Project Eternity Raises Lots Of Money Awfully Quickly

I’m early-morning compiling Kickstarter Katchup before a trip to see inside-out animals at the Natural History Museum, but there’s one highlight that needs its own post. Yesterday’s announcement from Obsidian that they’re making a new, old-school RPG in the spirit of Planescape: Torment was always going to be popular. But even so, they set their sights pretty high. $1.1m is the highest gaming Kickstarter I’ve seen, and setting a “limit” of 25,000 pledgers at the $20 level could almost be seen as hubris. Er, forget all that. In about 14 hours the project has raised $780,000. Jaw, floor. It’s safe to say people want to play a new Obsidian RPG. And now we get to see if Obsidian’s rather long-time reputation for having their games come out falling short of their vision was really because of publishers. Sitting in front of the project’s page, watching the pledge counter ticking up, is pretty spellbinding. It’s gone up $3,000 since I started writing this paragraph.


  1. Rahdulf123 says:

    Real question is what are their stretch goals?

    • Azradesh says:

      From the botton of their page.

      “We need to raise $1.1 million to fund an experienced team to do this right. We are asking for more than a lot of the other Kickstarter projects and that’s because we are not only making a game, we are creating a whole new world. That means a new RPG system, entirely new art, new characters and animation and whole lot of lore and dialogue. We’ve also designed the game to have a flexible budget and scope, so if we reach our target budget goal, we have a list great stuff we can add into the mix through stretch goals. And, additional money we raise will go straight into the game to add new levels, companions, NPCs, features, and even entirely new parts of the world which will add hours and hours to the adventure. “

  2. astronaute says:

    All I see is “Free Palestine” in the picture :)

  3. D3xter says:

    Let’s be honest, $1.1 Million isn’t much for an RPG. It’s around the bare minimum (that’s around the same goal Wasteland 2 set with $1 Million). Fallout cost $3 Million back in the day and Baldur’s Gate $4.5 Million, those are probably the numbers they were hoping for and I’m sure even the bare minimum would produce A game, but maybe not THE game.

    Sure they already have the Onxy Engine and Tools they are likely going to use this time, but still.

    • Gesadt says:

      im sure they will have way more than 1.1 mil by the end of this.

    • tobecooper says:

      I didn’t everything on their page too carefully, but doesn’t it say they intend to make this game in 1,5 year? That would explain the cost. Fallout and Baldur had longer development times.

    • Phinor says:

      1.1 million isn’t much for a project of this size but Obsidian is also an established company and they’d probably do (and will do?) some of this with their own resources (money) if they needed to. The amount of money they are asking from Kickstarter is probably going to help a lot too and they can get fans involved early on with no publisher messing things up.

      One thing that struck me in the Kotaku interview with Avellone was the fact that if this succeeds, they finally have a fantasy IP of their own and they can do anything they want with it. This isn’t just about creating a single game, this is also about creating a new franchise and it wouldn’t be owned by some random publisher who buries it the moment it is released.

      • plugmonkey says:

        Or if they don’t use their own money, already having a massive chunk of cash from Kickstarter makes them a lot more attractive to other investors.

        Asking someone for a $3 million investment takes on a very different hue if you have already raised half that, essentially through having presold thousands of copies. Talk about demonstrating a market.

    • atticus says:

      Judging from the sum and the timespan, I’m guessing that the product we will get in April 2014 won’t be as big and expansive as e.g. Baldurs Gate to begin with, but that the franchise will grow into their vision over time.

    • Jimbo says:

      They probably don’t need to raise the entire development budget from Kickstarter. It’s a good way to satisfy themselves / money hats that there is strong demand for what they’re proposing though. Getting a few million more from elsewhere isn’t going to be that big a deal after this, if they need to.

      I could see this KS getting to ~$4M anyways. Obsidian have a lot of passionate fans, the demand for this type of game has been obvious since Origins and the current Bioware backlash isn’t going to hurt either.

    • Kaira- says:

      >don’t have to worry about promoting and shipping

      Umm, yes, yes you do. Unless you planned to live from one release to another simply by doing Kickstarters.

      • TCM says:

        Don’t you know people work on games for free, Kickstarter is pure profit?

    • Shuck says:

      When we talk about Fallout originally costing $3 million (that’s about $4.3M in modern dollars), that doesn’t actually include the marketing and distribution costs – that’s just development. (So any savings they may or may not have in the marketing/shipping area have no impact on the development costs, which are realistically going to be a lot more than a million dollars.)

    • spiritusinvacuo says:

      I would say that $1.1m in just one day for only general concept of the game is huge money. And I’d put my money that this will easily hit 3-4 millions in a month. Now I don’t have major in business, but bloody hell, can’t the major developers learn something for this? Do they not see that the CoD audience isn’t the only one willing to throw their shekels away for 30-40 hours of virtual entertainment?

  4. Lars Westergren says:

    They’ve updated their FAQ, so those of you who were hesitant about pledging in the previous thread:
    – Steam is ONE way they will deliver it, other services are being looked at.
    – PayPal option is coming, they are working on it.
    – Linux and Mac versions are being looked at.

    I love Chris Avellone’s whiteboard doodles:
    link to
    link to

    Notch is one of the 10k pledgers (natch), Dengler is one of the 5k so there will be a Dracogen Inn somewhere in the game. Also, my ugly mug.

    Also, useless speculating is fun – where do you think it will end? 5 million? Depends on how exciting stretch goals they announce and so on.

    Anyway, I reiterate my belief that those who won’t agree that the last couple of years are a new golden age of gaming are nuts. We have never had such quality, quantity and variety, so cheaply.

    • Gesadt says:

      honestly every year has been golden age of gaming since like the early 90s, it just keeps getting better.

      • D3xter says:

        I disagree, most years since about 2003 have till 2008/2009 when Steam started getting popular and the Indie craze and everything started with the likes of World of Goo and Minecraft were generally rather shitty.

        • Gesadt says:

          shitty for indies maybe, there were great games all throughout

          • sophof says:

            I pretty much stopped gaming entirely during that period, so I tend to agree…

      • subedii says:

        Yeah this game is never going to make $CallOfDuty. Never going to be gushed about at the E3 Microsoft and Sony MEGA BLOWOUT PARTY press conferences. Never going to see the inside of a Walmart or Tesco.

        You know what? Don’t care. And really, neither should anyone else that’s interested in the idea of this game. The devs get to make the game they want, they get to make money doing it, and the fans get to play it. If that’s a measure of how the industry is still failing or other such silliness, then I’ll happily take this model over 100 other CoD clones.

      • Lemming says:

        The release of the Xbox set us back a bit.

    • Premium User Badge

      theleif says:

      I couldn’t agree more. It’s a great time to be a gamer!

    • RegisteredUser says:

      Despite comments asking about it, they have still skirted the issue of DRM.

    • Wizardry says:

      Woah, hold on. You can’t go calling this a new golden age when most of these somewhat interesting Kickstarter games are so far from release. This game could turn out shit, as could Wasteland 2 and others. Perhaps in a couple of years time it would be fair to call this a golden age.

      • InternetBatman says:

        Even if some of the kickstarter games are crap, in the past few years we still have had a resurgence in a lot of old genres, like space sims, strategy games, platformers, and adventure games. All of these genres have or look to have some absolutely standout games coming out in the future.

        • TCM says:

          To be fair, Wizardry will likely hate it either way. The graphics have more than 32 colors.

        • Wizardry says:

          Oh, fair enough. I don’t really follow other genres much. I know for sure that all of these potentially good CRPGs haven’t been released yet.

          • InternetBatman says:

            Well Jeff Vogel’s happily making money on Steam and Grimrock was pretty good, so there’s that.

          • Wizardry says:

            In the early 90s most gamers wanted Dungeon Master clones to just stop. So while Grimrock is a nice throwback, it’s definitely nothing that can justify the existence of a golden age for the genre. And Spiderweb have been churning out games since 1995, so they too can’t help define a golden age. Like I said, when all these games come out (this one, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun) and games like Chaos Chronicles, and enough of them are good, then perhaps this will indeed be a golden age for RPGs specifically.

