Star Citizen Creator: Kickstarter Model Is Here To Stay

[Steven Bogos]

Star Citizen Creator: Kickstarter Model Is Here To Stay

Chris Roberts' Star Citizen Kickstarter has raised over $8 million, and fans continue to jump in, despite the game being over a year away from release.

"I can make the same game for a fifth of the revenue [of a AAA title], a fifth of the sales, and I can be more profitable, and I can exist on lower unit sales," says Chris Roberts, speaking to gamesindustry.biz [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-22-chris-roberts-how-incredible-community-transforms-development] about the huge merits that Kickstarter offers developers. His own Star Citizen project has raised over $8 million in in its Kickstarter campaign, and shows no sign of stopping, with fans continuing to contribute despite the game's release being over a year away. Roberts also spoke about the future of Star Citizen, and possible plans to bring the current PC-exclusive to Sony's PS4.

Roberts is incredibly impressed with the Kickstarter model, claiming that almost 96% of every dollar pledged goes directly to the developers, compared to the old model, which sat at around 20 cents of every dollar. "I definitely think crowdfunding is going to be part of gaming going forward. I really like what it's doing," says Roberts, explaining that while the big budget blockbusters aren't going to go away, Kickstarter will bring more power to the middle ground of "niche" developers. He says that in the past, projects like his own would be scoffed at by the big-name publishers for "only" moving around a million units.

"I think that [Kickstater is] good for gamers, because crowdfunding and digital distribution are enabling more nichey stuff to be viable. It's also allowing gamers to have their voice heard, and have their influence earlier in the process. You don't really have your input into how Call of Duty's being made."

Roberts also talked about the impact being a crowdfunded project has on the actual development team. "Unlike with a publisher, you can't pull the wool over their eyes because it's the real people who are going to be playing it," he said. Roberts is pleased with the affect that this open nature has on his team, telling us that he has "noticed the energy and the motivation on my team, because we're building in a very open format and we're sharing."

Star Citizen is currently set to be a PC-exclusive space-sim, but Roberts is not completely closed to the idea of it coming to consoles. "The good news is that [the PS4 is] essentially a PC, so that means PC owners will get much better ports of console games. I'm not a PC elitist by any means; if I could be on the PS4, and they were open, and I could do the updating and all the sort of stuff we're trying to do on Star Citizen, then I would definitely consider putting it on PS4." The bad news? Roberts highly doubts that the PS4 will sell for less than $400.

Roberts previously predicted that official website. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121826-Star-Citizen-Dev-Consoles-Will-Lose-Advantage-to-PCs]

Source & Image: Gamesindustry.biz [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-22-chris-roberts-how-incredible-community-transforms-development]

Permalink

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

If this is true, perhaps Kickstarter could push us into a new golden age of gaming.

An industry where people can play what they want to play rather than what the industry says they want to play.

I really like what indie and stuff like this is doing fo rthe industry. At this rate, perhaps this is what will "crash" the "AAA" market. A lot of enthusiasts putting down money for the variety of games they want to see more of. Cutting out the middle-man that says games need to be the next Call of Duty.

I think that Kickstarter is showing to be true what many in the industry don't see. And that is that gamers want variety. And that all sorts of gamers are still around.

 

[NKRevan]

I have only one comment for Chris: Please don't screw this up. Regardless of how big the game will be, I hope this obvious interest in a game like this will make other people consider it again.

As for Kickstarter. Yeah...it's neat. But people have a tendency to over-glorify it. There are problems with it (in terms of what kinds of games can be done etc). But on a whole, it enables diversity and that's a great thing.

 

[Steven Bogos]

Star Citizen is currently set to be a PC-exclusive space-themed RTS

No; It's a flight sim MMO, with possible FPS and RPG elements. You know flight sims right? Like Wing Commander and Freelancer, Chris Roberts' other games?

Your source article doesn't make a single mention of Star Citizen being akin to an RTS. The only instance of "RTS" in that article is an offhand mention of that type of game not selling like the blockbusters the publishers want.

my bad bro

 

[Playful Pony]

Kickstarter is a wonderful oportunity for amazing games, I'm so glad it showed up! It's impressive how many projects have gotten off the ground so far, and so many varied ones that one wouldn't dream to see come out of an ordinary developer. Personally I have supported Star Citizen and Planetary Annihilation so far, both of which are very interesting concepts in genres that we don't really get much of at all. Perhaps my favorite thing in all of this is that we get some proper, PC focused games that are not afraid of using the buttons available on our keyboards and the processing power available in our machines. And of course, no evil DRM and over-priced DLC!

