IndustryGamers released some excerpts from an interview it conducted at D.I.C.E. last week in Las Vegas with Double Fine co-founder Tim Schafer. The interview took place a few minutes after the company kicked off its Kickstarter campaign to fund a new adventure title using the crowd-sourced funding service. In the span of 25 minutes the Kickstarter campaign raised $25,000, and Schafer had this on his mind as he sat down for the interview.
The excerpts point out Schafer's feelings on living up to the expectations of the people that have - so far - given $1.7 million to the project. While creating a sequel to a game owned by LucasArts is nearly impossible for obvious reasons, Schafer has some solid ideas about the kind of games his company has planned:
"It's an adventure game, so it'll have some of that legacy, but I think each one of those games was incredibly different from the ones that came before it. Grim Fandango bears no resemblance to Full Throttle. I feel like, with this group, it's like – if I took money from a publisher, then I'd say, 'Hey, publisher. You're going to risk all your money on me. I'm going to try my best to make you some money.' That's the not lose your money and hopefully make you some [approach]…but to my creative self and my team and my fans I'm like, “I'm going to make a great game.' So for the fans, I'm saying, 'I'm going to make the most awesome game possible.' And I feel like the obligation is to be as creative as possible, which is a really unique force to have. It's intimidating that I think the audience for this is going to want us to go nuts and do something really, really creative and not play it safe," Schafer explained.
The other important comment from Schafer concerns publishers. He wanted to strongly emphasize that publishers are not evil, and that having to risk money on a project makes many big companies over cautious:
"I'm not vilifying or saying publishers are evil, or that they're not doing what they should be doing. It's just it's inherent in that set up that they risk a lot of their own money and, therefore, they need to invest in mitigating that risk and there's a cost or a burden with that risk mitigation that affects development in a negative way. But I don't think that they're jerks – well some of them are, the ones that sue us. But, there are great people at the publishers, they're making a lot of money, they're doing the right thing for themselves," he said. "But I think for Double Fine, our MO is we like to make up a lot of stuff. We like to make up new worlds and characters and we like to come up with new ideas, and so that goes against that kind of risk mitigation because when you sand off all the sharp edges and you curb your ideas just to play a safe thing and that's not what we want to make," Schafer continued. "This is allowing us to make things and to take risks – every game can be totally different, like Happy Action Theater; it's completely different than anything we've made before and anything that has been made before and I think that's what people who really like our company want us to do. They don't want us to play it safe."
At the end of the day it doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that crowd sourced funding isn't the answer to publishing every game and the traditional routes for getting a game published are still useful and necessary for the time being.
Source: IndustryGamers
Comments
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
I keep hearing people say "...this can't work for a AAA game. That requires the huge amount of funds..." and I don't see any evidence to support this attitude. To say that it can't be done is nothing but a guarantee that it won't work. I just can't believe for a second that it can't be done because it's never been tried. Everybody assumes that it has to be done a certain way and fail to consider ways that it might be done. If millions of people are willing to toss in $60 for a copy of a game, then there must be a way to get the same kind of funding directly from those same people. You have to figure out what it is that people will pay money for to fund a game that hasn't been made yet.
What would it take? Why doesn't anybody ask this question? Everybody just clucks their tongues and says it can't be done. Nobody asks "How could we make it happen?" What can you offer people that would make them toss in their money to support a game that is little more than an idea? Does private beta access do it? Is it tiered rewards? Will exclusive access to the creators compel them? How about the ability to play weekly or monthly builds of the game while it's being developed? Would people pay for any of those or a combination of them all? Is there something else that would be needed or put in place of those other options? I don't know, but I think it's short-sighted to just throw up your hands and say this won't work for "big" games.
-Greevar
"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
Like Andrew, I would say that it would be impossible to get enough people to drop $60 on a game that might not be made some time in the next 2-3 years.
What made Double Fine's proposal unique was a few things:
1) The names behind the game. Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert have a lot of weight behind their names. People trust them to make a game.