            Of course, I fully understand Lars wasn’t talking about RPGs, but was talking about games in general. And furthermore, you went ahead and explained which genres have already seen a revival. But from my point of view this could very well be the beginning of a new golden age, though only time will tell.

          • Adventurous Putty says:

            Wizardry! I’d missed you. Maybe I was just hanging around the wrong threads or something, but it seemed like you’d gone on some kind of hiatus.

          • jrodman says:

            In the early 90s, dungeon master clones were selling very well! An interesting way to express “wanting them to stop”.

            True, Eye of the Beholder 3 killed it for many. A terrible sequel, sold to many can do that.

          • Wizardry says:

            Do you know how many there actually were though? Most people these days only remember the good ones, with the trash left long forgotten. There’s a reason why “Dungeon Master clone” was and still is an oft-used label. It wouldn’t have been so bad if they didn’t contribute to the death of western Wizardry clones (first person yet turn-based), and didn’t prevent turn-based tactical RPGs, popularised by Pool of Radiance and the rest of the Gold Box games, from taking off as a major form of the genre. But they did, and they did it so well that they caused the often described mid-90s crash that the genre hasn’t yet recovered from.

            I’m not having a go at Grimrock. It’s a very decent game and definitely one of the better Dungeon Master clones out there, but all I’m saying is that one decent Dungeon Master clone isn’t really an indication that the genre is doing well at the minute when in the early 90s we were getting nearly 10 Dungeon Master clones a year.

            @Adventurous Putty: I’ve posted a lot in the comment section of the previous article on this Kickstarter (from Friday). You might want to check that out if you haven’t.

          • jrodman says:

            I don’t think Dungeon Master killed your preferred niche any more than DOOM did. These trends vary.

      • LionsPhil says:

        Oh hey, Wizardry’s still around. I thought we’d lost his stubbornly crunch-over-fluff viewpoint.

      • Hidden_7 says:

        Somewhat off topic, but slightly pertaining to this golden age idea, Wizardy, have you tried the Age of Decadence beta? That was to be a charter member in the crew of classic RPG resurgence, and timing wise seems to be leading the charge.

        I ask because I’m genuinely curious as to your thoughts on it. I played it and found some of the design choices very jarring — an attempt to replicate pen and paper mechanics in a format that doesn’t have the freedom to support them properly — but I’m wondering if that’s just me not being enough of an RPG purist (the first RPG that really hooked me was Daggerfall, so I very much came up in the ‘immersive’ tradition) or if it’s actually a failing of the game. Things like large non-combat encounters feeling like dialogue trees, feeling very disconnected from any decision that that isn’t which skills to put points into. It almost feels Sims-like at points, in that you build your character, then he sort of just plays himself.

        In any case, if you have played it, I’m very curious to hear your opinions on it. Is this the sort of thing you’ve been pining for, or has it missed the mark, misunderstanding that PnP gets away with its lack of granular interaction because of the freedom available?

        • Wizardry says:

          This is a very good and well put question. I do actually agree with your assessment of the game, but these failings aren’t because it’s trying to stick too closely to pen and paper RPGs, it’s in fact the exact opposite.

          Looking at combat in isolation shows that it’s actually incredibly boring and simple. In fact, your success in it is almost entirely down to the character you create, which sort of begs the question why combat isn’t just automated and the whole game made into a multiple choice dialogue type thing like the rest of it.

          The non-combat gameplay is of course even more boring because it largely involves intelligently picking from a list of options repeatedly to progress the story/quests in the way you want. Yes, non-combat skills are used very heavily during this — it’s almost an extreme version of what Fallout tried to introduce to dialogue trees — but this reduces the game to an RPG-like choose-your-own-adventure instead of actually being fun.

          So I appreciate what it’s trying to do, it’s just that what it’s trying to do is the opposite of how I would go about designing a game in the genre. It’s a mix of boring single character turn-based combat, walking around and taking part in a skill influenced choose-your-own-adventure.

          • Adventurous Putty says:

            Mind you, a skill-influenced choose-your-own-adventure game is something that hasn’t been done right yet, at any rate not recently. So I’m pretty excited about that. Wish they’d just ditch the combat, though.

          • Hidden_7 says:

            The reason I say it’s trying to crib too close to the PnP model is that playing these encounters (and I should add at this point I didn’t even make it to the combat, so I’m just talking about non-combat encounters) reminded me a lot of playing D&D. In the sense that I would opt to do something, a skill check would be preformed, and the game/dungeon master would tell me a little about how I failed or succeeded. These all happened with very little granularity, much like how when I’m playing D&D I don’t usually tell the DM the exact route and method I would try to sneak through the room with (unless I’m feeling particularly creative and think I can earn myself a bonus), like I would in almost any other CRPG I can recall playing, I just go “I want to try sneaking past there” and then roll a sneak check.

            Where Age of Decadence then fails, I believe, is that it has this multiple choice list of things I can try. It felt like as if my DM had said to me “okay, you can do one of these three things, what do you want to try?” When the system isn’t open and I’m not devising my own plans, the actual game mechanics become incredibly boring. Rolling a dice to see if I do something isn’t very fun on its own, and when I don’t even get to be the one to roll the dice?

            It becomes, you’re right, a choose your own adventure, but skill based. I had a few of those growing up, and they were neat to play/read, but a choose your own adventure is basically a novel, so the writing needs to be very strong to carry it. Which I’m not convinced Age of Decadence’s is, focusing as it does so much on breadth of choice.

  5. The Innocent says:

    This is incredible. I figured they’d raise a lot on day one, and definitely meet their end goal by a comfortable margin, and I did my part to help out (the price of a new AAA game for a boxed copy stopped feeling like a lot once I figured I’d never actually paid for Planescape: Torment, seeing as how I got it for three dollars from a yard sale), but if you had told me yesterday that they would raise THIS much, I’d call you bonkers. Joke’s on me.

  6. Paul says:

    I really hope they raise at least 5 million. Someone needs to dethrone Double Fine already.

    • povu says:

      Well Ouya raised 8.6. Or do imminent disasters not count? :P

    • Jenks says:

      I can’t imagine this making more if they came out at the same time. Tim Shafer is universally beloved, whereas most people outside RPS think of Obsidian as “The company that makes inferior sequels and failed pretty hard with Alpha Protocol.”

  7. felixduc says:

    I guess I still don’t understand Kickstarter.

    When did we — as gamers — decide to acquiesce to developer demands to pay for not only the final product, but for every other expense on the way?

    “Hello, farmer. One carrot please!”

    “Sure thing, friend. One shiny ten-penny.”

    “Of course! I love your carrots, chappy. So delicious.” *produces ten-penny*

    “Excellent. But I’m afraid, my dear fellow, that I must also charge you for the wagon that brought this carrot here.”

    “The wagon? Isn’t the wagon, like, your deal?”

    “False! I require an additional five million dollars.”

    Here’s my salty American reaction to another round of Kickstarter nonsense:

    Fuck that shit.

    Make a fucking game. If it’s good, I might buy it.

    Have we all gone fucking mad?

    • Nick says:

      Because the game won’t be made at all otherwise, because no publisher will fund it. If you don’t give a shit about that, thats fine but fuck off telling people what they should be doing with their money for a start.

      • felixduc says:


        He says.

        Apparently the problem is not an industry problem, it’s a consumer problem.

        WE just aren’t paying enough to get what we want. Dig deep, lads!

        I don’t want to play computer games on this planet anymore.

        • Lars Westergren says:

          > I don’t want to play computer games on this planet anymore.

          If other’s people enjoyment are stopping you from having fun, perhaps you really should consider stopping?

          • felixduc says:

            So you agree that consumers are to blame — and thusly on the hook — for industry/publisher failings?

            Just shut up and pay the developer to maybe make the game you want?