 

[Jandau]

The thing with Kickstarter is that we haven't yet seen if it's a functional model for game development. Let's be honest here, the only kickstarted games that have seen the light of day have been smaller titles like FTL. It will be another year or more before the first wave of "big" kickstarted games starts to arrive. Things like Wasteland 2, Project Eternity, Star Citizen, Double Fine adventure, Numenera, and so on and so forth. That will be the "do or die" moment for the kickstarter model and I equally look forward to and dread that time, because if they fail to deliver on quality products, it will scare people away from KS and big publishers will use it as proof that developers need to be "properly supervised".

On the other hand, if those game come through and deliver what was promised, it will likely cement KS as a valid business model, increase the size of mid-tier development which can accommodate more niche titles and genres and perhaps even bleed the AAA industry enough to force them to restructure for the benefit of the consumers.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I really like what indie and stuff like this is doing fo rthe industry. At this rate, perhaps this is what will "crash" the "AAA" market. A lot of enthusiasts putting down money for the variety of games they want to see more of. Cutting out the middle-man that says games need to be the next Call of Duty.

There is also the possibility that the major publishers will start using Kickstarter as a sort of Sword of Damocles over their various franchises.

They already abuse the hell out of pre-orders, Kickstarter gives them a potential pre-pre-order. Whilst I don't think '£20million on Kickstarter or no Call of Duty 2014' is at all likely I can completely see publishers using it to sound out continuations or reboots of other franchises. That would put us back at square one, except with Kickstarter taking a percentage and then the publisher taking it's eighty odd percent and then the developer gets it's funding.

I'd like to think they would use it to sound out entirely new and risky projects, but the big pubs have become so risk averse they're far more likely to use it to leverage existing products, rather than anything that might not hit the target and make them look bad.

 

[Entitled]

The thing with Kickstarter is that we haven't yet seen if it's a functional model for game development.

Kickstarter is not a model for game developement, it's a model for funding studios.

We already know that Kickstarter is capable of giving millions of dollars to developers, and that's all that Kickstarter needs to do. There is no significant reason to suspect that Kickstrater will have an effect on how the developers actually produce their games.

Whether or not the games will be good, is up to the developers, as it has always been, and where the money is coming from has very little to do with it.

If the fist line of the games will all happen to be spectacularly good, that might somehow increase trust in the funding model, and if they all happen to be bad that might slow it down, but it won't "make or break" the model.

If Joss Whedon would come to Kickstarter with a new Firefly series in 2015, his fans wouldn't just cry "But Rob Thomas's Veronica Mars movie already ended up having a bland ending, so we won't trust Whedon with making a movie either!". They would understand that the two have different skills, and hold different promises.

Likewise, if the original Bioware core team would go to Kickstarter with the promise of a new RPG, maybe some people would bring up how Obsidian's Project Eternity already ended up being too rushed and buggy, but enough would think that this was clearly Obsidian's own fault, and not their funding model's, so they still trust the Bioware guys.

 

[Steven Bogos]

I wasn't quite sure if what I wrote would make a difference so I went a bit rant-y while pointing it out. Thanks for actually changing it!

I try to read all the comments posted on my articles if possible!

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

I'd like to think they would use it to sound out entirely new and risky projects, but the big pubs have become so risk averse they're far more likely to use it to leverage existing products, rather than anything that might not hit the target and make them look bad.

They're already doing that sort of thing anyway.

I see Kickstater as, more than anything, a bane of most big publishers. I think that few of them are going to be able to use Kickstarter to success. What I do see is things like Kickstarter being a huge backbone to indie folks, and smaller publishers and developers to get funding. Something that will be able to further shake up the EA and Activision type folks and give the further competition.

If major publishers try to use and abuse Kickstarter, it will backfire on them significantly and further push their industry into a crash. While good indie projects will continue to pop up and get funding. While Kickstater may be abused and probably is already being abused, I think it shows a start of a long term industry shift where customers want more control and more variety. Instead of being spoonfed.

No matter how many big publishers and developers try to abuse the crowdfunding system, they won't win out against folks who want to branch out on their own and make something. Things like Kickstarter have created an environment where many development studios feel like leaving major publishers who refuse their project to make their game through crowdfunding anyway. Big publishers cannot stop what Kickstarter/Online-Crowdfunding has started.

To summarize it, I think any major publisher trying to abuse the system will just have it blow up in their faces, and will not stop unusual projects both big and small from getting funding. A few people will get burned out on Kickstarter from it. But most people are going to realize the different between EA holding a "niche" genre and game ransom and something like another "Double Fine" Kickstarter.

 

[Jandau]

The thing with Kickstarter is that we haven't yet seen if it's a functional model for game development.

Kickstarter is not a model for game developement, it's a model for funding studios.

We already know that Kickstarter is capable of giving millions of dollars to developers, and that's all that Kickstarter needs to do. There is no significant reason to suspect that Kickstrater will have an effect on how the developers actually produce their games.

Whether or not the games will be good, is up to the developers, as it has always been, and where the money is coming from has very little to do with it.

