Planetary Annihilation Kickstarter Blasts Past $2m

By Jim Rossignol on September 14th, 2012 at 2:00 pm.


Uber Entertainment’s Total Annihilation-inspired Planetary Annihilation bid has already long surpassed its $900k goal, but is now soaring over $2m, with just hours to go. This means that a huge stack of stetch-goals have been unlocked, including naval units, orbital units, gas giants, and metal and lava planets. $2m means that the game gets a full orchestra-produced soundtrack, too. Amazing stuff.

This is an interesting pitch: nostalgia for an old franchise mixed with a genuine vision for the future of the RTS genre. I’d argue that the pitch video that Uber did for this – which you can see below – is one of the most convincing produced by any crowd-funding attempt. If you’ve not seen it, take a look. You’ll smile.

__________________

« | »

, .

70 Comments »

  1. vonkrieger says:

    Grab your nearest asteroid, the race is on!

  2. flaillomanz says:

    Thank god I pledged.

  3. Runty McTall says:

    Proud backer – $100 put down for this. And yeah, the video was a huge part of my enthusiasm for it – the art style really struck me, for one thing.

    • DeVadder says:

      Also how the announcer opens his shirt in the last of his sentences for no reason except that it probably cannot contain his awesome!

    • AngoraFish says:

      Too bad the video is just an intro, like the graphic cut-scenes that load before you get to the main menu. The videos and images (cut from the intro movie) may have absolutely no relationship to the look and feel of the actual game.

      • chackosan says:

        It seems to be a fairly gameplay-representative video though (unlike a cinematic style like the Dawn of War intro or Starcraft cutscenes). I can’t think of too many games which had intros of this nature, and then changed the look and feel completely for the game.

  4. Xocrates says:

    And at the current rate, it seems likely to reach it’s last stretch goal as well.

    EDIT: And they have

  5. catmorbid says:

    Pledged and actually got so excited I bought Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. Damn great games those are.

  6. Lars Westergren says:

    Very nice. Congrats to the team, and all the nice backers.

    And now probably only a few hours left until Obsidian reveal their Kickstarter too. Updating my journal.

  7. Hoaxfish says:

    Fun to see it “was” trending towards 1.8 million, guess the slow drip of stretch-goal reveals had some effect.

  8. TechnicalBen says:

    If I could, I would back. Hope they offer concurrent backing on their own website as this gets developed. :/

  9. cairbre says:

    My first time backing a kick starter project. Was the video that got me too and the fact I now get to name a planet.

  10. Edradour says:

    Damn and i just found out that you can pledge via paypal on their website…but i already bought FTL for 9 bucks today :(

  11. TehTR says:

    I also pledged 100$ for this. Best money I ever spent, just for the opportunity to see this funded tbh.

  12. Dark Nexus says:

    I’m glad they made it to Orchestral score. I don’t really care about the documentary, but some people do so I suppose I’ll be glad for them when it makes it to that goal too.

    All in all, it seems like a very well run kickstarter, from the pitch video all the way to the end.

  13. Gap Gen says:

    Yeah, I hope this turns out well. Looks like an awesome project.

  14. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    I actually removed my pledge not long ago, after I realised I was pledging $90 USD for a game I wouldn’t pay more than $25 or so for. Sure I could have reduced my pledge amount but I actually didn’t feel like I needed the game in any way. I suppose the hype ran out for me.

    But yeah, it’s a rather neat project.

    • DuddBudda says:

      in essence, you don’t like RTS?

      • AngoraFish says:

        I like RTS, but did the same. There is too much uncertainty about this game, which appears to have an impressive intro cutscene video built for it and absolutely nothing else. Allowing people to assume the video was based on actual gameplay by confusingly labeling it as ‘gameplay’ also left a bad taste in my mouth. If the game is any good I’ll pick up in a Steam sale six months after it’s released.

      • Hmm-Hmm. says:

        No, not quite. It’s just that all the excitement I had for the project (which was considerable) ran out and started to look at it with less rose-tinted glasses. I still think they have some very good ideas going on, but I just don’t want the game right now. I may still buy it somewhere down the line, but then again, I may not.

        So I decided to save myself the money.

    • MattM says:

      It is a bit crazy, when buying completed games I am a deal hound, good luck getting me to pay more than $10 for a Goatee with all the DLC and the expansion pack. But for kickstarters I will often chip in at ~$25 because I want to buy the dream of this amazing game

      • Jhoosier says:

        Same here. I just put in for this (with 3 hrs to go. I should’ve waited to read this in the morning, when I’d be sober and unable to pledge), yet I WILL NOT pay for a game at full price. It’s gotta be some weird psychological effect.