          • subedii says:

            Uh no? He pretty blatantly isn’t saying that this is a consumer fault at all. Publishers won’t fund it, so consumers interested in the product, are. And they’re doing so by paying prices that are, let’s face it, already a lot less than a standard published title usually costs. You can still fund it for $20-$25 to get the game.

          • Lars Westergren says:

            > So you agree that consumers are to blame — and thusly on the hook — for industry/publisher failings?

            I didn’t address that part of your argment at all, because I didn’t think it was worthy of a response to be honest. And actually, I think I’m done responding to you. There are more interesting and enjoyable discussions to be had.

          • Abbykins says:

            Ha! You guys are getting trolled SO HARD. There is no WAY anyone could be this sincerely and completely deluded about reality. And you suckers fell for it!

          • Zarunil says:

            @ Abbykins: Trust me, there are.

        • Merlkir says:

          The problem is publishers not really knowing (or caring) what players want. Sure, let’s make another shooter, driving game with naked chicks or a consolised poor-excuse-for-an-RPG, those will sell loads! Here I am, knowing what I want. It doesn’t exist and no matter what games I buy from the publisher model, it won’t exist. I’ll pay for it now and I’ll eventually get it. Which is loads better than not getting it, at least in my book. I’m not paying for a cart, I’m paying for the carrot. Sure, it’s a carrot from the future, so it’s a bit like time-travel-eating, but I want this carrot so much I’m willing to take that bet.

        • Om says:

          How disingenuous

          Nick didn’t say “Because the game won’t be made at all otherwise, because consumers don’t buy these games”. He said “Because the game won’t be made at all otherwise, because no publisher will fund it”

          Now unless you are assuming that publishers accurately represent the will and desires of consumers, then I don’t see how you can construe this as a problem with the latter. I’m fair sure that Nick was hinting at the exact opposite: that publishers aren’t making the sorts of games that a significant number of people want to see made. That is, it’s an industry problem

          I really don’t like people who blame consumers for not buying non-existent games

        • sophof says:

          What are you having, maybe I want some? You are being pretty incoherent overall :P

        • Nick says:

          You’re a bit thick aren’t you?

      • BurningPet says:

        Naive, uninformed question, wouldn’t a bank loan of say, $1,100,000 be better for them? i mean, with all that lost money going to kickstarter, amazon and silly physical rewards, they will end up losing far more money than the loan interest and all those $20-35 backers are people who will probably wont buy the game again.

        • Emeraude says:

          a) You have to find a bank willing to loan that. Which isn’t as easy as it sounds.
          b) The loan may come with strings attached and expenses you might not have accounted for on top of interests (insurances, if only).
          c) May sound corny, but don’t underestimate the actual human/social value of getting your funding via Kickstarter rather than through a bank loan. For once you know before the project is started whether it has a sufficient audience or not..

        • tobecooper says:

          Banks don’t give loans to developers. They are known to be problematic.

        • drewski says:

          You don’t have to pay interest on a Kickstarter, you don’t have to pay back a Kickstarter, you don’t have to get some guy in a suit to agree to give you money with a Kickstarter.

          You get to engage your fans with a Kickstarter, you get guaranteed pre-orders with a Kickstarter, you get worldwide media attention with a Kickstarter, you can get waaaaaaaaaaaaay more money than you asked for with a Kickstarter (meaning more/better content or, more profit, depending on your personal choices), and you get free creative reign without release date conditions or financial restrictions such as come with loans.

          So no, it’s not really easier or better to get a bank loan.

          • BurningPet says:

            10% is not an interest? physical rewards and lost sells is not like paying back? taxing the pledged money is not paying back? i never asked if it was easier, i asked for an informed answer to analyze if it was better for financing a game in the long run.

            Also, mind you, this is obsidian. they brought the traffic to kickstarter, not the other way around.

          • drewski says:

            The 10% Kickstarter take isn’t an “interest”, no. Kickstarter don’t have any control over the product Obsidian make or Obsidian’s creative or business practices. With a bank loan, a bank or other financier will make the loaner agree to terms and conditions which may include things like debt to asset ratios, cashflow requirements, staffing caps or they may withhold portions of a loan to cover future repayments. None of these apply to Kickstarter – you either get your money, minus Kickstarter’s cut, or you don’t. That’s what I mean by “interest” – can the source of finance dictate how the company is run or how the game is produced? Kickstarter can’t.

            The rewards system that Kickstater is an incentive to pre-order, essentially, not a recoverable debt. The risks of a hundred thousand people banding together to bankrupt Obsidian because they didn’t get a t-shirt exists, I guess, but it’s much more remote than your company going bust because you didn’t pay back a loan.

            I’m not sure what relevance tax has to things. The provider of finance – pledgers – get no tax benefit or penalty from giving Obsidian money in return for their reward tier. Company tax is based on profit, so regardless of the source of financing, Obsidian will only pay tax if and when the company (and by implication, the project) makes them money.

            Your question, as presented, doesn’t really make sense – you’re asking if the reality of Kickstarter funding is better than the hypothetical existence of bank funding? The simple answer is yes – because the first actually exists.

            The longer answer is that it is far too dependent on the terms and conditions of a hypothetical financing deal with a financial institution – a loan for $10m, condition free, with no set repayment schedule and no interest is probably better than a Kickstarter project, but that doesn’t exist; a loan for $500k with 20% interest and 50% of Obsidian’s shares as collateral is clearly worse than a Kickstarter project, but equally doesn’t exist.

            Bottom line – Obsidian likely wouldn’t have done it this way if there was a better way of doing it, whether that be a bank loan or any other form of financing.

          • Bent Wooden Spoon says:

            There’s a very big difference between a one off 10% fee and 10% interest paid off over, or more likely after, 2 years.

            Also, given as from $25 bucks on, pledged whenever, you get a digital download I’ve no idea why you’d be expecting that many people to buy it again anyway….

        • Superpat says:

          Quick suggestion here, nothings stops them from getting the kickstarter money and ALSO getting a loan from the bank.

      • Merktera says:

        I’m afraid to say this, but there are actually people that stupid.

    • D3xter says:

      When publishers have started selling mostly rotten overexpensive carrots painted over to look somewhat fresh. People have just been waiting for an opportunity like this for years. Some even 10+ years like Adventure and RPG fans.

      The great thing is, you don’t have to pledge for, finance or “understand” anything, other people are doing that for you and when the game is done you can still decide if you want to buy it or not. Isn’t that great?

    • Lars Westergren says:

      > When did we — as gamers

      There is not “we – as gamers”. There are lots of individuals, some who are happy to help fund games that otherwise wouldn’t be made.

      >acquiesce to developer demands

      It’s not a demand, it’s a request. Why are you using such loaded words?

      >but for every other expense on the way

      You are aware that they are probably going to accept lower salaries than normal to work on this project? So they are accepting some of the risk into the company.

      > “The wagon? Isn’t the wagon, like, your deal?”
      > “False! I require an additional five million dollars.”

      Yeah, building up spurious analogies and then getting outraged is fun.

      > Fuck that shit.

      Biting my tongue really hard.

      • felixduc says:

        “You are aware that they are probably going to accept lower salaries than normal to work on this project? So they are accepting some of the risk into the company.”

        Ah! So it’s not just a game, it’s an investment opportunity!

        What happens when Kickstarter projects fail?

        Go read Kickstarter’s policy on that. You might not chuckle, but I will.

        • Emeraude says:

          What happens when any company you invested in go bankrupt ?
          Go ahead, read on it, You might not chuckle, but I will.

        • Gesadt says:

          its not an investment, its patronage. a difference in expectations. get to terms with that fact and you’ll sleep better.

        • Lars Westergren says:

          > Ah! So it’s not just a game, it’s an investment opportunity!

          An investment in fun, yes.

          > What happens when Kickstarter projects fail?
          > Go read Kickstarter’s policy on that. You might not chuckle, but I will.

          I have been fully aware of them since day one. I still chose to back over 30 of them. I’m really happy about it, while you seem to be bitter and full of outrage. Who is the sucker here?

          link to

          • felixduc says:

            Who’s the sucker?

            Why not donate all that money to a truly worthy cause, Lars? Flaunting all the Kickstarter projects you’ve “funded”?

            Are you fucking kidding me?

            Go hand out some AIDS vaccines in Uganda or something.

          • Emeraude says:

            Why not donate all that money to a truly worthy cause, Lars? Go hand out some AIDS vaccines in Uganda or something.

            I love how people (and people whom you’d be hard-pressed to find have helped others in any ways) try to present both things as in competition rather than in necessary complementarity.

          • njursten says:

            I thought we were talking about buying games, not helping people in need?

          • rokmek says:

            @felixduc : Instead of spreading your stupidity all over the comment section you should go and hand out some AIDS vaccines in Uganda or something.

          • JiminyJickers says:

            @felixduc, aka Capt Planet. How about you go save the planet right now?

            The planeteers are waiting for you, no one is allowed to enjoy themselves or spend their money the way they want when there is a whole planet of problems out there.

          • Tommando says:

            With every sentence of yours I read the impression that you are a massive twit increases ten fold. It’s amazing really.

          • RegisteredUser says:

            Actually dear felixduc, they would be vaccines against the HIV. True vaccines against the HIV of course don’t exist, which makes that advice a bit hollow. A bit like AIDS isn’t what people mean when they say AIDS, as that’s just the effect(S for syndrome) of an infection with HIV.
            Maybe you meant treatment for keeping the AIDS in check after the HIV has run rampant, but that’d be post and not pre-infection and treatment instead of prevention.

            Good talk though!

          • FriendlyFire says:

            @felixduc: Why are you even on the Internet? Think about all those poor children you could help with that monthly bill!

    • yogibbear says:

      And so if this farmer had no farm and started with nothing, how does he go about getting the money (aka investors) to buy his wagon and seeds and other heavy machinery, and pay for some farm hands, and the land, and water and electricity and other supplies? Ohh…. He gets a loan from a bank. Or he finds investors. Or his farm is soooo old and from the family name that they got a grant from the government many centuries ago to start up a farm and start clearing land.

      • felixduc says:

        There are a number of sophisticated ways to rebut an offered analogy.

        You, yogibbear, have failed.

        • Emeraude says:

          To be fair, it’s hard to fall back on something decent when working to redeem a failure of an analogy.

        • Bent Wooden Spoon says:

          Not to mention there’s barely a single comment he’s made that warrants a proper, measured response. Why bother typing out a sensible rebuttal to someone who’s just going to reply by building giant strawmen and throwing insults at you?

    • Strangerator says:

      “Make a fucking game. If it’s good, I might buy it.”

      I get the feeling you buy games, even if they aren’t really very good. We all are guilty of this. And that’s pretty standard, because as gamers with traditionally very limited choices, our concept of “good” tends to become, “the least crappy of the available choices.” Think about it, when’s the last time you played a role playing game as good as Baldur’s Gate? The world was rich, characterful, and had great dialogue that didn’t assume you were an idiot. The 800k currently earmarked for this project is proof that people will throw money at someone willing to make THE ATTEMPT to recreate greatness.

      Kickstarter is currently demonstrating the power of the internet combining with capitalism. There are large swathes of consumers with unmet demands, and clever developers are starting to figure out that publishers are leaving money on the table. In the long term, this will be very good for game developers and players.

      If you prefer to wait for the game to come out to buy it, go right ahead. You will pay more because you are taking less risk (i.e. you will have the benefit of reviews & etc to see if you might enjoy the game). I’d imagine a lot of these kickstarted games will cost closer to the standard market price once they’re released.

      • felixduc says:


        Kickstarter is currently demonstrating the power of a fool and his money parted.

        • Merlkir says:

          Troll harder, man.

        • Anabasis says:

          “God I’m so angry! I’m so angry about video games!”

        • Lemming says:

          Pretty sure that’s exactly what publishers bank on when it comes to rushed sequels, trickle-down DLC, social features and ‘edginess’.

          KS is actually bringing the common sense out in alot of us.

        • Username says:

          Tracked down my password specifically to rebut this clown. This poster claims to be a citizen of the USA, and judging from his posts, I don’t doubt it. He may be trolling, but this attitude is to a “T” why it is so infuriating living here and sharing oxygen with the most insufferable, wrong-headed, entitled, selfish, mother-gentile-caressers on Earth. Here’s a clue you lack-wit:

          KS peels away that enormous layer of useless, putrid blubber that feeds off the connection between the talented folks that put their hearts into their craft and the actual consumers that deem their work worthy of the gamble of putting money up towards their success. Just like the music industry exploited and abused some of the best musical talent for decades to feed a pack of coke addled, talentless leeches dressed up in Armani suits and given impressive titles like “Record Executive”

          That’s just the most immediate example – but it repeats time and time again here. A huge layer of MBA’s, middle men and executive management, making a king’s ransom off the grunts in the g-damned trenches who turn and scoff, spit and belittle any progress that brings about their overthrow. Rot in Hell – Dick…

      • Rise / Run says:

        Kind of off topic (and I know I’ve said this before), but I’d actually argue that Baldur’s Gate wasn’t very good at all. But I know I’m in the minority, there. Bioware’s writing (to my eye, anyhow) tends to cliche and their dialog trees tend to not have branch-points at all. Whoever you’re talking to tends to respond in a vague one-size-fits all manner. Nobody cares if you are rude, haughty, obsequious, or even lie. It kind of kills the enjoyment for me.

        That said, I do love Boo.

    • drewski says:

      It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are on the internet to get *personally offended* that someone else wants to support something they don’t like.

      • Bent Wooden Spoon says:

        It’s not ‘people on the internet’, it’s just people. You just don’t notice it in real life because unless you work in the services sector you’re generally not forced to hear the morons speak.

        • drewski says:

          I’ve had people in the services sector get annoyed at me because “I” was charging them for something they didn’t want, or didn’t think was acceptable, but I’ve never had someone get annoyed at me because another, unrelated person was paying for something the first didn’t like.

          There’s something strange about the internet where it’s not OK to just like what you like – other people aren’t allowed to like what you don’t like, either.

    • chackosan says:

      Isn’t paying for the final product essentially paying for their expenses? Not sure where you were going with that analogy.

      The big differences are that you pay upfront and that there is no real guarantee that you get the product, which is apparently a gamble some people are willing to take for various reasons. Anyway, I’ll wait for some high-profile titles to launch or fail before judging how risky a proposition it is.

      • tetracycloide says:

        It’s all-or-nothing funding and the creators are legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their projects or issue refunds. I guess it’s more of a gamble than buying a boxed or digital copy of an existing game but it’s still not much of a gamble.

        • Lemming says:

          I don’t think that’s correct. They aren’t legally obliged to issue refunds at all. You pledge on faith. The faith you have in the project.

          • tetracycloide says:

            Kickstarter’s terms of use are pretty clear on refunds IMO:

            Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

          • chackosan says:

            Is there any way for Kickstarter to enforce the refund policy, or is it just a principle? Because I can see some companies filing for bankruptcy instead of returning money if things go south. I guess that’s one reason why the developer’s reputation is one of the crucial factors in a Kickstarter pitch, since that’s the one thing that gets totally devalued if it’s a failure.

    • RatherDashing says:

      I actually DID Kickstart an organic food place near me.

      I did it because no place like it existed near me. I wanted good food, and someone was sitting there saying “I’ll make good food that you can buy, but I don’t have the money.” I knew the person, too, she ran a small cart in farmers’ markets sometimes.

      The food was good. I wanted a shop I could go to, whenever I wanted(during reasonable business hours), and pick some up. I didn’t want to rely on one hour seasonal markets

      Very few people actually walk up to farmers and buy their produce. Farmers sell to big companies that don’t really give a damn and stock your Wal-Marts and Super Targets and what have you. Those who DO actually go to farmers, they are the sort that might do a Kickstarter.

