help of studios or producers, and it’s really great to see you guys covering it and keeping up with what will probably renew the industry’s face in many ways. So I guess it is hard not to talk about it.
But you shouldn’t talk about individual projects, because apart from the “big” ones, you’ll have to rely on your individual preferences, and as you said, posting about a project is essentially implying that people should donate. Considering we don’t exactly know if the results will be there, if they will match our expectations, I think it’s for the best if you manage to talk about kickstarter and crowd funding, but not about the actual projects.
Only my opinion though, if I happened to be a developer, I would totally say that you need to talk about projects (specially mine). But I’m not.
23/04/2012 at 18:06 mercenary-games says:
It seems the topic is more about “supporting projects” compared to “debating projects”.
Debating a project, and having an honest , yet critical, discussion about it seems more appropriate.
23/04/2012 at 18:18 Maldomel says:
But if you debate a project here, that still means it’s posted. So while people aren’t throwing money at their screens every time a new game is mentioned, it still means the RPS writer who talks about it is interested by the idea, and that he will speak positively about it (I mean, if he’s not interested, or if the project isn’t quite in good shape to have a talk over it, why would one post about it?).
Debating is fine by me, and the fine folks of RPS are always putting critics (good or bad) when they talk about something.
But it also means drawing attention, and maybe money. I wouldn’t want to see this site labelled as biased, even when it wouldn’t be like that.
23/04/2012 at 18:28 mercenary-games says:
Agreed.
Bias can be seen through implied support.
We don’t want “support”, primarily. We want critical eyes.
Bury us, flame us, adore us, or ignore us.
Though, we refuse to be ignored :)
The discussion about Kickstarter needs to move from “implied support” to “crowd based criticism.” There isn’t enough posts about criticizing any of the projects on KS.
We desperately seek the criticism.
23/04/2012 at 18:19 mendel says:
I like my games journalists to have and express individual preferences. I wouldn’t read RPS otherwise.
Game journalists do early reports on traditionally published games as well, with little more than a press release and some screenshots to go on – and some of these games have been cancelled or didn’t turn out as great as we hoped. Why should the fact that some of these games are now crowd-funded and not traditionally funded keep RPS from reporting on them?
23/04/2012 at 18:32 Maldomel says:
I thought about that too, and I guess that’s a complicated issue. The main thing that motive my first post, is that money is involved, and that RPS can pretty much make or crush or leave in the dark most projects.
Now I know that they won’t “crush stuff” or “praise without objectivity”. And I like when they about games, be it the most obscure indie one, or the AAA licence.
I just…I wouldn’t want some people to think RPS is making an actual difference when donating is involved, or that they get buried in endless coverage of pre alpha unknown projects because they have to.
Actually, you guys are making me doubt. How dare you!
23/04/2012 at 18:41 mercenary-games says:
I don’t like the word “donate” being associated with our project. It’s an unfair characterization.
Kickstarter pledges can be cancelled at any time during the project timeline.
“Investment” isn’t also the proper word.
Gamers have to realize; they have more power in their hands now.
23/04/2012 at 18:55 dogsolitude_uk says:
Thanks for clarifying that: I was actually a bit hazy about the mechanics.
23/04/2012 at 18:55 mendel says:
Once the project deadline arrives, pledges are cashed in and can’t be cancelled any longer – or did I get that wrong? Usually the game isn’t done by then, or Kickstarter would just be a weird way of taking preorders.
It’s not investment in the sense that people who speculate/gamble the stock markets are not investors either – and that in the end, you won’t own a share in the project, but you might own a copy of a game (or not) that’s fun to play (or not).
23/04/2012 at 19:17 mercenary-games says:
Once the project deadline arrives, pledges are cashed in and can’t be cancelled any longer – or did I get that wrong? Usually the game isn’t done by then, or Kickstarter would just be a weird way of taking preorders.
Precisely. Once the funding drive is completed, all or nothing. And funds are delivered to the project creators. But, during the drive itself, a patron is free to pull their pledge.
This opens avenues for crowd funded debates. News about a projects progress.
It’s not investment in the sense that people who speculate/gamble the stock markets are not investors either – and that in the end, you won’t own a share in the project, but you might own a copy of a game (or not) that’s fun to play (or not).
It is an investment. A gamer can pitch into a project and drive the criticism needed to shape that world.
23/04/2012 at 19:47 mendel says:
So, is “investment” the proper word, or isn’t it? I’m confused now.
23/04/2012 at 20:20 mercenary-games says:
So, is “investment” the proper word, or isn’t it? I’m confused now.
I would argue “yes”. It is a player investing in a game world that they want developed, not just a monetary investment.
23/04/2012 at 18:08 mendel says:
I love RPS because their approach to games journalism is somewhat less cookie-cutter than other sites out there. With that in mind, surely there must be a way to frame Kickstarter reporting so that the audience isn’t misled?
I for one would love a weekly report from the “horse races” – have a post with several games you found interesting, the reason why, and the implicit assumption that people who want to bet on them should spread their risk around and not bet money they can’t afford to lose. If at some point in the future we can look back on these posts and see that at least some of them reached the finish line even if the majority might not have, you can be happy about those which you called that might never have had the funds to get there if you hadn’t.
Journalistic honesty means you give us the information you have been able to find out about the game and its creaters: the horse’s pedigree and current form, so to speak: which parts of the game (as far as they exist) have you looked at? Which of the people do you know, and what games do they have under their belt? Maybe it’s just a game idea that intrigues you, even though you don’t know the team (beautiful horse with no pedigree whatsoever). If you give us enough information to start with, there’ll be readers who will be able to add perspective to it in the comments (or so I hope) – that’s just another form of crowd-sourcing wisdom.
In general, it looks as if the trend to publisher-less publishing is on the upswing these days: it’s firmly entrenched in books and music, and it is getting there in games (where it’s always been, remember Shareware?) and even filmmaking as well. It’s a trend I would love to see you support – it means projects can go “indie” that used to require a publishing contract to get started.