      • Runty McTall says:

        Me too – try not to spend more than £7 on a game but have put down significant sums on ftl, double fine, clang and PA.

  15. Ultramegazord says:

    Not convinced about the art style but knowing Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander are both my all time favorite RTS games I could only have to donate, innovation needs to be rewarded.

    • Mordsung says:

      I believe the art style is intentionally low-fi so as to allow massive scale without being a total resource hog.

      A long game of SupCom is hell on a mid-range PC, you end up playing the game at like 10 FPS.

      With less polygons overall, lots of units on screen should be much easier to deal with.

  16. DarkFenix says:

    Initially pledged $50 just to see the project happen, upped that to $90 once I saw some of those stretch goals. Galactic campaign? Full orchestral score? Yes fucking please, the latter in particular is something of a game-maker for me.

    I was slightly concerned a few days ago that it might not make some of those goals (it was sitting at something like $1.6m), it’s really shot up these last few days.

  17. Wang Tang says:

    For Planetary Annihilation, we decided to go with Dub Step.

    That was awesome :D

  18. The First Door says:

    I’m really looking forward to this happening and I’ve very glad it reached the Galactic War stretch goal… but I have to say the videos have only been downhill from this one. The obsession with that guy’s face has been vaguely irritating, for example.

  19. Gummi says:

    I got giddy and very excited by the gameplay shown in the video, perhaps enough to throw down a pledge, until I could check to see if there was a single player or not. There isn’t.
    Seeing as I pretty much only play games in single player (save for a rare session of co-op here and there) I didn’t pledge and probably won’t buy or play this game ever, unless a single player will be added which does not appear to be one of the stretch goals despite hints in the kickstarter FAQ.

    • FlyingDog says:

      The Galactic Annihilation feature IS the singleplayer as far as I can tell. A procedurally generated galaxy with AI’s that can be played offline. Perhaps not exactly what you wanted, but if the multiplayer focus is the only thing throwing you off, then it might be a decent substitute for a singleplayer campaign.

      • Gummi says:

        I just had a look at the galactic war feature, yeah I guess it does have a single-player now. Too late to pledge, but not sure I would have anyway. I will remain cautiously optimistic about it but I wanna see how the single-player turns out before I plunk down the cash for it when it comes out. Hopefully it will be interesting enough, this game is really appealing to me in both gameplay and graphical style.

    • The First Door says:

      I’m was in the same boat as you, but they have always promised there will at least be skirmish play against the AI as a single player option, as well as Co-op skirmish vs the AI which I enjoy too.

      Plus, as FlyingDog said, they said the Galactic War stretch goal was designed to be good for single player too… I suppose it is a little like Civ or Endless Space, randomly generated maps on a large scale.

    • DuddBudda says:

      single player is in

      skirmish AI so you can comp stomp

      campaign 1 vs AI[s] or co-op vs AI[s]

      happy?

    • TheTingler says:

      Yeah, I’m with Gummi here. Was all ready to pledge until I saw that the game was multiplayer-focused, with just a slight nod in the form of skirmishes. No thank you, that’s the reason I was so pissed at EA about Command & Conquer Generals 2 – one of my most wanted games of 2013, now one I couldn’t care less about. Shame.

    • Dark Nexus says:

      There is single player.

      There is no scripted campaign.

      Scripted campaign != only form of single player.

  20. wodin says:

    WOW. I’m someone who doesn’t get on or really enjoy RTS games, to fast and to much of a click fest for me. However there are the exceptions the Close Combat Series (though going back to it after Achtung Panzer I found again it was abit to quick and the Infantry after CC2 seemed to become very vulnerable which I didn’t like at all) and the more recent Achtung Panzer series.

    However just watching that video I have to say the overall look I love. Aesthetically I love the design. Also Firing asteroids into planets to wipe them out. Amazing.

    This could be the first RTS game (barring the ones I mentioned above) that I’m actually very very interested in. I do hope the pace is reasonable though. Though I imagine huge scale battles means lots of clicking…

    • luukdeman111 says:

      While RTS’es always involve alot of clicking, they said they wanted to focus on macro strategy. so that basically means moving a huge group of units to defend a general area and not having to click every unit to tell what unit it should attack.

      So in that case huge scale means less clicking…

      • MattM says:

        Many RTS claim this, but it still seems like the multiplayer community finds build orders and unit micro that dominate when done properly.

      • biz says:

        Micro and macro is just management – very routine management where better players = faster players. The only thing “macro” does is emphasize micromanaging lots of production facilities really quickly instead of micromanaging lots of units really quickly. Both are a far cry from actual strategy.