    • toastmodernist says:


    • toastmodernist says:

      You pretty much always pay for every single expense along the way. The only difference here is that it’s being paid for up front or pre-production.

      Your carrot guy buys the wagon with some sort of start up capital or loan which he then recoups through profits from selling carrots.

      It would be more like a guy that wants to sell carrots has no money. Asks a bunch of people to give him 10p for a carrot in the future so he can go buy a wagon and then make carrots which he will then provide them. People are happy to do this because carrots are wonderful magical sticks of fun.

    • tumbleworld says:

      You watch too much FOX news, ‘buddy’.

    • Unaco says:

      “I guess I still don’t understand Kickstarter.”

      And therein lies your problem.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Kickstarter is both a symptom of and partial solution to a problem in the industry. If you don’t fund games, many of them won’t get made. When was the last AAA isometric non-action rpg made? Sure it’s definitely not as equal as the normal purchase, but publishers have made it clear that it’s this way or the highway, and very, very few independent developers have cash or knowledge to produce certain genres.

    • tetracycloide says:

      Let me get this straight, when you buy a carrot you don’t think you’re paying for the land it grew on, the water it drank, and the truck that carried it to market? Kickstarter is not the only thing you still don’t understand if that’s the way you think.

    • iucounu says:

      “When did we — as gamers — decide to acquiesce to developer demands to pay for not only the final product, but for every other expense on the way?”

      You already do. What do you think informs the price of the final product, if not every expense on the way to producing it?

    • Lemming says:

      But in reality, that’s not what happens. Given reward tiers, you been paying below the going rate for a video game in a kind of super discounted pre-pre-pre order.


      1. publisher pays dev to make game.

      2. customer (hopefully) buys game, paying for those costs.

      Trend for Kickstarter games:

      1. customer pays dev less than what a full-priced game would cost to make game.

      2. customer plays game.

    • Shuck says:

      “I guess I still don’t understand Kickstarter.”
      This much we can all agree on – you really, really don’t understand Kickstarter.

    • EugenS says:

      Shut up, troll. Go back under your silly bridge.

  8. yogibbear says:

    I threw in $35. Digital soundtrack I CHOOSE YOU!

    • jrodman says:

      I liked soundtrack, but not a box. But 35 dollars seemed too cheap, so I pledged 50 and clicked on the 35 dollar reward.

      Not that anyone else should do what I do, just sharing!

  9. Wooly says:

    Stretch goal: $5 million – the game will be finished when it’s released.

  10. Emeraude says:

    When did we — as gamers — decide to acquiesce to developer demands to pay for not only the final product, but for every other expense on the way?

    *Some of us* decided to do the publisher’s job when they stopped doing theirs – or to be more honest, stopped doing it as far as *our* needs were concerned.

    Make a fucking game. If it’s good, I might buy it.

    Good, you still can do that. If anything, people buying the game AFTER it has been kickstarted is all but necessary for a healthy development of the model.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Indeed. There have been plenty of Kickstarters that I have been unsure of that sailed right over target, so I left paying for them until after reviews and demos, just like any other game.

    • felixduc says:

      Healthy development of which model?

      The model in which a consumer pays for everything up to and including the product?

      What kind of bizarre form of twisted capitalism is this?

      What the fuck is going on?

      • icedon says:

        I don’t the fuck know! But I happily spent 50 Bucks!

      • subedii says:

        The consumer is paying for the product. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see where the kickstarter is forcing me to pay anything more than I would have ordinarily paid for this game.

        So I’m not paying anything more. Others with more money and who want more can, but they’re not me. As for whether I’ll be happy with my purchase? Guess we’ll find out when it comes out. In the meantime, the prospect is enough for me to pre-order, and if it’s good, then I’ve already paid less than what the final release price is going to be.

        • felixduc says:

          You’re paying 10% to Kickstarter, to start.

          10% of $1.1 mil to a company that promises and delivers absolutely fucking nothing.

          You’re not pre-ordering anything other than an immediate profit for the business involved.

          Please tell me the first successful, critically well-received game funded by Kickstarter and not an intermediary of any sort…?

          • subedii says:

            Faster Than Light.

            It’s on Steam now if you want to buy it. It’s really rather good too. Even Tycho on Penny Arcade was gushing about it this Friday’s newspost.

            That’s the good thing about Kickstars. Even if you personally are not interested in funding the game, it doesn’t matter as long as the game comes out later and you can buy it later.

            EDIT: Getting back to “immediate profit”, surprisingly, games take money to make. That’s why this whole process exists in the first place, if it’s not the publisher paying those costs, then this is another potential source can be looked at.

            If you believe that the company can deliver, and the product they’re offering is of interest to you, then you kickstarter it. If not, then don’t. It really is pretty simple.

          • RegisteredUser says:

            FTL: Take the “its rather good “with a grain of salt.

            Its not the kind of game that caters to the leveling up, having fun in space feeling(which I had thought/hoped it would), but rather to those people that enjoy constantly feeling like they are forced to make uncertain decisions, could die out of randomness any second and have your complete game progress of hours wiped out by just that.
            If that lack of within-the-same-game-career experimentation and flexibility is fun for you, and you enjoy roguelikes in general, and you like where its set and how its done, and you enjoy constantly having to feel like you are juggling 3-4 bombs that kill you when you drop even one of them, THEN its a good game.

          • Lambchops says:

            @ RegisteredUser

            For sure it certainly isn’t for everyone.

            Your assessment is pretty much bang on the money, the only quibbles I’d have about it is that “hours of progress” suggests the game is longer than it is (most playthroughs will be under an hour as you will inevitably die, a successful or close to it run would probably average around the 90 minute to 2 hour mark depending on how much you like the pause button). The relatively short length is a plus for me as I’m increasingly drawn to the Spelunkys and (pre expansion) Binding of Isaacs of this world as I can fit in a nice quick game for an hour or two.

            My second quibble would be the lack of experimentation. I see where you are coming from with the initial set up of the game as it only really lends itself to certain tactics but as you play on and unlock more ships (and their alternative layouts) you are then necessitated to use different strategies and tactics. Again whether this meta gamey approach to rewarding you for playing while expanding the play style appeals to you or whether you’d have rather had this flexibility built in from the start is definitely a personal preference thing.

            So basically, what he said with a couple of hours shorn away and “if you like gradually unlocking things which present a different challenge (similar to Desktop Dungeons I guess) then this is for you,

          • MaXimillion says:

            Kickstarter provides the way for the company to get their funding, which is what a publisher would ordinarily do. 10% to kickstarter is a lot less than a publisher’s cut.

          • JackShandy says:

            “You’re paying 10% to Kickstarter, to start.”

            Why do you care? I might find that Valve spent 20% of my money from Half Life on lawyers and marketing. Who gives a shit?

      • Emeraude says:

        The model in which a consumer pays for everything up to and including the product?

        I have bad news for you, but the consumer always pays for everything.

        • felixduc says:

          Tell me more about how an American start-up company didn’t just make $110,000 by providing…

          Hopes? Dreams?


          Oh, wait, I’m the sucker.

          I forgot.

          • drewski says:

            Kickstarter provided Obsidian with a platform to get strings-free revenue they would otherwise not have been able to access, with which they will make a game that they would not otherwise have been able to make.

            You may not personally agree that such a service is desirable or necessary, but don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

          • RegisteredUser says:

            So. Have you heard of banks, advertising, PR and marketing firms yet?

      • Strangerator says:

        This is capitalism at its finest, and is in no way twisted. I think you might want to look up the word “investment”. Think of it as buying a share in a company you believe will be successful.

        An example…

        I paid 20 dollars today because I believe this company will create a product I want, and I’m reserving my copy in advance. Now, when the game releases, it will likely be worth 50 dollars (although possibly less). My early investment basically saved me 30 dollars that I’d likely have spent later. This is not without risk, as is the case with all investments. If you prefer to wait and pay 50 later, that’s great too. The early investors will have paved the way for you to buy the game later.