Also, it’s not all on Kickstarter, don’t forget IndieGogo (and possibly other places?).
So in short, yes, please do.
24/04/2012 at 04:00 Skabooga says:
I thought you would be continuing with your horse metaphor, so I at first read one of your sentences as: “Which parts of the horse have you looked at?”
Heh heh.
23/04/2012 at 18:08 MasterGeorg says:
Isn’t there a great irony though in the fact that everyone here has said the same thing; “I won’t back a project unless I know exactly what it is, it’s been developed already to some degree, stuff has been shown off even if it’s rough, you should only advertise Kickstarters that went this extra mile, etc.”…
But then, we all turn around and throw all our coin on top of, say, Tim Schaefer’s million dollar baby that is currently nothing more than an idea, but offer nothing and give no press to Kickstarters such as Blasted Fortress (by some new start called Dapper Swine), which not only shows off the game but has closed beta access you can sign up for to actually play it before it’s done?
Just saying, it’s terribly hypocritical of us to say “Yeah, let’s reward Kickstarters who have actually done some work already”, and then do the exact opposite by ignoring them and giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to allow “just an idea” Kickstarters to succeed at monstrous 500% rates. Do we really care about the effort, and helping small developers who put it forth (like aforementioned Blasted Fortress), or are we just whores to big names no matter what (oh Tim Schaefer, take all my money!) At some point we’ve got to put that money where our mouth is.
Also, the idea that the only Kickstarters you should report on are ones that are already popular seems terribly flawed from a journalistic perspective. Shouldn’t you be finding new things that your readers haven’t already read about on a dozen other sites? It’s bad enough that I can’t go to a single indie games site without them giving up-to-the-second reports on the last time Notch blew his nose, I want to hear about the small stuff that I don’t already know about.
23/04/2012 at 18:11 mercenary-games says:
We agree.
A more appropriate situation for “unknown developers” : test their concept.
If that particular developer has prototypes of their current work, it should be available for criticism and debate.
Keep in mind; Kickstarter pledges can be cancelled by the patron at any time.
23/04/2012 at 18:15 Llamageddon says:
I agree with MarterGeorg, there should be more recognition for unknowns that have put in the groundwork. I often read RPS just to hear about potential rising stars that are otherwise unknown to me and the majority of the internet.
23/04/2012 at 18:17 mercenary-games says:
It’s hard enough for our crew to reach a huge audience, we do have to depend on communities talking and debating about our project.
23/04/2012 at 21:12 Brise Bonbons says:
More good posts here. Personally I chose not to fund the Doublefine Adventure, Wasteland 2, and Banner Saga for the reason mentioned here; they already have plenty of money.
I feel it’s better for diversity and consumer choice to get more projects funded to 150% or 200%, rather than a few “sure bets” funded massively beyond what they were asking for.
On the other hand, there are certain projects which I believe are doing things the right way, but are simply not producing games in genres or styles i want to play. Vigrior being a great example, where I earnestly hope it does well, but am not interested enough in the genre to even have any thoughts or opinions.
At some point, the choice to give our money to someone or something is going to be a deeply emotional one, especially in this context where the projects are often wrapped up in nostalgia, the personality of admired giants in the field, or our tribal devotion to this or that obscure game genre.
25/04/2012 at 02:53 Shortwave says:
I just feel the need to note that not all of us have turned around and thrown coin out. It just seemed a bit generalized when it’s not just one sided as such.
23/04/2012 at 18:11 Adynod says:
I’d rather RPS posted about existing projects over Kickstarter’s until they’re through. Then post about the ones the staff feel are interesting.
People are aware now and will hear about interesting projects by other means. We’re free to follow you guys on Twitter for example so you could keep mentions of interesting projects in progress to a personal tweet and away from anxiety of an official RPS endorsement.
I reached my limit of kickstarting anything with Double Fine, Banner Saga and Idle Thumbs and that’s me done until I see how they turn out. I don’t read those post’s any more no matter who/what the project is.
23/04/2012 at 18:17 faelnor says:
Cover all kickstarters and ask your readers not to pledge any money to them.
23/04/2012 at 18:19 TheWhippetLord says:
Start a kickstarter to raise the money to hire someone to cover kickstarters.
23/04/2012 at 18:27 Syra says:
Stop posting about kickstarters. All of them. People have been made aware now of the existence of kickstarter and can go have a look at it if they wish to do so. Posting about kickstarter projects is basically advertising and it’s becoming silly that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. All the mainstream press are harping on about the big ones anyway, I think maybe RPS has the journalistic integrity to responsibly nip it in the bud before every day there is a post summarising kickstarter/crowdsourcing/paythisguymoney posts.
Ofcourse when a kickstarter game is made it becomes just ‘a game’ that is released, and that’s when you should post all about it. If it’s good.
23/04/2012 at 18:36 mendel says:
Posting about games that aren’t out yet can always be considered advertising – and it also is if they are. It’s free publicity. If you want games journalism to stop advertising altogether, you want to read about games that aren’t on the market any more.
23/04/2012 at 18:39 mercenary-games says:
How can one advertise an unfinished process?
The proper context would be to debate projects instead.
23/04/2012 at 19:00 mendel says:
Let me clarify my point.
Even “debating” an unfinished project generates sales down the road that the project wouldn’t have had otherwise. The difference between advertsing and journalism is that one is funded and written by the maker and the other is written by an independent individual. The difference is not the effect on sales.
So it’s a fallacy to say, “this drives money to the publisher, it must be advertising”.
23/04/2012 at 19:29 mercenary-games says:
So it’s a fallacy to say, “this drives money to the publisher, it must be advertising”.
Agreed.
We do want to shift the focus to debating about Kickstarters and crowd funded projects, and not merely supporting them.