        This is one of those developers who believes that games that don’t have thousands of units are unstrategic because more units = more strategy. That’s almost an exact quote by the guy.

        It’s a given that a RTS game will be primarily about macro / micro, but the talent is making games where strategic decisions are still relevant and where build orders + APM don’t help a ridiculous amount. Otherwise the game is just RTT with an offline strategy component.

    • Lobosolitario says:

      Total Annihilation is the main inspiration of this game, so it should be pretty much the opposite of a clickfest – TA was all about macro rather than micro (although a bit of micro always comes in handy in any RTS), and had a load of features to cut out needless micro – you could set factories to produce infinite numbers of units, with a full waypoint system for them to follow once they were built, as well as using the same waypoint system to automate repair crews in your base, patrols, etc… I understand Supreme Commander also implemented a ferry system where you could set a transport to automatically load units at one point and offload them at another.

      • DeVadder says:

        The ferry system was so awesome. And units would understand that there are ferrys available and use them on their own pathes and everything. That is probably stupid of me, but the working ferrys were and still are one of the things i glorify most about the game.
        And i still use it as an example when explaining why RTS x sucks compared to Supreme Commander.

    • FunkyLlama says:

      You might like to try Company of Heroes if you’re after an RTS which is more about strategy than APM. Although with CoH 2 coming out next year, I imagine its multiplayer has only months to live.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Have you tried Sins of a Solar Empire? It’s much, much slower than your normal RTS and you’ll never lose from slow clicking.

  21. Hunchback says:

    Great video there, even if a little bit cheesy… Still, good humour and all. :D

    Oh and the game… dunno if it will be awesome or just “ok”, i never did like TA or SupCom, but things might change.

  22. Cytrom says:

    I like the concept, the technology, the supposed gameplay and everything about this project.. but this game just painfully lacks style or an dominant theme. Its the soul that keeps a game together and turns a great game into a classic. Thats why I used to love blizzard rts-es (WC3 is still unmatched in my eyes). I hope they come up with some kind of personality for the game.

    • DuddBudda says:

      game about von Neumann machines needs a soul… nope, though I’m sure Uber can imbue it with something

      as for style, watch the video again, there is a very strong aesthetic, almost a TF2 approach to an RTS
      or play the MNC games – uber’s slick characterful schtick is top drawer

    • Stinkfinger75 says:

      Allay your fears Cytrom, if there’s one thing that Uber does extremely well, it’s style. Super Monday Night Combat has style and personality like few other games. And great music. And great character design. And tight gameplay. And great writing. I personally feel that Uber is one of the most underrated PC developers out there.

  23. Magnusm1 says:

    Yay!

  24. barelyhomosapien says:

    $135…more then the rest of my pledges combined…I wanted the USB doohickey and ofcourse the postage cost. This is the first kick starter to make me really truly excited, I honestly wish I could give more!

    There is something infectious about their passion and enthusiasm!

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Can I ask what tier the USB thing is in, I can’t see it in the list – probably being blind!

      • barelyhomosapien says:

        NEW ADD-ON: Game Loaded USB Key – $20 Add-on with $95 pledges and above*
        Available to our $95+ backers. We haven’t finalized the design of this key yet but it will likely be in the form of the commander. We’ve heard you loud and clear that you want a physical copy of the game. A USB drive has been on our agenda for a bit and everyone has convinced us that this is a good idea. Get ‘em while they’re hot!

        * Does not include $140 Tier which is digital only.

        Straight from the horses mouth! :)

      • ThTa says:

        They only added that later on, it’s part of their physical offerings (starting at $100). They added it because people wanted the game on some form of physical medium as well. (Previously, you’d get a game box, but it wouldn’t contain the game itself, just the swag)

        I’d love to get that stuff, but I’m a bit short on cash. But since I still love the entire concept, I went for a $50 pledge. I hope they’ll allow people to up their pledges later on through PayPal or something.

  25. Hardmood says:

    mhm not even the vid is great, the game looks interesting too^^.

    think big in terms of destruction! hahaha, im german, i know what im talkin about ;-D

    seriously now,
    compared to this new form of “kickstarting”, old developing/marketing structures look like simplistic bruteforce methods made by selfishpride autists to hack the userbrain/market. ^^

  26. Nameless1 says:

    I AM AMONGST THE UBER

  27. MythArcana says:

    Make sure you make it Steam exclusive like everyone else. : /

  28. barelyhomosapien says:

    @Mytharcana

    Do you mean in terms of Kickstarters? I ask because FTL isn’t steam exclusive, as a recent example.

  29. Kein says:

    AR YOU EXCITED?! I’M SO EXCITED.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>