        What part of this doesn’t make sense?

        • felixduc says:

          Where you typed “believe” and “investment”.

          I have a bunch of TF2 hats that will be worth A LOT OF MONEY VERY SOON.

          • jalf says:

            Well, good for you. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how your TF2 hats have any relevance whatsoever to your other disjointed bile-fueled rants?

        • hello_mr.Trout says:

          also related to the idea of investment you raise is the idea of emotional investment — i know it sounds a bit cheesy, but in some ways, specially if they are developers whose games we have enjoyed for many years, it feels nice to be able to donate money to them & contribute to their projects, free from all the stress and hassle of more routine funding avenues. for example, when i haven’t played the original wasteland, but thought it would be nice to help out mr. fargo due to the countless hours i spent enjoying myself with fallout’s 1 & 2.

      • Peptidix says:

        Don’t consumers always pay for everything (including taxes, salaries, bonuses, unrelated failures, profit, rent, mistakes, loans)?

      • The Godzilla Hunter says:

        Edit: Never mind, I really shouldn’t feed the troll.

      • ffordesoon says:

        Because something is happening and you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?

    • Rosveen says:

      Customers ALWAYS pay for the whole production process. The prices are set just so they equal the costs + planned profits. The only difference between normal retail and Kickstarter is that we pay for these costs before the game is released, not after. Why we choose to do so? Well, if we don’t pay now, the game will never be made. So it’s a win-win situation – we get the game and the devs are certain they won’t end up in debt.

      Not to mention that almost all backers (save for the lowest tier) automatically get a digital copy of the game. So I paid $20 for a game that will cost more when it’s released. I saved money and supported a company whose games I love.

      • sophof says:

        In addition you pay for games that failed to sell enough by the same publisher. For that reason Kickstarter can be much cheaper, since they can guarantee a covering of the development costs.
        The disadvantage is clear, you are paying for a game that doesn’t exist yet, so you’ll just have to wait and see if it is any good.

        Tbh I have a hard time believing anyone doesn’t understand something this simple, I suspect we are being trolled here.

  11. Retro says:

    Hah… kicktraq projects this to hit 13 MILLION $… seems they need to adjust their algorithm somewhat..

    link to

    • subedii says:

      That calculation is always for the previous days funding. Which is always going to see a massive spike at the start.

      It only evens out and gets more accurate once things have settled down, at the moment there’s too little data to make any actual prediction.

      • LionsPhil says:

        If the spiking pattern is consistent, they could apply a correction factor based on previous data from other comparable projects. So at the start they bias it low, and during the middle lull they bias it up slightly.


        • jrodman says:

          Error bars would be more useful.
          But the problem of course is they don’t know enough to provide error bars by now. So this should be taken as entertainment, IMO.

      • Shuck says:

        “Which is always going to see a massive spike at the start.”
        Well, they aren’t, necessarily – that’s the problem with their algorithm; funding spikes happen when the projects get some media attention, which in this case was right at the start. The algorithm only made sense back when Kickstarter worked entirely on word of mouth and whatever external websites/blogs the campaign creators might have had.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      it’s up to 15 million now…which would be hilarious

      • Ghoulie says:

        It’s up to 16 million now. Which would be nothing short of insanity.

  12. Gesadt says:

    only downside for me is its fantasy setting. can we stop having those for several years please. i hope its dark fantasy similar to Witcher at least.

    • Hidden_7 says:

      Fantasy is an absolutely giant tent. Honestly, I never want to see a dearth of “fantasy” games.

      If you mean typical Tolkien-inspired high fantasy, I’ll agree with you on that one. But a whole host of things that aren’t that are fantasy. You mentioned the Witcher, as well I’d add Planescape: Torment, Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, Arcanum, Thief, Amnesia, Pathologic, Morrowind, and Grim Fandango as examples of games that are either straight up fantasy, or have heavy fantasy elements, that are a far cry from Tolkien, and that I’d always be glad to see more of.

      The problem is that developers often think of fantasy as merely that one sort of fantasy, which appears to be the mindset you’ve fallen into as well. I think we all need to work toward unhooking the term fantasy from “extremely traditional high fantasy” if we want to see more diversity in the genre.

      And, for what it’s worth, it sounds like they want to make a fantasy world that appears on the surface as traditional, so that they may then subvert it. Time will tell how interesting a world it will be, but at this point it sounds like they at least are aiming for it to not be quite so straight.

      • jrodman says:

        Yes, more variation in exploratory fictive environments, please.
        But more importantly, more confident creative voice in defining a specific mood, place, culture, or whatever you want please. I know a lot of games prefer iconic simplicity (typically familiarity!) but not all must.

  13. felixduc says:

    @ subedii

    Faster Than Light is sold by … whom, exactly?

    Kickstarter? The developer?

    Oh, wait. Steam and GOG.

    Totally free service, bro.

    • subedii says:

      I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say anymore. You asked for a game that’s been funded and released, I gave you an answer, and now you’re hopping up and down about… something else but I’m not quite sure what.

      Yes it’s being sold on Steam. The game got funded to be produced, so it got produced. Those that kickstared it don’t need to buy it on Steam, they already got the game. Those that didn’t can buy right now.

    • JiminyJickers says:

      It is being sold by the developer, that is where I bought it from.

      Mate, it seems that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

    • Tommando says:

      People who backed it get a copy. For free. No one is paying twice. Did you not bother to learn how this process generally works before you declared war on Kickstarter?

    • Lambchops says:

      It is being sold by the developer, Steam, GOG . . . and your maw!

    • bhagan says:

      Did Kickstarter bang your wife and shoot your dog?

  14. Emeraude says:

    Sitting in front of the project’s page, watching the pledge counter ticking up, is pretty spellbinding.

    Indeed it is.

    I went to make some coffee and BOOM, 12k$ raise. Nice.

    • felixduc says:

      Yeah, nice.

      You know what’s not going to decrease?

      The cost of the game.

      • Emeraude says:

        You know what’s not going to decrease?

        The incessant, meaningless, background noise by which you express and defuse your impotence and incomprehension in front of a world that changes too fast ?

      • subedii says:

        The cost of game development is not static, it is actually very malleable and shifts dramatically depending on what featuresets and additions become feasible depending on the availability resources provided. Stretch Goals are an aspect of this.

      • drewski says:

        …u mad, bro?

  15. Premium User Badge

    Ninja Dodo says:

    Not sure how I feel about this new trend of offering a discount to a limited nr of early backers for the same reward the (20 or 25 thing). Doesn’t seem like it would change the number of people backing and just makes the rewards confusing.

    I thought it was amusing they had the “please add $30 for international shipping” even on the 10,000.00 reward but looks like they edited that pretty quick.

    • jrodman says:

      Correct if wrong — going on memory — but I think the early bird concept is one of Kickstarter’s suggestions for projects?

      It makes sense for projects that aren’t going to be well covered/hyped. Entice some to be the first to pledge, to increase the sense of momentum and viability to those who come later. If you arrive to a project and see it has 3 pledges on day 25, you’re not likely to get a whiff of success.

      • RatherDashing says:

        It actually makes sense for this one, too. Remember, they didn’t know this would take off this much. The $20 tier is set up in a way that they’re granted $500,000. The core idea behind it was, probably, to set up something that felt limited so more people would jump on it and provide a good near half of their funding costs.

  16. BurningPet says:

    Well, if everything goes well enough, we will see at least 250 named NPC’s. here’s hoping they will just take all those backers NPC’s designs and redesign them..

  17. Infinitron says:

    10/10 trolling, would read again.

    Everybody else:
    You can stop replying to his posts now.

    • Emeraude says:

      Naaaa, I find it worthwhile if only because it forces us to express in words things we believe and take for granted. Hell, there’s a couple of interesting discussion threads that erupted from that farce.