I do hope debate is respected enough to be published. I grew up with british-parliamentary debating, and I love the process it has in creating and fusing ideas.
as well as demolishing stupid ones.
We’re hoping the british gamers will take on this kind of critical eye, and not just soak up the usual media bullshit.
23/04/2012 at 21:24 Brise Bonbons says:
Personally I don’t want to trawl the KS frontpage every week filtering new projects. And RPS is really my only source of game news, so I depend on this site to hear about good stuff.
As has already been stated, treat it like any other project getting early coverage. Hell, a little indie game with a great concept or in an obscure genre deserves the attention more than another press release from Bioware/Relic/Blizzard, whether using Kickstarter, buy-in alpha access, or appearing free in a browser.
I feel like the goal should be to uncover the gems which are easy to miss, which by necessity means consciously giving less time to projects large enough to generate their own critical mass of information.
In a world where a mainstream media easily spends tens and hundreds of millions to drown us in ads, “balanced coverage” requires almost ignoring such titles in favor of the tiny, obscure, and challenging.
23/04/2012 at 18:38 mercenary-games says:
People have to realize that crowd funding and game development are completely different beasts from finished products.
Gamers have always been wanting a bigger say in the kinds of products being developed. Similarly, game media sites want a wider avenue of game development discussion.
Completely ignoring kickstarter projects means sacrificing these two opportunities.
23/04/2012 at 18:30 avp77 says:
I usually buy games when they’re in the $5-10 range, so I really have zero interest in paying money into a Kickstarter with the prospect of possibly seeing something developed in a few years. There’s one or two projects that I do hope to see do well, though (like Jane Jensen).
I suppose theoretically there might be a game idea so awesome that I would have to put money in to support it, but someone with the competence to create that is probably already earning a more legit salary using their skills. I don’t really buy into the myth that there’s a whole unappreciated underground of idle video game people that would deliver masterpieces if only they had a source of funding.
23/04/2012 at 18:39 ecbremner says:
I know that one game that has tried to do many of the things you complain about (urge its supporters to email you and all) Is Nekro. And I think this project is a perfect example of why we need more coverage of good KS projects. It would be criminal for this project to go unfunded and I doubt there are many folks who funded the other KS campaigns who wouldn’t be very interested in it… If they knew about it. Total Biscuit’s coverage of the game brought it from 25%-50% funded in a few days. But then it stalled out again. More coverage is never a bad thing. Use your journalistic gut. If your gut tells you. “this is a serious attempt at a quality game” and then looking at the backing shows that many many people agree with that and wanted to fund it. Then clearly its worth writing about.
23/04/2012 at 18:43 Dizzard says:
Another idea I wanted to share……if you didn’t want to go for an irregular column detailing interesting kickstarter projects you could make it so that only projects that can get over a certain amount of interest (on their own) will be covered.
So coverage is based on the number of funders rather than money raised. I don’t care what anybody says, huge amounts of people don’t fund something for absolutely no reason.
So you say a project needs to get X amount of total funders (on the kickstarter page, not those making themselves known through email/twitter) by yourselves before we’ll consider covering it.
23/04/2012 at 18:45 Chimpyang says:
Personally I think kickstarter is a less than perfect model for games developers, something based on Slightly Mad Studio’s WMD portal (info about the WMD portal can be found : http://www.wmdportal.com/about/)
I think its just a better way to attract funding – it is still crowdsourcing – but crowdsourcing an investment rather than the promise of extra goodies or just meeting the developer. Not that I signed up to pCars as a particular investor – but if the game does OK, i get the game for free at my membership level – and some more money back as an investment on my initial outlay – even if it bombs – I’ve only bought a beautiful looking game…
What you get back are playable builds, and the ability to feed back to the devs on the forums about bug, what works, what still needs work.
23/04/2012 at 18:54 dogsolitude_uk says:
Personally I don’t see RPS posting about a Kickstarter as a recommendation to ‘invest’ any more that I’d see an article in the FT about a companies share price as a recommendation to buy those shares. It’s news.
Likewise I don’t see your coverage of games as being adverts for games either. Again, it’s more sort of ‘news’.
The way I see it is that RPS writers blog and writes about stuff, and I can read it if I want to, and agree/disagree with it as I see fit. I might drop a comment if I feel I have something to say on a matter. Like I’m doing now. Really, I don’t treat this place any differently to any other news outlet or bloggy thing, be it The Economist, New Scientist, Guido Fawkes or whoever.
I see Kickstarters as an opportunity to help the dev community, but I’m only going to ‘invest’ my quidz if it’s something that I’m likely to be interested in. Whereas a positive report here may paint a glowy picture, I usually find it’s best to try and mentally strip out adjectives and gush and sift through for the facts of the matter before parting with any cash, and so I’m afraid I’m a bit bl00dy minded in that respect: I’m not going to blindly punt money at someone even if you manage to get Charlie Brooker, Stephen Hawking, Jesus and Warren Buffett telling me it’s a Good Thing…
I’d suggest perhaps that you define a few ‘rules of engagement’ for wannabe kickstarters and stick it in the ‘hey, developers!’ page if you want to cut down on the Spam though. That would drive me nuts.
23/04/2012 at 19:07 Hmm-Hmm. says:
If RPS happens to be so full on actually upcoming games, I might vote against kickstarters. However, among the many projects on kickstarter (and similar services) there are sure some which are worthy of backing. The problem is finding out which ones are worth backing.
I would honestly be interested to see the opinions of RPS on some kickstarter projects.. maybe you could do it in a similar way you did the many unknown MMO blog post (remember that one?) or perhaps clearly emphasising it’s more like a review rather than an endorsement and certainly not about what the final product will be like (or whether the project will manage to succeed at all, even).
More importantly, I stand behind those who spoke up about the necessity of thorough investigation of a project. This can of course be time-consuming, so if you do decided to do this I assume you’re not likely to feature too many but that’s okay. Also, if you do this at all, it should be not too frequently lest it take away too much time. A kickstarter is after all but a kickstarter.
And as an aside, I could almost wish the Yogscast game will fail gloriously. That might be a lesson learnt for the makers, the yogscast and their fans.
23/04/2012 at 19:33 mercenary-games says:
Yogcast needs to get real.
They aren’t going to complete that project on such a spartan budget.
They need to man up and demand 1M$, and more dev time.
23/04/2012 at 19:45 Hoaxfish says:
I think the “forgotten” MMO articles were nice, but they’re free of the time-limits inherent in kickstarter (i.e. they turn up, update, and then end within a month usually)…. basically I think it’d require a lot more work, to sort them out, and make it count before they specific ones are gone.
As to Yogsventure, I think the team making it sound capable, and they seem to have made some progress given in the time… I think they may simply “fail” to live up to what their fans think they’re getting (given that their fanbase is split between threats to “unsubscribe” any time a non-minecraft video is posted, and just following them for their personalities).
23/04/2012 at 20:22 mercenary-games says:
If they fail, they lose everyone, if not a significant population of their fans.
They really need to get real and find a better plan, with more money and time.
23/04/2012 at 19:30 dangerman77 says:
http://www.rockpapershotgunkickstarter.com! Problem solved.
23/04/2012 at 19:48 Joshua Northey says:
My $.02.
I come here to read about games I might buy in the next few weeks months, (or possibly even today). These are decidedly not KS projects. Now I am not necessarily your target audience, or representative, but I don’t really care about something that is 12 or 24 or 48 months away. That is so far away from what matters to me, from information I can use. It does nothing for me.
As for vetting KS projects, I really doubt you can adequately do that. Certainly the people with some experience producing games is a good sign, but even then they maybe fled away from studios and to KS because they don’t like working within budgets and don’t like meeting deadlines. So they fleeing the studios and start a KS, and then have no project management skills and have used all the money and the game is only 30% done. Look at something like Kerberos. Made Sword of the Stars, got major publisher to back a sequel, had some great looking engine screenshots a year from release, and then they push the release date, and then even after that the game is only 50% complete. No project management skills. but you can only tell after the fact. I am sure if you had vetted the project 6 months from release no red flags would have been raised because Cirulis would have just given you a plausible sounding line of BS.
What are your requirements for placing your faith in a KS project?
I would give money to something with a specific project budget, staff assigned, that was already in alpha or post alpha stage, and I would have to be crazy about the project. Basically I would want to see dozens of pages of paperwork outlining contracts between the projected project manager and projected staff, internal budgets, the whole shebang. They want me to invest treat me like an investor. Every KS I have seen so far is as you mentioned in you own piece “busking”. I have no time for buskers. You cannot put 40 man hours into putting together a proper project management plan and associated contract how on earth you going to sink 2,000, or 10,000 hours into the making of a decent game? You leanr a lot more about someone’s ability to get a project done by how they do on the boring crap no one is interested in than you will looking at all the pretty promises and pieces of functional code, because coders like to code. But it takes doing a lot of stuff that isn’t fun to get a project done, frankly a lot of stuff a studio does for these people in “normal” games. Sure if it is something tiny like Terraria or Braid, flying by the seat of your pants can work, but a lot of these KS are decidedly un-tiny.
23/04/2012 at 21:59 mercenary-games says:
Should take “faith” out of the equation.
Again, Kickstarter pledges can be cancelled at any time during the funding process.
We ask future patrons to demand prototypes.
It’s really hard to disassociate our project with the rest of the “power point presentations”. The best we can do is show our naked build, live, and hope for our patrons constructive criticism.
We don’t want the impression that we are begging for handouts, and peoples “good feelings”. We wanna show them that this is for real.
23/04/2012 at 20:29 jonfitt says:
My ideal criteria for one of you to post about a KS project would be that it excites one of you personally for whatever reason. I believe that arbitrary distinction is what’s needed.
.
The content I value most of RPS is that where there is some passion behind it. I rarely click on “ManShoot12 releases screenshots” posts and am more likely to click on “I saw this game and it’s brilliant” posts. If someone pitches a multiplayer-Thief-inspired-persistent-world game and the idea that it could exist excites you. Post it.
23/04/2012 at 21:54 Johnny Lizard says:
I agree 100%.
23/04/2012 at 20:51 Reapy says:
I think you guys know what is interesting and I generally trust the judgment of RPS in terms of showing me interesting ideas.
That said, while I do believe in prerelease support with my $$ to get indie game alphas (starfarer, minecraft, and mount & blade are the only ones so far), I’m not a huge fan of the ‘pay me before I make it’ model of kickstarter. I guess I just prefer to see solid execution and be shown that imho the developer knows exactly where they are taking their game and how to get there.
A Kickstarter that is just a guy in a chair talking, not really enough for me. Though someone with a prototype up and running that now needs some $$ to either support himself to continue writing it full time, or $$ for art and sound and has a clever idea with industry experience…. well, that guy can be worth investing in.
So really RPS, just make sure you cover that guy, where the porject looks interesting, realistic, and looks as though it is for real and not a scam. Cause honestly all the gaming press have that power to drive people, and by extension cash, in whatever direction they want.
I bought solium inferium due to those play by plays way back. I played it like 10 minutes, and never touched it again. I just didnt have people to play with or anything, nor the time/drive to figure it out, but I still caved under the premise of the game being so clever and watching other people have fun playing it.
23/04/2012 at 21:56 mercenary-games says:
Prototypes are the best way to know if a project is for real,
Or, if it’s just a bunch of powerpoint decks.
23/04/2012 at 21:07 Metonymy says:
Wow, you’re JUST now figuring out that the press is a vehicle for creating truth, and not at all one for reporting it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
And you wonder why the bad guys seek to control money and the press?
Make an attempt to create a weekly or bi-weekly kickerstarter “list” with nothing but links and accurate names. Write paragraphs or articles if a project interests you personally.
23/04/2012 at 21:53 Johnny Lizard says:
Personal interest, be damned. Stop expressing opinions generally. Simply report the names of games and their release dates. Omit nothing.
23/04/2012 at 21:12 wodin says:
Seems odd…not sure what the difference is between you posting about a kickstarter or posting about a game under development you can pre order….
I think if you get alot of emails about one particular kickstarter project you should look into it at least and then decide whether to write about it. If it has alot of fans then likely it’s doing something right.
This is the first article I’ve read here that left me scratching my head…it’s point being? Don’t email us about KS projects? Why not just say that. Instead of writing an article that really can apply to all games whether kickstarter or not.
23/04/2012 at 21:15 Kamen Rider says:
Pretty sure an RPS article has never convinced me to buy anything, ever. Not trying to be rude, just saying. I really love you guys for bringing such rich, diverse, and detailed information to me in a wonderful package, but I’ve never said to myself “Wow, RPS posted an article about ZZZ? I think I’ll go buy it!”
Same with Kickstarter posts. I’m thankful you guys post Kickstarter links and post ones you feel relevant cause I can’t be arsed to browse through Kickstarters total list for things that tickle my fancy. You guys have posted Kickstarter links that I’ve donated to, I’ve donated to Kickstarter links before you’ve posted about them, and I’ve decided not to donate to Kickstarter links even though you’ve posted about them.
Never once has the fact that RPS posted about something, and that alone, convinced me to spend my money in any certain way.
Once again, I’m not trying to be rude, I’m just saying that’s not something you need to worry about.
23/04/2012 at 21:20 Urthman says:
I’d be interested in hearing about any Kickstarter project that at least one of the RPS hivemind…
1. Has some reason to think that the team asking for money can deliver a game if they get funded.
2. Wants to play that game.
23/04/2012 at 21:26 Waltorious says:
My opinion is that whether or not a project is a Kickstarter should be irrelevant. Before Kickstarter came around, RPS would post about a mix of different games, some completed and for sale, and others that were under development. This means that certain games would get highlighted over others, based simply on what the RPS authors found interesting. The concerns listed in this post still applied. It was still relevant to ask whether to post about a promising indie game in development that might not see the light of day, or about an established game that’s finished and on sale.
To me, the only difference with Kickstarter projects is that they are not yet funded, whereas many traditional “in development” projects do have some type of budget. To me, this means that a Kickstarter project needs to look especially interesting in order to catch my attention, because I know the chance of the project not coming to pass is higher. But as long as that is taken into account, I see no more problem highlighting a Kickstarter project than I would any other promising game under development.
In summary, I think that the RPS staff should continue to post about whatever games they find interesting, whether or not they are Kickstarter projects, although perhaps being a bit more selective with the Kickstarter projects given the higher chance of failure.
23/04/2012 at 21:38 Yar says:
RPS spends too much time apologizing for how hard it is to be an indie gaming site. If people are spamming RPS trying to get their pet project mentioned, they are douchewallets. Publish more about wot you like, and less about how hard it is for you to be fair to everyone.
23/04/2012 at 21:54 mercenary-games says:
Proposed solution:
RPS creates a separate forum for Kickstarters, allows their community to debate a project if its relevant enough.
So instead of having to handle project linkage spam, they can have their community discuss and debate about a project instead.
23/04/2012 at 23:16 Lambchops says:
Good plan. Highlight the one’s they want to talk about because of personal interest (as the RPS guy’s usually say “it’s our site and we can do what we want with it”) and have a space where the one’s who are not mentioned can promote their games and maybe get a bit of useful feedback from people who may be interested. If that number of people is large then it might just draw some main page attention later.
Seems sensible.
23/04/2012 at 22:31 jellydonut says:
Put them in weekly posts, similar to the Sunday Times and those board game things I never read. and/or make a section for them *in* Sunday Times.
Of course, maintain an editorial policy. It’s easy for a dyed-in-the-wool PC gamer to tell the fluff and crap from a project that has at least some merit.
I would say posting the ones helmed by veteran developers is a must.
23/04/2012 at 22:56 mercenary-games says:
http://fleetcomm.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/an-open-letter-to-rock-paper-shotgun/
An open letter to your community and your writers. It touches this article, and we hope it expands the discussion.
Also, thank you to everyone for posting your concerns. It seems there isn’t a lot of clarity about the nature of Kickstarter projects, we’d like to address those from our own studios perspective.
We welcome you all to debate and discuss our view, we’d like to wade through all the misinformation and “celebrity fanboyism”. We’re a small studio with objective goals.
It’s hard for us to communicate to media outlets because of the “adoration” for novelty, and the spectacle of veteran game devs. We do believe it clouds the rest of the Kickstarter projects, we aren’t all the same. Collectively, we all have unique objectives that we need to fuel our projects.
We think it’s time that Kickstarter projects got real.
24/04/2012 at 00:01 Lambchops says:
Hey Mercenary,Games.
You asked for critical feedback so i’m going to offer a bit (it’s not game related as RTS’s are not really my cup of milk).
You may well disagree with what I say, believing it’s part of “marketing” and you’ve suggested you’re more about “development.” Clearly you’ve got that covered in terms of prototypes and that’s fantastic. But a Kickstarter isn’t just about showing the product working. It’s a pitch and there are a few other elements to a pitch than having an idea/early working version. The other things that are important are passion, personality, presentation (and tied in with presentation, confidence).
It’s clear you’ve got personality. It’s clear you’ve got passion. Unfortunately the presentation just seems a bit rambling. You’ve got lots of cool stuff there and you’re too eager to show it all off in one fell swoop going “look at what we can do!” it’s overwhelming, at times information overload jumping between talking about the game, then the team, then the game again. Near the start you’ve got two 5 minute videos which show . . . .stuff happening . . . no idea what. Then you’ve got an interview which I assume actually explains a lot which is 45 minutes long. I’ll be brutally honest here, virtually nobody is going to watch that. You’d have to already be hooked into the project to even contemplate it.
Then when you introduce the team as a crew you show off your personality again, but it’s just a bit too much (seems to be a few in jokes) and gets in the way of the pitch.
What I’m suggesting is, tone it down. Keep the Kickstarter page slick and sleek. This isn’t marketing it’s just simple presentation skills. Keep it to the basics, get people hooked and direct them to the game’s website if they want more information; that’s the place for the witty bios, lists of ships which feature in the game and 45 minute interviews.
In my mind the Kickstarter page should run along the lines of (this is just a suggestion, there’s lots of ways to go about it);
1) Swanky logo
2) This is what the game is in a few short sharp sentences. The overall vision etc.Fuck stuff like how the name is pronounced. Make it short sharp bullet points.
Space based RPS.
Design Your Fleet.
Create Manouvers
Execute Your strategy
(with a little bit more explanation of the key features but not much)
3) Show video. Trailer style. Demonstrate the aforementioned bullet points with brief shots and explain with either voice or text (text is probably better so you can keep your new fangled dubstep!). No longer than 3 minutes, people have short attention spans and it’s enough time to make people think I fancy playing that.
4) Then BAM! Hit them with your prototype. They can see what it’s like. Emphasise it’s early doors and that they can give feedback on your website/forums etc (people like to be included).
5) Like what you see, then back us. We really need your help andfeedback entreaty. You can help this awesome thing become a reality etc.
6) Who you are (the interested people are still with you the one’s who aren’t well you don’t need them to read this stuff anyway so there’s no point mentioning it until now.
7) Frequently asked questions. Boring shit but details some people might like to know. Explaining rewards, plans, timescales etc. That sort of stuff is better as an appendix rather than clogging up the main pitch.
Obviously you don’t want to do this rote or it’ll read like a dull press release. Inject your own style/humour into it (something I know I’d be crap at if I was pitching and would probably get help with) but the basic layout should probably not stray too far away from what I’ve suggested.
So yeah, for what it’s worth that’s my feedback. Hope you don’t see it as having ago but I’ve seen quite a few Kickstarter pitches where presentation has been lacking and I guess it’s you that got on the end of me deciding to bang on about it. I just think a lot of devs underestimate the importance of presenting their pitch in a quick, clear succinct way that will actually draw in people to pledge or try things out (though I’d argue if they’ve got nothing to try out they are already off on the wrong foot – unless they are a current studio with a proven track record – in my mind even celebrity pitchers aren’t excused from showing something if they are coming out of the woodwork after a long hiatus).
Anyway best of luck with the Kickstarter and your game, hope they go well.
24/04/2012 at 00:15 mercenary-games says:
All noted.
We are recalibrating the pitch in the next week, as well as a new prototype delivered.
That pitch was mostly thrown in there by all our members, we wanted to show our entire design document from the ground up.
It does seem “noisy” and maybe unclear to some folks. and also noted, that the pitch is hard to digest. Agreed on that.
So yes, calibrations necessary.
24/04/2012 at 09:05 mendel says:
Read “How To Explain Your Game To An Asshole” by Tom Francis. The rest of your presentation should explain how you plan to spend the money you’re asking for, and what your budget and business plan is.
And please stop screaming that pledges can be cancelled AT ANY TIME, it may be true in the literal sense, but after the deadline, when the pledge has become a payment, nobody can take their money back. It’s also not something I would want to encourage if I was a developer.
01/05/2012 at 19:08 mercenary-games says:
We updated our video, just for you Lambchops.
23/04/2012 at 23:14 Lambchops says:
I’m sure you’ll find your feet with what do to do about Kickstarters. As it is I think things are going in the right direction. Reservations with projects are mentioned and you seem to be leaving well alone some of the potentially iffier projects, a certain space game from a developer that failed to deliver their last project springs to mind (if that sounds bitter it isn’t if anything I’m far more interested in the content of their Kickstarter pitch than their previous effort but I’ll buy it if released, no way i’m putting down money up front for a team that didn’t deliver their last project, whatever those reasons may be).
I think most people are sensible enough to make up their own mind. Keep highlighting the projects that look interesting, whomever they may be from, that look like they have a chance of successful delivery (whether with prototypes like FTL or a proven track record like Double Fine).
23/04/2012 at 23:14 fish99 says:
If all a project has to show is some concept art, I think you should steer clear of covering it, unless it has some respected people behind it.
As anyone who’ve ever been to Gamedev.net knows there’s thousands of people out there who think they’ve got a great idea for a game and 99% of them never produce anything, usually because they have no concept of what’s involved, or they don’t have the ability or motivation. It’s kinda scary that these same people can produce a render or concept art, put up a kickstarter project and maybe get a lot of money now.
I don’t think I’ll be kickstarting anything while it remains so unaccountable and open to abuse. Maybe I’ll back Grim Dawn, but they’ve got a track record and some actual gameplay to show. I would also back Stalker 2 if needed.
I think RPS is right to question whether it should be covering a lot of kickstarters, there’s a risk you’ll get part of the blame if things go wrong. Same thing with Totalbiscuit and his new kicksmarter video series. It’s your credibility on the line.
23/04/2012 at 23:23 Grey_Ghost says:
A weekly post about the projects that the RPS staff find intriguing seems perfectly fine to me. I’ve only backed one project so far, and you weren’t even my original source on it’s existence.
I love reading RPS articles, and you do have some influence over some of my gaming habits. That being said, I don’t go around buying every game you exude excitement for, nor will I be compelled to back every Kickstarter game you mention. Though I’m sure to find interesting the ones you find interesting. 8P
23/04/2012 at 23:31 Jon Tetrino says:
Personally, the two things that sell any crowd-funded project to me are the following: What is being shown, and the passion involved.
