How can that be done for a new company?
It just cant. At least not in the same scale and without a very solid, realistic, scrutinized and auditable business plan. A completely new team with no track record can not expect to get funds out of thin air or to the same scale of a team with already a demonstrable track record. But that is life across all industries, not just game development.
But isnât that the point of crowdfunding?
Established businesses, or new ones with an exceedingly good business plan, may go to investors to get money. In this case, it might be a publisher that can fund the development in return for a share of the profits and rights to the game. This then leads to the high-end titles and big-money games that we know, but that doesnât necessarily make them good.
Crowdfunding allows people to pitch an idea. Any idea. From the consumerâs point of view, thereâs no business decisions involved, or thoughts of return on investment (apart from tier rewards). It is purely about liking an idea, putting some money into it and watching it get made.
This is what I-Novae have done - they pitched a good idea, got some money and are now building that idea. Crowdfunding gives the public control over what they would like to have, instead of some big company creating something then having to shove tons of marketing down our throats to convince us we want it.
6 Likes
But isnât that the point of crowdfunding?
What is? Faith and hype? Lack of demonstrable evidence showing if a given pitch deliverer competence and real capabilities are enough to do what he or she promises?
Absolutely not, imho. But be my guest.
Track record, in the other hand, can be established based on relevant previous work by the team or individually by each team member. Personally, I have learnt my lesson with Star Citizen and a couple others. The jury on IN:B is still out there.
3 Likes
Track record isnt everything. Having worked at a game company before arent a guarantee that their game will be great, as a team with no track record isnt sure to fail. Mentioning the track record also contributes to the hype thing you criticized, which is why I preferred the way Flavien and Keith did it: Not mentiioning anything about their previous work. The kickstarter was about their game, not about them. If you try to sell a game solely based on a person, you get godus.
If it is of any help though, your concerns were already discussed in great length during the kickstarter (I am getting a really bad case of flashback reading the current discussion)
Nothing is really a guarantee, I agree. But some things are less a guarantee than others. As I said, if you just want to go based on gut feeling be my guest.
I do hope they really communicate well but I was a bit miffed that JC would recently promote DU on Gamespot with a laptop - rendering and lag was so horrendous it left a very bad impression. In fact itâs decisions like that which reveal a lot. That said, I am not a big believer in not giving people a chance simply because they havenât the experience; Whatâs more how are people going to get experience if they are disqualified for not having it. So I have to differ on that point but admit it would be more comforting if Devs had a track record. Although Chris Roberts has experience and is mucking it up royally.
It is not just a gut feeling for quite a few people here. Many of us have been following the development of the tech closely for a very long time, during which we got to know the devs, which is, to many people, more valuable than a check-list.
At the moment I trust inovae more to deliver their game, than I trust CR to deliver SC. Which is why I backed I:B instead of SC. Instead, I will buy SC once it is released. IF it is ever released.
2 Likes
Iâve always thought crowdfunding is similar (in a loose sense) to venture capital investment.
You speculate on an idea (in this case, for a game rather than for a business) and offer it an âinvestmentâ in the hope that the idea succeeds and you get a return on your investment (in this case, tier rewards). You expect the recipient of your investment to act in good faith, but thereâs never any guarantee theyâll succeed.
In this case, INovae got the minimum investment they requested, and now theyâre trying their damned hardest to make that idea succeed.
5 Likes
I think you should divest yourself of such notions because Kickstarter is simply a means of pre-ordering products. There is no investment here. Itâs a great model, but itâs not an investment. Not even in guarded terms where we put lots of words in quotes.
Iâm interested to see where the pre-order model goes. Tesla just Kickstarted its latest model car, which is pretty awesome. I wonder if that will generalize into Nike saying âWe want to build this innovative shoe. If you want one, pony up $50 now and another $X when the shoes are ready to go.â Or they have an entire line of shoes, and people can pick the one they want. It would apply to pretty much any product that requires a non-trivial amount of infrastructure to build but whose popularity isnât guaranteed, somewhere between custom products and mass production. So instead of doing surveys and such, then building the product and hoping, they just ask people: do you want to buy this product we have in mind?
1 Like
Thatâs not really true though. Preorders tend to be for products that are already funded to completion. Thatâs very much not the case for many (probably most) KS campaigns.
1 Like
KS is a pre-order with risk, coupled with what is basically sentimental value. Iâm surprised that the âcharityâ argument hasnât popped up yetâŚ
Crowd-funding something isnât a pre-order. Itâs a group investment that has the potential to pay out in âfunâ.
The key difference is that not pre-ordering en-mass isnât going to change the quality of the finished product. 
2 Likes
KS isnât preordering, it is for charity ⌠Happy?
(Actually I have no idea how KS could be linked to chairty, feel free to enlighten me)
Giving more money than the goods and services are worth can qualify as charity, stupidity or naivete. All three apply to those who contribute to Kickstarters, depending on their motivation and intent.
In my case, my contribution was entirely charitable. I have no interest in the game being built, so I gave out of thanks to Flavien for years of discussions about gameplay and years of work on 3D models. That is called âcharityâ. If that word is too laced with meanings, consider âkindnessâ.
4 Likes
Ah, I started to think that ks was doing similarly to humblebundle ^^
More seriously, i can only but agree with this statement.
My reasons are most of all trust in the current dev team. Also that Iâd be probably unable to handle even a tenth of what INovae is doing, but thatâs another story 
KS if finding investors that, instead of being interested in profit return, want the game they wish for to be done. In return they (the pledgers) have some leverage on functionalities or gameplay theyâd love to have. With compromise, as no one has exactly the same dream
So rather than âcharityâ, that does indeed carry some impactful meaning in our greedy society, as does âkindnessâ sadly, Iâd define as KS being about trust and support.
True enough, trust can be hard to build. I find INovae have proven plenty of times their serious on this project.
3 Likes