      • felixduc says:

        TIL that British gamers:

        A) Suffer from the same abject misunderstanding and misuse of apostrophes, their, they’re, and there that plague 5th grade Americans — and, when uncertain of the current topic, will defer to the OP’s analogy. In this case it was something about carrots and a cart.

        B) Are the exact opposite of Communists. I guess British-Leyland really hit mum & dad in the feels.

        C) Invest in America. We like that. I will take these comments back to Ben Bernanke.

        D) ‘Merica.

        E) So long and thanks for all the fish.

        P.S. Some guy named Lars is apparently the Michael Bay of Kickstarter.

        • LionsPhil says:

          Brits are the exact opposite of Communists

          Upstanding, right-thinking people with strong morals?

        • The Godzilla Hunter says:

          You know that someone is completely wrong/is unable to make more of an argument when they resort to ad hominem that is not even somewhat related to the subject at hand.

        • Azradesh says:

          @ felixduc

          there’s = there is


    • sophof says:

      You can not win by trolling, it is the stupidest thing that has ever been invented…
      At best it is the lowest form of comedy.

    • Brigand says:

      I’m interested in the further development of the subtext to be honest. I really feel like we’re getting an insight into a traumatic life experience of some sort. His comments seem to suggest a level of agony and antagonism that just can’t be explained by his disapproval of Kickstarter alone.

      • Anabasis says:

        I like to think someone used Kickstarter to fund a “we’re glad you got divorced party” for his ex-wife and all his former friends pledged.

    • Zarunil says:

      First time since I registered that I’ve found the block function useful. What a massive twit.

  18. drewski says:

    Worst part about this is that I need to remember to leave enough money on my card to finance my pledge in a month’s time…

  19. orient says:

    Never played a Black Isle game and the only Obsidian game I’ve played is Fallout: NV. Still, chucked them a $20. Hope that annoys the troll.

    Kickstarter is starting to catch up with my bank account, that’s for sure. Oh well.

    • Morte66 says:

      “Hope that annoys the troll”


      For years I’ve sworn (and almost managed) not to buy games until they’re out, and the trustworthy reviews are out, and if I’m not sure about them the demo is out too.

      Well, adios $20.

  20. Lilliput King says:

    I know it’s Obsidian + a bunch of other famous devs but I’d still feel a little more comfortable if we heard more about the actual setting and theme and so on. Pretty much all we got from the Kickstarter was “It has magic, well, some people have magic, it’s not like it’s all the time” and “Magic comes from people’s souls” which is about as generic as it’s possible to be, really.

    And no doubt they’ll make a great game, but the meat of the video was pictures of those other RPGs that tend to make people go wallet mad. They definitely know which buttons to push.

    • jrodman says:

      If you feel that way I’d suggest waiting to see what further information gets posted during the Kickstarter run, or just waiting until the game completes. It’s really up to the projects to convince you, not up to you to dive in anyway.

    • drewski says:

      I think this is one where you either trust Obsidian to make a good fantasy RPG or you don’t.

      I wouldn’t hold my breath for more detail. If that makes you hesitant to throw down cash, fair enough.

  21. RegisteredUser says:

    They should have stayed at $0 until they openly stated that it would come without DRM.

    Makes me sad to see so much just go into a name(which may send the right message about trusting them and the kind of game expected, but the wrong one about whether or not anyone cares about DRM).

    • InternetBatman says:

      This is probably true, but if nothing else I doubt they’ll spend as little money as they get on DRM.

    • Unaco says:

      DRM isn’t the most important concern about a game, for a lot of gamers though.

    • drewski says:

      Apparently 29,706 people (and counting) aren’t particularly bothered by Steam’s DRM.

      Which side of the tradeoff between Steam DRM and delicious Steam achievements to fall on is basically impossible for me to reconcile.

  22. Calabi says:

    I’ve pledged. At least with this you know more about what your getting than you do if you invest in the stock market.

    I know that I will likely get a pretty good game at the end of this. I might not, it might fail, I might not like it. But I dont care, and failure is good. If it does I’ll move on to the next pledge.

    I ‘d rather hope and see than have nothing or the same old drivel the publishers want to give us.

  23. TechnicalBen says:

    So I guess there is no money in these “niche” games then? ;)

    Oh and on the “a trip to see inside-out animals at the Natural History Museum”… tell us if they still have the 8 legged stuffed cat! :D

  24. MistyMike says:

    Think about all the social ills that could be alleviated with all that disposable income. But no, they are thrown by the nostalgia-ridden masses at projects of VIDEO GAMES. Oh, humanity.

    • TCM says:

      I should sell all my worldly possessions and donate the result to the poor.

      Since I don’t plan to do that, I will take advantage of whatever small pleasures I can get from spending the income I’ve earned.

    • Yosharian says:

      This is always the argument thrown at art, that it’s worth should be measured against other things. A world without art is a pretty boring place to live in.

    • bladedsmoke says:

      Think about all that time that was wasted on writing that comment. Time which could have been spent donating money to a charity, or saving lost children. Oh, the humanity.

    • ffordesoon says:

      Funny, it seems like I could give money to this and UNICEF, but I guess I’m not allowed to enjoy entertainment and give money to charity. Oh well.

    • Anabasis says:

      That’s weird, why does the monastery you retreated to after donating all your worldly possessions to the poor have internet?

    • chackosan says:

      How Britta of you. I’m considerably more pissed about the money allocated for alleviating social ills that’s being siphoned off in large amounts by the people in charge.

  25. Solidstate89 says:

    I told myself I wouldn’t back another Kickstarter game no matter how awesome it looked because I already backed Wasteland 2 and Planetary Annihilation…but then you assholes at Obsidian just had to come along with your Project Eternity and break the lock on my wallet!

  26. MistyMike says:

    The project is a blatantly cynical attempt to cash-in on the appeal of Baldur’s Gate. The existence of this appeal was already proven with the buzz around Enhanced Edition. The feature list of this announced Project Eternity reflects BG bit to bit: real-time-with-pause battles, recruitable characters etc. This is utterly uncreative and panders to the reactionary conservative ‘true’ RPG fanatics.

    • TCM says:

      I’d pull out the cynical.

      For better or worse, Obsidian has a lot of people who are truly passionate disciples of the old-school narrative RPG, and I doubt they’ll do anything less than their best.

      (I question how good their best is, but that’s another argument)

    • ffordesoon says:

      Yes, it does reflect Baldur’s Gate. And all the other Infinity Engine games. Most of which they made, and would like to make again.

      Even if it is exactly as cynical as you’re suggesting, so what? By your logic, the worst-case scenario is that we get another Baldur’s Gate. Which, um, doesn’t seem like a particularly terrible outcome, but I guess you know something I don’t.

      You act as if the fact that there’s a market for this sort of thing is an affront, but I can’t tell precisely what it’s supposedly an affront to.

      Innovation? Yeah, because the Notches and Edmund McMillens of the world aren’t going to continue making whatever they want now that some RPG developers made some money on Kickstarter – oh wait yes they are. The industry? The industry sucks for everyone and needs to change. Gamers? A new Baldur’s Gate is not the worst thing in the world for gamers. Capitalism? Because exchanging money for goods and services has never worked in a capitalist society. Originality? Well, I suppose I should call Nintendo up and tell them that no creatively and commercially successful game has ever been remotely unoriginal. I’m sure they’ll want to know that, so they can stop producing franchise games that sell millions of copies and are great, like, you know, ninety percent of their back catalog.

      Seriously, dude, what’s your point? That everything produced in the past was actually garbage we were just too stupid back then to realize was garbage and we should be happy with our lot in the here and now and never question it? That the design philosophies of the past were misguided at best? That Baldur’s Gate Enhanced Edition is great and wholly new games with wholly new things in them aren’t? That fans of classic RPGs don’t have disposable income? That they’re unwise to spend that disposable income on things they like? What is your point?

      There’s healthy disdain for blind nostalgia, and then there’s whatever weird sickness you have, which is like nostalgia for the days when people weren’t nostalgic, or something equally paradoxical.