It’s not that I MUST see a game is already in Alpha before I apply my (very limited if I’m honest) funds to it, though. If I see there is a writeup or well-made video explaining the concepts and ideas behind the project then I will throw a few bucks in assuming that the passion is there.
How to gage passion isn’t easy.
For me, the passion of the project creators is what ultimately makes or breaks it. If the writing of the project reads like a press release or the video displaying it has a long monotone drawl then I won’t give it much of a thought. The personal touch helps.
23/04/2012 at 23:45 Norramp says:
I agree that RPS should post about the stuff that they’re interested in. That’s part of what makes RPS what it is.
If you want to post about things that are popular, you could always throw in a few celebrity gossip articles every once in a while.
24/04/2012 at 00:40 montyfull says:
I wouldn’t mind a weekly roundup of interesting kickstarter projects, very much like the bargain bucket. I look forward to them and do my game shopping all in one go! :)
As for what I look for in a Kickstarter project… Established name, but not always. Well thought out explanations, development plan, and a small level of development already done. Screenshots, videos, interviews, etc. I’m looking for responsible people who are more likely to return on my investment. oh, and I only fund a game kickstarter if I get the game out of it! So, if that level is $15, $30 or $45… if I think its worth it and I get the game, I’ll go for it.
24/04/2012 at 01:04 lordcooper says:
I would love it if RPS did a weekly feature on the 3/5/>9000 most interesting/promising kickstarters (by your individual standards) . It’d be awesome to read through and help provide some more content for Sundays.
24/04/2012 at 01:37 svendelmaus says:
This made me realise that I’ve not given RPS any money, even though I value what they do. Fixed.
24/04/2012 at 02:15 Tams80 says:
Well here’s my opinion for what it’s worth.
1) I don’t think you’re implying readers should buy it.
2) I think you should only cover projects that have something to show for it (concept art, ideally some gameplay videos, screenshots, music, etc.), unless it is project you really have a passion for. This should be whether said projects are by a celebrity or not (though celebrity projects are more likely to have something to show).
3) Encourage your readers to apply the above suggestions before they send an email.
4) Already available games and games that are definitely going to be released (not promises) should always take presidence. If it comes down to one KS/other service or another, post about the one that is most likely to come to fruition. Again, if you really have a passion for a project then that is understandable.
5) Don’t post about the game being suggested for at least a week after the email surge.
6) If the above are followed, then hopefully the best and most likely to come to fruition (as you don’t want readers to be ripped off/scammed) will be the successes.
I know you already follow most of those suggestions to some degree, which is great.
24/04/2012 at 02:40 oneeyedziggy says:
I only contribute either to projects that have a serious proof of concept running that shows the dev can follow through on their claims (it’s not so much that these projects already have funding and are less deserving, many of these are funded through the dev incurring massive debt, and they’re looking to us just to keep ahead of payments) or that have a reputation and history for making good games (this could mean a double fine situation, or it could mean that, while obscure, they have a back catalog of other games they’ve followed through to completion in their spare time and would like to go full time, but have rent to pay and possibly a family to feed.)
As for your posting and where your time should go, as a well connected member of the gaming community, if you would message a friend to tell them about it, or mention it in the break room, it’s worth a blurb on the site, even if some of them are relegated to a rumors and hearsay breakout section or a group post like the Sunday papers. Wot I love about the gaming community as a whole is most of the press tend to treat the audience like friends. Several of the podcasts I listen to contribute to this feeling of just being “one of the guys.” You’re silly, fun, and often juvenile or “inappropriate”, and I love this. Especially when contrasted against news in general which is kept very sterile and remote even when it’s not politically charged. I don’t feel like you’re talking down to me, or talking “at” me. I feel like you’re just hanging out telling me wot you think, so keep it up!
24/04/2012 at 03:35 LIVE6744 says:
I have never understood why this site is perfectly ok posting about the “BIG” names in the indie scene, and esp their kickstarters and they deny the true small time ‘indie’ studios for trying to start up there game or company using kickstarter. Case in point, Nekro.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/343838885/nekro
Its a great looking game for how early it is but has gotten absolutely no coverage, its rather surprising esp because the large names that have done a kickstarter havnt even shown a game at all or even any design plans.
24/04/2012 at 03:53 Lemming says:
I second Nekro. It’s got proof of concept RIGHT THERE and it’s only got 10 days left to get about $50k. It needs a PR boost.
24/04/2012 at 04:32 Angel Dust says:
Wow, that looks brilliant! $15 pledged!
Edit: it is strange that none of the RPS chaps have deemed it worthy enough to cover. I mean, that rather vague tactical shooter one got two posts.
24/04/2012 at 09:08 TheWhippetLord says:
I believe that Nekro may be a culprit in the ‘email bombardment ‘ marketing that was critiscised in the OP.
24/04/2012 at 05:01 mercenary-games says:
Wanna see something fishy about Tempus Chronicles?
Go to their page, tally up all their regular backer counts (the ones less than 1000$).
Total comes to 6370$. Now subtract that from their current pledge count, you get 50270$. The current majority of their pledges comes from really high rollers. Currently, they have a backer count of 245.
Compare that to our project, we have a fairly even distribution of people. We don’t have mystery high rollers, at 285 backers. We do have some people who have yet to select a reward.
It’s time for kickstarter projects to start getting real.
24/04/2012 at 05:13 hellboy says:
I come to this site because I trust you guys exercise good judgement when posting about games here. Keep on exersicing that good judgement and I don’t see there will be any problems.
I also promise to use mine before funding a Kickstarted project.
24/04/2012 at 06:20 GTRichey says:
Post ones that find interesting disregarding the Kickstarter nature. Ask whether the game is interesting enough to post about (or even if there is enough information about the game) without it being a Kickstarter project. This seems to be the most sensible thing to do.
