Wasteland 3 Announced, Crowdfunding Once Again

inXile Entertainment’s RPG Wasteland 2 revived a long-dead post-apocalyptic world with the help of crowdfunding, and now they’re trying to return there. The studio today announced Wasteland 3, and it’s no surprise that they’re crowdfunding it again. They want to take the heroic Desert Rangers to frozen Colorado this time, giving them new toys like vehicles and an interesting take on cooperative multiplayer. They’re taking their crowdfunding to a new locale too, planning to launch a Fig campaign in October.

Wasteland 3 will send a Desert Rangers team to Colorado for more squad-based RPG antics with turn-based combat and whatnot. They’ll be building up a new base and a new reputation in this land where no one has heard of them, helping people or being a dick to them or whatever you fancy I suppose.

The co-op ideas are curious. You’ll be able to join up with a pal and control your own squad of Rangers, same as regular cooperative multiplayer. Only, your games are also linked when you’re not together, meaning they can complete quests and change the world when you’re offline, leaving surprise consequences for you when you return. Or I believe that’s the idea, anyway.

Wasteland 3’s crowdfunding campaign will begin October 5th on Fig. You may not have heard much about Fig. The crowdfunding site was set up by folks mostly associated with games, and has an “advisory board” of developers too – including inXile’s own CEO, Brian Fargo. Fig’s twist is that, as well as doing the regular crowdfunding ‘pay money, hopefully receive game + tat’ gig, it also lets people actual invest and receive money back. Games going for Fig so far include Psychonauts 2 and Outer Wilds.

inXile will seek $2.75 million (£2.2 million), including up to $2.2 million (£1.7m) in equity. Fargo told Polygon they hope the investment side of Fig will counterbalance Kickstarter fatigue. “You can imagine that it gets difficult to get people’s attention with pure rewards-based funding when they haven’t had the chance to play the last game they backed, or they haven’t backed one in a couple of years,” he said.

I backed Wasteland 2 and, to be honest, haven’t played it yet myself.


  1. gschmidl says:

    Has any game funded on Fig come out? Wasn’t there, in fact, something about Fig not even being able to retrieve investments at all for months? Did that ever get resolved?

    • G-Lord says:

      You are right, they still haven’t figured out how to get the low tier investments. It has been months since the latest update where they said they were very close to solving the issue.

    • Hobbes says:

      Right now Fig has all kinds of legal questions the SEC are asking about their funding model, so it’s no surprise they’re still trying to iron out the kinks, I and a few others went over the documents the first time round and the kind of BS that appeared in it (things like the parent company – DF – could liquidate Fig, claim all the money, and leave *everyone* with zero recourse) just left my jaw hanging.

      In short, do not go near fig.

  2. Jediben says:

    Wait, did Wasteland 2 not make them any money to use themselves? I can understand the initial KS to rejuvenate the series when no publisher would consider it a viable commercial success, but now it has had sales…well, why should the consumer front the risk again?

    • james___uk says:

      They are, here’s a quote from polygons article:
      ‘Fargo says that Wasteland 2 earned his team more than $12 million dollars, and he’s using a portion of that money to contribute to the total budget for Wasteland 3 which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 million. The Fig campaign will have a goal of $2.75 million with equity capped at $2.25 million, and Fargo says he’s also searching for a publishing partner to contribute some portion as well.’

    • Prime-Mover says:

      Not sure I understand the question, but the consumer should do it, because the consumer wants to do it. I don’t really see the issue. But perhaps you could elaborate your contention?

    • dungeoncrawl says:

      Wondering when people are going to catch on that Kickstarter, while maybe started as a place for people with NO money who wanted to pursue an idea and had NO other way, long long ago grew into other things. WHile it is still a place for that, it’s also a place where legit studios can gauge interest, market, involve the community, and have an ADDITIONAL funding method. If you read about it, InXile is estimating $7-9M, most of which they’re going to fund themselves and through some publisher help. Its just smart.

      • montorsi says:

        This title also appears to be a bit more ambitious, which is a welcome thing to me. As long as devs are clear about what we’re paying for I’ve got no issue with them partially crowdfunding development, especially if it keeps bringing us these RPGs.