      • MistyMike says:

        Actually in this post I did not express any worries about any of the big things you mentioned, but simply about the quality of the game. Great creative works are not created to cater to popular demand, particularily the regressionist and reactionary type. Obsidian were on the right track producing ambitious games like, say, New Vegas or Alpha Protocol. Instead of building on that foundation they gave in to the allure of easy cash by announcing what everyone wants to hear about: the rebirth of BG. Even if Eternity turns out to be a capable game it will not be any kind of breakthrough – these waters are already charted.

        • Thirith says:

          Out of interest: in what ways is New Vegas ambitious but a new fantasy IP is definitely not?

        • Anabasis says:

          Think about all the social ills that could be alleviated with the money spent on “innovative” games like New Vegas and Alpha Protocol. Oh humanity!

        • vorvek says:

          How is New Vegas ambitious, when it’s but a module for an older game they didn’t develop? And what did it have that those uncreative games before it didn’t have? 3D? First Person Perspective?

          Maybe you’d rather have Obsidian creating a musical experience that has no actual gameplay but is filled with introspective thoughts about life and death and can be watched in museums. That would be creative.

          Not all the games must be breakthroughs, and certainly neither Alpha Protocol nor New Vegas were, unless you think they are on the same league as Civilization, Quake, Wolfenstein, Wizardry, Ultima, Ultima Underground, Quest for Glory or The Bard’s Tale, to name a few actual breakthroughs in video game history. The Eye of the Beholder series didn’t invent anything, yet they are treasured jewels for many in a way that New Vegas just can’t be unless you were trying to tell a joke.

          Alpha Protocol wasn’t particularly innovative in any aspect, be this combat, story or gameplay mechanics. Same with Fallout. You just happened to like them because they were more or less good products (and in the specific case of Alpha Protocol, wrapped with one of the worst engines humanity has ever suffered).

          Now, you have just mentioned that they “gave what everyone wanted”, and apparently that’s wrong. I’m not sure what law forbid to make RPGs with real time with pause combats, but I certainly haven’t seen that many around lately. If you could point me to some that would satiate the thirst I don’t have for another “innovative” 3D pseudo-shooter with dialogues, please, do so.

        • MistyMike says:

          No point comparing existing games like the ones I mentioned with a title which is only announced along with a laundy list of features. Both of them are I believe pretty forward thinking in terms of worlbuilding, characterisation and nonlinearity. Promising something which reads exactly like BG is backwards-looking and traditionalist. We’ll probably be getting another ‘standard fantasy’ setting with the usual dwelves and oarves. I’m pretty sure I’ll be having the last laugh… in about two years time from now.

          • Anabasis says:

            Is having the last laugh you hating a game you’ve already decided you’re going to hate? Because I can’t really argue with you in that case.

          • Thirith says:

            I don’t think there’s anything *innovative* about the games in the respects you mention, MistyMike. Those aspects of the games are extremely well done – as in so many of the developers’ earlier games. What most people want from Obsidian isn’t innovation, and I don’t think many people would agree with you that they were innovative in New Vegas. They want great writing, a fascinating world, characters you want to spend time with and choices that are meaningful. These are not *innovative*, but they are *rare*. Obsidian have delivered on these in the past, and I’d imagine that’s what people are hoping for from Project Eternity.

          • MistyMike says:

            Ana – I’m not hating anything, I’m just somewhat skeptical – but such nuance is lost on Internet denizens

            Morte – it’s you who keeps talking about innovation. I only mentioned ambition, something which cannot be ascribed to a project which obviously aims solely to recreate past glories (even dubious glories in the first place).

          • vorvek says:

            Unlike Fallout New Vegas?

          • MistyMike says:

            Vorvec, NV was I think supposed to be ‘The New Fallout Done Right’

        • Emeraude says:

          Even if Eternity turns out to be a capable game it will not be any kind of breakthrough – these waters are already charted.

          It may be because I take a bit out a context I do not perceive, but this seems like a weird positions to me. Like saying, I don’t know “Mallarmé will not reach any kind of breakthrough in poetry by writing sonnets – these waters are already charted” (I mean, sonnet was a pretty dead form by the time he wrote “Sonnet allégorique de lui-même”).

          • MistyMike says:

            Faith in humanity +1 for seeing such a comment on a gaming blog :)

            But Mallarme didn’t actually go ‘I’ll style this sonnet to be similar to this other that was popular ten years ago so I can make a lot of dough and be invited to all the salons’.

          • drewski says:

            Of all the criticisms Obsidian deserve for whatever they’ve done in the careers, chasing money is probably the stupidest I can conceive of.

    • J_C says:

      Sorry, I’m usually not this blunt, but f*ck you! The oldschool RPG genre have been ruined by the likes of Bioware and Bethesda, so excuse me if I and several others hail Obsidian catering to our needs. Do you want breakthoughs? Are you talking about the breakthroughs like Dragon Age II? We don’t need breakthroughs in the RPG genre. We want complex, high quality RPGs, which became extinct in the last few years.

      • Wizardry says:

        But Obsidian are a mini-BioWare/Bethesda. Look at all their sequels to their games they’ve created. Knights of the Old Republic II, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Fallout: New Vegas. Even Dungeon Siege III was a sequel to a poor franchise. But fans make the argument that Obsidian were just doing what they were told to do by publishers, and that left to their own devices they will create a hardcore old-school masterpiece. But with the announcement of this project we hear things about real-time combat and party recruitment, two traits that led to the ruin of the genre.

        I’ll never get the praise for Obsidian’s games. In fact, the only thing they do even remotely well is story telling and characterisation, both of which are of absolutely secondary importance to games in the genre.

        • Veracity says:

          Now there’s a “reactionary conservative ‘true’ RPG fanatic”, though MistyMike’s intended sense must have been something else entirely. They’re not secondary features to the 30,000 or so people throwing $1.2m in a day at the vaguest project since Molyneux’s box-clicking prattery.

          I’d say at the very least that this can’t be everything it’s trying to be, though – I know it’s just a pitch, but it seems a bit cheeky aiming for an Infinity-esque game with BG’s scope, IWD’s encounter design and Torment’s writing. Even if you miraculously cram all that in one low-budget digibox it’s going to have weird pacing.

        • drewski says:

          Do you honestly not understand that different people like different things to you? That you are not the only person on the planet allowed to like things?

          Basically, Obsidian get praise because they make a lot of games that a lot of people like. You don’t like them, and that’s fine, but to say you don’t understand why they get praise for making things millions of people enjoy to bits is…inhuman. Your lack of anything resembling empathy astonishes me.

          I can’t stand Julia Roberts, but I understand that other people do, which is why she gets cast in movies.

  27. noom says:

    Should be tipping over the $1,000,000 mark any… second… now…

  28. Guhndahb says:

    While I’m concerned about their silence on DRM, I’m even more concerned about their silence on DLC. Has anyone heard word on how DLC will be handled? If I do one of the more expensive tiers, I darn well want to get the entire game, and want to know it before I pledge.

    I asked using the Kickstarter Q&A system yesterday, but I’m sure they are overloaded and have received no answer. Of course, inxile was always nearly immediate in their responses to questions on Wasteland 2, so I’d like to see something similar from Obsidian.

  29. raptormesh says:

    Just received an email update for backers with more info on stretch goals, which includes player housing, mac and linux versions, more companions etc. Also:

    “We’ve been listening to your feedback, and have the following announcements:

    DRM Free: We are looking into it! Please check back for updates.
    Digital Only Tiers are coming!
    PayPal is coming asap. Please be patient!
    New $5k Tier. We are looking into a new $5k tier since it sold out so quickly! We are looking into equivalent alternatives.”

  30. drewski says:

    Stretch goals announced:

    link to

  31. Crosmando says:

    I won’t be satisfied until Brian Fargo and Feargus Urquhart stand victorious atop the ruins of the old video gaming industry, the decapitated heads of Bethesda and Bioware at their feet, and the masses worshiping at their feet, at awe of their complex RPG’s.