[Destructoid] Publishers accused of trying to exploit Kickstarter - Page 4

Originally Posted by -Apocalypse- 

If you've never watched it, watch this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/innovation

Originally Posted by Perrin 

Considering their budget of 8 million dollars , I am sure they are quite happy about it . With only 8 million they created the perfect PC game - although marred by a few design choices - . With a big publisher they would make a game with , lets say , 10 million and dump another 70 million on marketing and expect that it sells for double the money they put in .
Lets take W2 and Kingdom of Amalur as an example , W2 with only 8 million and KoA with 100 million budget . The only thing that I know about KoA is what I saw in pics and what I heard about it , it does not look it would take 20 million to develop or 10 even . W2 on the other hand cost 8 million in what I see as the perfect PC game ( imo ) . Why the 100 million budget then ? marketing thats why .
So W2 sold 1.5 million for more than double or triple the initial cost , KoA on the other hand needed 3 million sales to break even as I read , which it did not as of 90 days after release ( it sold 1.2 M ) , I dont know about sales now .
Fast forward to today , CDP is making another game while 38 studios bankrupted .
Big publishers dont want W2 sales , thats pocket change for them . Thay want a game that sells for half a billion or something .
I will stick to indies and KS games , thats where the fun at .

Originally Posted by Liranan 

Witcher sold 1.5 million copies without needing TV advertisements or a huge publisher supporting them, proving that good products sell themselves.

Originally Posted by Nope oO 

That video was strange, he kept saying that AAA studios "polish" games and complete them. But have you played BF3? There's no polish anywhere, it's still a buggy beta that ignores QA testers despite him claiming they have some of the highest quality QA teams around. DICE is under tremendous pressure to keep pumping out new DLCs every 3 months and have already diverted man-power over to working on BF4. How is this "getting the job done right"?

Originally Posted by -Apocalypse- 

A developer pitches a risky game to a publisher, publisher says raise X amount via crowdsourcing for the game, and we'll foot the rest of the bill.
Still rude and greedy? Without extending the offer and showing that the publisher would be open to such a proposition, games that might make it via this scenario would be shut down at the developer level because they'd never even pitch it, knowing that it'd get shut down for the standard style agreement, and this offer would never be made.
There's 2 sides to every coin...

Originally Posted by RiverOfIce 

Yes it is rude, I would say semi greedy. Lets place this in some other context. I am your friend. I need to borrow 1,000 dollars to get my car fixed.
1.) I ask you to ask your friend to borrow for 1,000 dollars using only your name as proof that the money will be paid back.
OR
2.) I ask your friend to borrow 1,000 dollars using my name that the money will be paid back.
You see the difference? By shielding me from the person that I am borrowing the money from, it is not only dishonest, but places you as the scape goat if anything goes wrong with me paying you back.
Even though I agree with most of your posts, I can see where the OP has a problem with the system. By the publisher saying they want you to use your name to borrow money from a 3rd party, because they know that the third party would never give them money in the first place is just dishonest. But then to state that the risk of borrowing money has no reward but only being used as a scape goat if something goes wrong, is greedy and rude. Sorry. just is.

Originally Posted by -Apocalypse- 

There's a different side to this.
It's basically saying "show us that there is a market, and we'll help you do the rest". A publisher does far more than simply stamp their name on it and take a share of the profits. Access to the publisher's resources (veteran test teams, veteran developer advisers, a massive marketing team, ect) can do wonders for a game, and that's not even going into a publisher putting additional money past kickstarter. Day Z has a million players without any marketing. Think of what it could have done with television commercials and publisher-managed servers.
If you've never watched it, watch this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/innovation
Kickstarter can be the bridge between developers wanting to take risks and publishers not wanting to let them. 10,000 people @ $10 each is far more convincing that a game has potential than 50,000 signatures on a no-cost petition.
You can call it rude or unadulterated greed, but reverse the scenario- A developer pitches a risky game to a publisher, publisher says raise X amount via crowdsourcing for the game, and we'll foot the rest of the bill.
Still rude and greedy? Without extending the offer and showing that the publisher would be open to such a proposition, games that might make it via this scenario would be shut down at the developer level because they'd never even pitch it, knowing that it'd get shut down for the standard style agreement, and this offer would never be made.
There's 2 sides to every coin...

Originally Posted by AznDud333 

untrue, we've all seen what ea and activision has done to good studios..all they care about is making more money and impressing their investors, they do this by "expanding" the audiences which is basically making everygame play the same way so everyone wants it.