        I also imagine publishers are still hesitant to invest in these games because they don’t make a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. “Just keeping the lights on” is not something many would sign on for, which makes me glad Fargo is so persistent and willing to do these old school titles instead of selling out for greener pastures.

      • Shuck says:

        “Kickstarter, while maybe started as a place for people with NO money who wanted to pursue an idea and had NO other way”
        The thing is, it was never actually that, at least for games. No one raises full game development budgets on Kickstarter and they never have. Best case scenario, you might raise close to a quarter of what you need. It’s always been about proving interest in the idea and getting that little bit of extra money to help finish things up and provide a bit of polish.

        • April March says:

          It most certainly was that for the longest time. It’s important not to forget that Kickstarter was created as an outlet for weird creative stuff that no one would fund because it wasn’t profitable, and while smart watches and weird dongles and, yes, a veritable deluge of indie games are its bread and butter as far as we’re concerned, its original target were people who wanted to like perform an interpretative dance session in all disused underground stations of the Midwest or something like that. The fact that most games on Kickstarter are commercial projects that have even a theoretical chance of making its money back makes them a lot more, let’s say, solvent than what its standard project should look like.

          • Shuck says:

            I was nosing around Kickstarter from when it first started up. If you look at the early game Kickstarters that were on there before Double Fine brought all the attention to it, people were raising significantly less money than they are now – absolute pittances. So while other types of Kickstarters might have been making projects possible that otherwise couldn’t be made, that wasn’t true for games. There simply wasn’t enough money being raised to make any real difference to the projects involved in terms of development, much less were they funding the development of the games. The games were going to be made (or not) either way (often they were already done by the time the Kickstarter began), but the Kickstarter funds were for things like entering it in a game competition, or porting to another platform.

          • dungeoncrawl says:

            Agree…it ‘started’ that way but morphed. People still cry foul ball when an established firm uses it again for the millionth time. I’m good with it, Kickstarter is good with it, and all the small startups are good with it too. The only people he seem to be ‘not’ good with it are the people that still think it’s Kickstarter 2012.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      crowdfunding isn’t always about just being poor. It affords a studio freedoms they wouldn’t get relying on a publisher. Fargo has made no secret about the fact he prefers the model (Bard’s Tale 2), and he’s proven he can deliver so there’s no dodginess going on.

      However, I would rather he’d stuck with Kickstarter, rather than Fig as he’s on the board of the latter.

      • Hobbes says:

        Fig being -exceptionally- shady and Fargo being a board member, yes, of course he’s going to use Fig, it’s like moving the piggy bank where all the customers put their money into your own room as opposed to being held by someone else.

        • suibhne says:

          Uh…how is Fig “exceptionally shady”? I happily backed the last Consortium game there, and everything seemed above board to me. Yes, there’s been a delay with implementing small-beer equity investing, but that’s due to this being a totally new phenomenon (in the US) that’s only now getting tested out and implemented, by everyone.

          • dungeoncrawl says:

            I second that question. Shady how?

          • Dahoon says:

            This video explains it. It might be legal (in the US) but is sure as hell isn’t the way you treat your fans:

        • suibhne says:

          And *of course* Fargo is going to use the platform whose creation he helped guide. The reason he, Tim Schafer, and others got involved with Fig is that they wanted a platform that would meet their needs better than KS. They feel they’ve succeeded, and it’s hardly a sign of corruption that they’re now using the thing they helped build.

          And anyway, inXile is targeting *most* of the fundraising to actually consist of small-investor equity, not donations/pre-orders as on Kickstarter. Because of this decision, KS is literally not an option – it doesn’t support equity investment and likely never will.

    • neofit says:

      Banking/financing/capitalism mantra #1: never gamble with your own money :).

  3. james___uk says:

    Oh shit count me in! I know Wasteland 2 was rough around the edges in places but it was great in others. I’d love to play this

    • BobbyDylan says:

      Indeed. I just hope they use 2d painted backgounds. The 3d in Wasteland 2 was fraking ugly. After playing Pillars of Eternity, I want WL3 to look like that.

  4. Anthile says:

    I hope that this time they can avoid one of major problems with Wasteland 2: the excessive callbacks to the first game. Pretty much every plot point of the original Wasteland was reiterated. I can’t even fathom how it must have felt like for people who never experienced the first Wasteland. The good thing was that the parts that were new turned out to be pretty good. The Hollywood section, when not buggy, is a great and I think unsung gem of roleplaying with a lot of flexibility to it. If they can build on these parts and improve the fairly lacklustre combat and skill system, Wasteland 3 could become a really interesting game. Also, cut down on the containers.

  5. Whelp says:

    You should play Wasteland 2 honestly. It’s quite good, if you’re into Fallout 1/2 or, well, Wasteland-style RPGs.

    It’s mostly bug-free nowadays too.

  6. Samuel Erikson says:

    Maybe this time they’ll do proper quality assurance for the whole game, instead of leaving the second half a broken goddamned mess?

    (And having just finished it last night, the Wasteland 2 Director’s Cut really didn’t fix anything. In fact, once I hit California, it would freeze for 5-30 seconds after every action in combat.)

  7. Joe The Wizard says:

    I backed Wasteland 2 and played the living shit out of it. I will back this one also without hesitation.

    • Booker says:

      Same here, no idea what problems all of these Debbie Downers here have… :D

      • Premium User Badge

        Harlander says:

        I dunno, I kinda fell off W2, somewhere between a third and half way through, I think, but I’d be hard pressed to explain exactly why.

        I stalled out in Divinity: Original Sin too, so maybe I just don’t like turn-based-combat party RPGs as much as I thought I did.

    • dungeoncrawl says:

      Same here. It was my GOTY when it came out. Can’t wait for more.

  8. Wagrid says:

    I dunno, maybe I’d get behind this if Torment were out and good, but this will be their second campaign since the Torment Kickstarter and it still seems to be pretty distant. Four crowdfunding campaigns and only one released product is a bad look.

    I’m not claiming inXile are secret scam artists – clearly they aren’t, but I do think they’re biting off way more than they can chew and I question if they can deliver on all of it to a good standard.

    • dungeoncrawl says:

      Not following. Developers often have games at various stages. All they’re really doing with this is a) gauging interest and b) lining up funding. Doesn’t matter if we’re 5 years from release.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      You should absolutley not part with any money if you don’t feel comfortable, but them wanting to start new projects while others are in their twilight is pretty normal for a development studio to keep the wolf from the door.

      We’re only seeing it up front because they are going for a non-publisher reliant model.

    • Booker says:

      Torment is done at this point and they are “only” polishing it now. I’ve played the first public beta and I can assure you it’s not only a game, but pretty much exactly what the initially promised. I doubt their polishing passes will make it worse.

    • Dudeness says:

      Yeah, me too. I’ve backed Bard’s Tale IV and Torment, but I’ll to see if they can deliver properly before giving ’em anymore money.
      I’ve played Wasteland 2, but it was… good… but how can we say… a little rough ’round the edges or something. But, don’t listen to me, I was never a fan of Fallout or Wasteland.
      Why I’m saying this anyway.
      “If you ain’t a Wasteland fan, don’t crowdfund the third!”
      Right, but I want Interplay to have success, so we’ll see.

    • Sizeable Dirk says:

      I think they’re serialising projects to keep their writers, concept people and others that are tied to pre-production and early project work in the pipeline with something to do rather than just sacking them.
      Larger studios usually don’t keep those teams around if they don’t need them for another project AFAIK.

  9. preshrunk_cyberpunk says:


    I think I’ll hold off until the game is finished and -hopefully- properly reviewed this time.

  10. Holysheep says:

    As excellent as Wasteland 2 was after they remade the second part of the game, it seems they’re going for the exact same shitty money grabbing attitude they had: attacking small unrelated indie dev teams that have “wasteland” in the name of their games, asking stupid sums of money during their early access (for a fucking Unity game that wasn’t even finished when they released it), selling the game at 60€ on release (what the fuck) … So there won’t be any backing from my part, neither will I buy the game on release. I’ll probably wait for it to be in some bundle or on serious sale, as usual.

    • preshrunk_cyberpunk says:


    • Longestsprout says:

      Dunno about indie devs, but the the 59 price was early access because that’s how much the kickstarter backers contributed to get into the beta. At release it was cheaper :\

  11. waltC says:

    Wasteland 2 is sweet…;) Fargo & Co are one of the few crowd-funding risks I’m willing to take. But…since I have also funded Bard’s Tale IV and Tides–and the games have yet to ship–I will probably wait and check those out first. Yes, I know, I’m conservative…;)

  12. JFS says:

    I dunno. I helped kickstart the first game, but this looks a little like a moneygrab. The preview images are very nice, though.

    • dungeoncrawl says:

      Why a money grab? I’d love “more of the same as WL2”. It’s not a money grab unless they put nothing into it and try to make money just on the name right?

      • JFS says:

        Maybe moneygrab isn’t the right word. It’s that I don’t feel releasing a game that stayed a little behind expectation, having another one promise Planescape 2 (but it’s not out so no one knows for sure) and then lining up a third one for crowdfunding is quite adequate. It’s a little too much smoke for me, if you understand.

        • malkav11 says:

          Fourth. They also crowdfunded Bard’s Tale IV.

        • dungeoncrawl says:

          It’s just good planning and forward thinking IMO. Time will tell. But for now, Fargo and team have done nothing to lose my trust. I may invest on Fig…still trying to decide. I’ll definately back the game with some goodies.

  13. Lars Westergren says:

    Yes, awesome. Instapledged. Good to see Polygon going into some questions I have had about Fig. I was getting a bit worried they would never get done with the paperwork. I’m still going to invest in Psychonauts 2, but I’m sure the total budget for the game will be a lot less than it could have been.

  14. CurseYouAll says:

    So they are doing The Bard’s Tale IV, Tides of Numenera, and now Wasteland 3?? I am concerned.

    • preshrunk_cyberpunk says:

      I realize this is my third post on this subject and I may appear…somewhat obsessive, but I agree with this as well.

      After pitching in for Wasteland 2 and Tides of Numenera and thus far not being somewhat unsatisfied I wont be giving inXile anymore money. Not now at anyway.

      • preshrunk_cyberpunk says:

        Ahhh typos.

        Curse you non-existent edit button *shakes fists*

    • PancakeWizard says:

      Tides is imminent, so they are going to be working on two games at once, which I guess they’ve expanded and been able to do due to some reasonable success. Crowd-funding is not exclusively for the poor. It’s also a way of indie studios avoiding the traditional publisher model and keeping their IP.

  15. Premium User Badge

    Nauallis says:

    Ah yes, here we go again: Obligatory commentary regarding my personal financial views juxtaposed against my entirely anecdotal but obviously meaningfully stereotypical experiences with the previous game (and other games that are not related but I’m still mad, bro). Also, I must relate that I completely assume the motivations and intentions of the developer despite having never deigned to contact them in any way, and also I will conveniently ignore the lack of a publisher having an impact on their business practices, despite comparing them to competitors that operate under a wildly different business model. Finally, let me rest my case by obnoxiously claiming that nobody else is intelligent enough to keep their pocketbooks to themselves. Never pre-order crowdfund! /s

  16. mercyRPG says:

    Wasteland 2’s GUi was so bad I rage quit on first combat.. AvoidWare.

    • Booker says:

      Loved it! Played the whole game 4 times from start to finish!

      • dr.denton says:

        I envy you. I get, that sometimes you can’t pull off complexity and authenticity without being a little inconvenient.
        But in WL2 I had the impression that they went out of their way to make the game feel oldschool and tough, but forgot that this is the ACTUAL 21st century where you can have complexity without the BS.

      • dungeoncrawl says:

        Same here. I also very much enjoyed helping play test it and help improve the interface along the way.

  17. ErikMalkavian says:

    Wow!!! REALLY looking forward to this. I really love Wasteland 2 and this is just awesome. Looking forward to supporting InXile.

  18. ErikMalkavian says:

    I didn’t appreciate your negateive spin on this @AliceO’Connor
    So what if they are Crowdfunding?? That should have nothing to do with the fact that are using a creative way to fund their game..sheeze!!

    • sebastians says:

      Crowdfunding is the way to go these days for many video game projects. Sourcing funds can be a difficult process. I have worked with a few different clients on their campaigns and portals, while they were using custom crowdfunding solutions from Thrinacia(https://www.thrinacia.com). The model from Fig is quite unique and really can get people involved with investment offerings. They combine both rewards and investment, which none else does.

  19. mercyRPG says:

    I hate wasteland 2, but FIG already looks lot better on first blink than crappy website of Kickstarter..