If the fist line of the games will all happen to be spectacularly good, that might somehow increase trust in the funding model, and if they all happen to be bad that might slow it down, but it won't "make or break" the model.

If Joss Whedon would come to Kickstarter with a new Firefly series in 2015, his fans wouldn't just cry "But Rob Thomas's Veronica Mars movie already ended up having a bland ending, so we won't trust Whedon with making a movie either!". They would understand that the two have different skills, and hold different promises.

Likewise, if the original Bioware core team would go to Kickstarter with the promise of a new RPG, maybe some people would bring up how Obsidian's Project Eternity already ended up being too rushed and buggy, but enough would think that this was clearly Obsidian's own fault, and not their funding model's, so they still trust the Bioware guys.

Well, we're just going to have to disagree then.

If the first major wave of KS games turns out to suck, I believe this will sour the general public to the notion of KSing games in general. Not everyone will give up on it, but a lot of people might, or at least enough to cut down the number of viable projects and/or the overall funding for projects that do manage to meet their goal.

The reasoning you present regarding a potential Bioware KS game after a hypothetical Obsidian fiasco isn't something I agree with. Yes, some people will know that it was Obsid's fault, but quite a few will be distrustful to the model of putting money down half-blind and on trust, no matter who it might be.

And if KS is truly to make a difference beyond a few games, it needs to prove to be a viable model for funding that provides customers with products that they are happy with. Otherwise, it'll be reduced to a source of funding for the occasional passion project by one big name or another who could have gotten it funded through traditional means anyway, instead of the original vision of it helping startups who can't get proper funding otherwise.

This first wave of major titles will be make-or-break, not to KS in general, but to the potential change KS (and its model in general) could bring to the gaming industry.

 

[Colt47]

Well, regardless of what happens with Kickstarter I still agree with the man on consoles losing their price advantage over PCs: They already have lost their price / performance advantage over PCs. I've been having a hard time justifying buying games for even the PS Vita and 3ds when I can buy games from steam or Green Man Gaming of similar quality for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Something Amyss]

If this is true, perhaps Kickstarter could push us into a new golden age of gaming.

An industry where people can play what they want to play rather than what the industry says they want to play.

I really like what indie and stuff like this is doing fo rthe industry. At this rate, perhaps this is what will "crash" the "AAA" market. A lot of enthusiasts putting down money for the variety of games they want to see more of. Cutting out the middle-man that says games need to be the next Call of Duty.

I think that Kickstarter is showing to be true what many in the industry don't see. And that is that gamers want variety. And that all sorts of gamers are still around.

The flip-side is the potential to further hold what gamers want for ransom.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

More Nichy stuff?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/wp-content/media/Nietzsche-274x300.jpg
The Tripple-A resolution to find gaming linear and misogynist has MADE gaming linear and misogynist

There is some kind of amazingly meta reference being made here that I only wish I understood.

I'm going to go become a hermit until I can figure it out.

It, and all the secrets of the universe. By the time I come back I will be able to predict with %100 accuracy the behavior of electrons.

 

[flarty]

I really like what indie and stuff like this is doing fo rthe industry. At this rate, perhaps this is what will "crash" the "AAA" market. A lot of enthusiasts putting down money for the variety of games they want to see more of. Cutting out the middle-man that says games need to be the next Call of Duty.

Or even better it will show publishers they are quickly becoming obsolete with the power of the internet. If a dev can produce a game and keep a large percentage of the profits then pay a percentage to insert there game to online stores such as steam or PSN and be successful, why would any studio want to sign up to EA or the like?

If the first major wave of KS games turns out to suck, I believe this will sour the general public to the notion of KSing games in general. Not everyone will give up on it, but a lot of people might, or at least enough to cut down the number of viable projects and/or the overall funding for projects that do manage to meet their goal.

The reasoning you present regarding a potential Bioware KS game after a hypothetical Obsidian fiasco isn't something I agree with. Yes, some people will know that it was Obsid's fault, but quite a few will be distrustful to the model of putting money down half-blind and on trust, no matter who it might be.

And if KS is truly to make a difference beyond a few games, it needs to prove to be a viable model for funding that provides customers with products that they are happy with. Otherwise, it'll be reduced to a source of funding for the occasional passion project by one big name or another who could have gotten it funded through traditional means anyway, instead of the original vision of it helping startups who can't get proper funding otherwise.

This first wave of major titles will be make-or-break, not to KS in general, but to the potential change KS (and its model in general) could bring to the gaming industry.

Whats the odds they are all going to suck? Some might not be very good, but i doubt all will suck. The fact that the devs are making the games they want to make and not what they are being told to make indicates a certain passion being put in to these games. Lets just hope bad management doesn't leave us with various DNF's.

 

[flarty]

EEEK double post