2) A niche product. Adventure games are still loved by a lot of people and those people want one of these games again made by the people who made the games they loved before.
3) A reasonable budget. A request for $400k is far more likely to succeed over a request for $20million.
4) A reasonable time frame. Double Fine proposed to have the game complete by the end of October. That is a far more realistic goal and one people are more willing to bet on than a goal of 2-3 years for a common AAA game.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
Okay, this just points out what I mentioned before. People can come up with all sorts of reasons why it can't be done, but don't even try to think about how to actually succeed. I'm hearing lots of problems, but nobody is even trying to offer potential solutions. They assume it can't be done and give up.
1. Is that to say that Bungie couldn't do the same? Their reputation is about as solid. I see no reason why they can't generate as much buzz. In fact another high-profile studio taking a chance at this would make people take notice. It would make people aware that this sort of thing is available.
The hurdle to overcome with a Kickstarter project is that people aren't as familiar with it than they are with WalMart, Best Buy, or Gamestop. Those places are established in the public consciousness and most people know about them. Kickstarter is obscure by comparison, so public visibility must be increased. Streamline participation in such programs. Integrate it into software clients like Steam, XBox Live, and PSN. Let them use their console's currency to pitch in to a project they want to see done. The easier you make it for people to give you their money, the faster things will go. People aren't used to this funding model and need time to acclimate to it.
2. It's not a product, it's a service (but I digress). If a niche group of people want to pay for niche genres, then a mainstream group of people would likely pay for a mainstream game. This is assuming that you make it worth their while in some way.
3. A reasonable budget is whatever amount is required to achieve the level of quality that people expect for the money. If people pay $20 million for a game, then they expect a $20 million game. The key here is to present this to a large enough number of people whom have the funds for a project that they want to see happen. Kickstarter doesn't currently reach the number of potential customers required to succeed in such large endeavor. So the name of the game is "Spread awareness". Get more traffic looking at your project.
4. The only reason a 2-3 year production timeline is such an issue is that in the traditional model, studios only had a small blast of media and press about their game and then they go dark for months at a time. That's not going to work here. They have to stay open and connected to the community at all times to keep people paying attention to the project and find ways to keep them engaged. By going dark the way they often do, does nothing but encourage people to forget about them. If you can't manage to hold their attention, it's no wonder why you can't get them to support your projects. Get their attention and hang on to it.
Offer them a number of tiered options to keep them interested in the game so that they feel it's worth dropping their money on it. It' doesn't have to be a rigid $60 price tag. Game development is a service and like all services, they have different levels of service priced incrementally based on how much service you get. Basic level support might net you private forums access and weekly dev updates. Stuff that adds value, but minimal cost. The next level up might get you monthly build access so you can play alpha builds of the game as they work on it. Top level perks might be something like having your own launch party hosted by the developers at their studio for you and a handful of your friends where they all get to play the finished game before it's official launch date. What's more, tiered support would provide people with meager means to contribute and would make used games sales pointless because people could get the game for a smaller contribution. That's not less revenue, that's more because the $60 model actually pushed away a lot of potential customers to the used game market.
I think it's unimaginative to just assume that big budget games can't do it this way. You're dismissing the whole idea without giving it any thought as to how you might do it by listing all the reasons you think it can't be done. If you don't move outside of conventional thinking, you'll never make it work.
-Greevar
"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
I didn't think I was saying that big budget games would not be able to use such a model. I was saying that those 4 factors (plus a few that I may have missed) are what made Double Fine's project successful.
I think that the niche product was probably the biggest driver of the four. Why? Because those products are harder to come by in the market place.
Let's take your Bungie example. What are they known for? FPS games. When was the last time you saw an FPS game on the shelf at a game store? Probably every time you been to one in the last 5 years. There is no scarcity when it comes to FPS games. Why would anyone prepay developer A to get an FPS made when developer B is making one just as good without having to be prepaid by the fans?