24/04/2012 at 06:24 Baresark says:
Ha, the ego on these guys. I know the pen is mightier than the sword, but you aren’t ensuring a project gets paid for or not. For instance, no matter who was making Banner Saga, it didn’t look that good to me, though I know a lot of people backed it completely, which is fine. I did Double Fine because I love point and click adventure games, I did Shadowrun because I played through the SNES Shadowrun about 60 times and I loved it. I did FTL because I like games that are essentially random.
Just talk about games you find interesting and leave the support up to us, we are big boys.
24/04/2012 at 09:28 princec says:
No more Kickstarter posts in general please, unless you’re personally interested. Let them advertise their vapourware the same way the rest of us have to.
24/04/2012 at 09:33 Acosta says:
I would never take RPS coverage as some “we’re essentially implying our readers should donate to it”, and I’m surprised you bring that out (you know your community better than me though).
I really enjoy RPS on a daily basis, and I have trusted you since the PC Gamer days, but if you cover a KS project I won’t rush to support it just because it has appeared at RPS, and I am not going to come back as an internet angry man if some project you covered fails, that’s not your responsibility.
Follow your guts, select the projects you are interested, and I trust you will prepare a solid interview so we can know more about that project and its chances to be something worthy. This is what I would like to see, nothing more, nothing less.
24/04/2012 at 11:40 muskieratboi says:
As a few other have noted, have a weekly “Kicking it” column with updates on major gaming KSes, and any interesting new ones you guys like. I trust RPS to look into the people involved in the projects and vet them beforehand.
24/04/2012 at 12:09 Homercleese says:
I DO trust RPS to vet projects but why should they? We’re all supposed to be responsible, discerning, human-like bio-vats. Why can’t they just paste a link and leave it up to us to decide if it’s actually feasible?
24/04/2012 at 12:06 Homercleese says:
Perhaps just amalgamate whatever collection of projects you feel to be interesting into a regular ‘links’ post with minimal discussion of the projects themselves. Less of an RPS endorsement, more of a ‘I saw this in my internet rummaging and it looks a bit nifty’. Because the fact is, whether you post about them or not, for however long this trend lasts you will inevitably be spending some of your time exploring them and why shouldn’t that be worthy of a mention?
24/04/2012 at 12:10 rustybroomhandle says:
Likely has been said already, but RPS’ ability to influence the Kickstarter economy is no greater than its ability to influence purchases of already-released games.
But since I also would like to see some coverage go to less known/ non-celeb Kickstarters, I think a weekly round up would be the way to go.
What’s new
What finished/got funded
What finished/did not get funded
Noteworthy projects (good and bad)
Commentary on pitches
Summary of ongoing updates
Sounds like a lot, but I bet it’d end up being no bigger than the average Bargain Bucket or Sunday Papers – except with some editorialising required.
24/04/2012 at 13:09 Lemming says:
Personally I’ve funded:
Nekro
Wasteland 2
Grim Dawn
The Solar System: Explore your Backyard (via indiegogo)
Only Wasteland 2 didn’t have stuff up and running already, but Brian Fargo is a known name, he’s earned his stripes.
I didn’t fund Double-Fine because KS was new to me then and I watched it unfold instead. I’ll happily buy their game when it comes out though. I’ll buy FTL as well, they were already funded when I found their Kickstarter. Shadowrun sounds cool and I wish them well, but not enough to fund it as I’m sure their die-hard fans will be enough.
Almost everything else so far has been white-noise. I’ve looked at a few, and generally if it looks unremarkable or I can’t understand what the hell is going on, then I’ll pass.
24/04/2012 at 18:54 Solar says:
Sorry but late to the party. Information is information, it might be wrong, it might be misleading but it’s what you do with it when you have it that counts. Unfortunately the power of words means that your sensibilities are easily swayed and led by the sources of information that you trust.
When pledging to kickstarter/pledge site you are essentially backing or investing in an idea, trusting the words displayed in the project and hoping to support encourage and ‘kick’ the project lead into helping them give something back to you and/or the world, with an understanding it might not happen.
When RPS report on a kickstarter or similar project it may seem they are giving information about an idea they back or at least believe has merit enough to be reported on as news.
The RPS readership deal with the information like any other news source, however they may trust that such news is backing when it might be merit or something else entirely. Of course it is actually just information, but the point is RPS does have some sway with the readers that trust them.
It costs nothing to read an article or kickstarter pledge. But a fool and their money are easily parted, especially when they trust something.
Because of this I suggest that RPS makes their stance very clear about reporting a on pledge site. If only to maintain the trust of their readership.
Example stances could include:
1. Only reporting in a supportive way on a pledge that has at least reached its projected funding target (and so has less pressure on the reader to feel as though they should back it if the pledging deadline has still not been met)
2. If genuinely supportive, then the journalists have seen a playable code of noteworthy merit.
3. New projects/pledges should be presented in a neutral/factual way letting the readership comment either way. (Such as the Jane Jenson interview referring to her kickstarter studio. I note the questions that discuss the breakdown of funding for the project and why the pledge amount was set as it was. Also the facts of her project at the end and where to get associated goodies).
4. Having a neutrality statement when commenting on projects that request money from the general public without any assured return. Positive statements for suggested projects may be close to promoting gambling/investment and legal proceedings could ensue.
There is no news that shouldn’t appear on RPS, but the way it is presented is important. When reporting on a game in development, money has been put down by the producer/publisher/developer. There is still no guarantee that it will happen, the studio may fold or the money dry up before completion. However the general public is not involved in this financial expense. The public can preorder a game but if there is no release then there is generally nothing lost to the consumer (unless you put down a non-refundable deposit or the deposit holder goes bust, as almost happened with GAME).
Therefore I think readers should also take some responsibility (edit: which I can see many do ;) and think of kickstarters as preorder deposit that you might never get back, or an investment in a pie factory you really like, or a big raise on a poker hand you are convinced will win. That gives RPS some more leeway in reporting such projects and less chance to lose your trust.