On top of that, it would be far easier for Bungie to get publisher funding for a FPS because there is a current market for it. If in ten years gamers and publishers have moved on from FPS games and Bungie wants to crowdfund a new one, they would probably succeed.
Now on the time frame, I am sure there are ways to keep people interested and up to date on a 2-3 year project, but most people are not willing to make that bet. Most preorders for games happen after the release date is announced, not before. People want to know when they will get the game and they want to know it will be soon. This worked in Double Fine's favor because the release date is planned for 8 months from now.
Now don't get me wrong. I think what Double Fine is doing is awesome and I want to see more of this in the future. However, one needs to weight their options and their chances for success. If you have a huge cost, a long development cycle, a common product and no name, your chance of success will be nil. If you can change only a couple of those, you increase your chances of success, but to be truly successful on a crowdfunding model., you will need all of them.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
"There is no scarcity when it comes to FPS games. Why would anyone prepay developer A to get an FPS made when developer B is making one just as good without having to be prepaid by the fans?"
I don't know, maybe they want to actually have a voice in the development of said FPS? Going to the public for funding means that you can make exactly the kind of game they want to play. That in itself can be niche and scarce, which is basically what DF did. They went to the people and asked for money to make the kind of game the fans wanted. You just have to try little harder to see that.
"On top of that, it would be far easier for Bungie to get publisher funding for a FPS because there is a current market for it."
Yes, they would make an FPS the publisher wants them to make, not the customers. The idea is to make a customer tailored game. The requires crowd funding.
"Now on the time frame, I am sure there are ways to keep people interested and up to date on a 2-3 year project, but most people are not willing to make that bet. Most preorders for games happen after the release date is announced, not before. People want to know when they will get the game and they want to know it will be soon. This worked in Double Fine's favor because the release date is planned for 8 months from now."
Again, this is a list of problems and doesn't even try to think about what how to solve it. It's an out-of-hand dismissal of the whole idea because it's assumed that it won't work based on nothing assumption. This has never been tried before so there is no test case to make any determination whether or not it's viable.
-Greevar
"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
I am certainly willing to be proved wrong. I am just looking at this and seeing what I consider to be keys to Double Fine's success and what other developers can duplicate. If Bungie or some other developer would prove me wrong that gamers are willing to crowdfund a $20million dollar 2-3 year FPS project, then by all means, go for it.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
I don't think it's fair to say a $20 million dollar project can't be done when it's never been tested. I do think it would require a complete re-imagining of how to interact with the community and the people funding the game. It will need to implement something that makes it worth it to people to risk their money for something they won't see come to be in 2-3 years. Interstellar Marines, being developed by ZeroPoint uses "slices" and exclusive perks to give their customers something to stay interested in the project. I think their problem though, is that it's far too obscure (they're unknown, have no reputation) or it's not what people want to see made. I think they overstepped on scope when they don't have much in the way of reputation.
Perhaps asking for the $20 million up front is too much? It might be easier to take it in $5 million milestones that provide episodic demos to generate interest in the next milestone. Shorter deadlines that ask for smaller amounts of funding might help a project succeed. The important thing here is to make sure as many people as possible are aware of this so that enough of them pitch in their money for a game they want to see made. I think obscurity is the biggest obstacle to overcome and DF has made some progress in this respect. Kickstarter is now more famous thanks to DF.
-Greevar
"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
I can't think of anything that would get me to drop $60 (or any amount of money) on a game that doesn't exist yet.
Andrew Eisen
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
I like the ideal of using kickstarter to fund a niche game like Double Fine Adventure. Hopefully we can see more funding projects like this in the future.
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
No, but maybe it is the answer to get smaller, independent projects off the ground.
Re: Tim Schafer: Publishers Aren't Jerks
To me the lesson is this:
If you want to make a AAA blockbuster FPS or something else "hardcore" you will need a publisher as they are the only ones capable of financing the $20+ million required.
If you want to make a niche game such as a point and click adventure, you are pretty much on your own. However, crowd funding can help mitigate some of the expenses.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary