^^^

This is actually a very interesting question, but I'd like to offer my counters to some of your points. To begin with, I think you're correct in wondering if this is good. I think it could go either way, if it gets taken advantage of it could be just as bad as the publishing system currently in use sometimes is. On the other hand it may usher in a new era of gaming opportunities, and it may simply offer another route to interesting games.

I think Double Fine earning a million dollars is a lot. Matter of factly, I think it's way too much. In spite of that, I trust that they'll use it correctly and won't abuse it, they've been a reliable source of entertainment for a long time, and hopefully this will be the same.

To your first major point, the publisher system. There are some serious issues with this, I think we can easily point out EA, Activision, even Microsoft, where would some of their big games be without a solid publisher? On the flip side, Halo was originally an Apple product, when Microsoft agreed to publish it, it lost all chances of ever being a multi-platform game potentially losing an enormous audience, think of how big it could have been for Bungie had they developed and released for Xbox, Playstation, and PC.

IP Control being taken away from the IP creators is, in my opinion, bad. If I come up with an idea it should be mine. If you're paying to help get that idea made and out there you should certainly have input, but the more input you try and put in the more likely you're going to come out with something different than what I initially proposed.

With a Kickstarter project, a studio can maintain complete control over their product without worrying about a publisher coming and saying, "Change this so it appeals to a wider audience." You can literally make exactly the game you want to make. Kickstarter allows for regular updates to your donators and in this case Double Fine is even setting up a beta system on Steam and forums in which they can be held accountable for some of what they're doing. And since they're making a documentary along side the making of the game, they'll have an even easier time holding to that ideally. Not to say they won't get derailed, but we'll see.

Another important point here is that once the game is released from a Kickstarter project, the studio behind the game gets ALL of the money. Publishers can, will, and have screwed over studios with regards to paying out profit owed. With no real middleman here that can't happen.

Your next point, regarding having to purchase the game on top of your donation is only true if you donated less than $15. For that and every other level above it you get the game when it's released alongside beta access to the game through Steam. In other words, for the most part, if you donated towards the project you get the game for free. If you didn't, you pay for it when it's released.

TO your point about it being a "classic point-and-click adventure utilizing modern touch technology", your quote is wrong, it is actually referred to both as a "classic point-and-click adventure" and a "brand-new, downloadable "Point-and-Click" graphic adventure game for the modern age." In fact, there is no mention of touch anywhere on the kickstarter page at all, and the beta for the game is through steam, only available on the PC/Mac/Linux platforms. So at the very least the initial plan is for the game to be available on the PC. One of their objectives is to port it to a variety of platforms if they get enough money, hopefully they have.

Your questioning of who should be using Kickstarter is fair. But again, and I think you've nailed it with, "Tim Schafer doesn't want to deal with the hassles of publishers." Why should he have to get a publisher and split money, control, and possibly lose the IP ownership when he can self publish? While you bring up that Schafer is playing off of the fans, I'd counter with, he wants to make a game and the fans want him to do it. If the fans didn't want it they wouldn't have given him $400,000 , let alone a million.

As to the future, publishers will hate it, some may try and use it, but indie studios have made it this far without publishers, or kickstarter, or even funding sometimes. I would really argue that this sort of thing is a huge publicity boost for Kickstarter that may encourage hundreds or more people to give it a shot. And yes, some people won't get funding, and some of those projects will have been worth funding, and some will but won't have been worth it. We won't know until they're out. But with the current status of indie gaming I doubt very much we'll see any diminishing of indie studios and their games. If they make it we'll play it. Seeing it's possible to get funding like this will only encourage people.

How's that for pitchfork free?

@CornflakeJustice Wrote a great comment that pretty much sums up everything I would have said. I think the real reason this is irking some is because they reached 100k in 24 hours. I think if they had barely reached their goal in time, some people wouldn't have gotten as upset. Double Fine had no idea if this would even work or not, you can't fault them for making more than twice of what they asked for in 24 hours.

Also that the game comes with all contributions of $15 and up makes me think that a majority put their money down as essentially a pre-order for the game.

First off I want to thank everyone for the comments. To crackedbat, JonBloodspray, and Scissors I do appreciate the criticism. I should have stated that if you donate $15 or more than it is free. Lastly this is only my second Blog here and I'm a newb so I fapped myself (hehe get it?) I am just glad you read it!

@CornflakeJustice Thank you very much for a well written, incredibly intelligent reply. You make some very good counter points and it was interesting to hear from a different perspective. A lot of what I blog about is coming right from the heart and of course is all opinion.

A few other things to think about after reading what you posted. I completely agree about IP retention. I was mostly just adding that in as part of the risk vs reward when it comes to publisher funding. I would also agree that the publisher/developer relationship is very unhealthy in some cases and needs some serious work.

I have to apologize for some of the misquoting because when I was writing the rough draft of this early this morning those quotes about the type of game it was were directly taken from the kickstarter page. Either they updated it or I might have misread it. The point I was trying to make is that it would be a less costly game to make even as a $15 downloadable then say a full fledged $60. That is one of the anti arguments I have seen is how much games cost to make.

In my comments on Tim Schafer I do not blame him at all for wanting to circumvent a system that has probably burned him multiple times over the last decade or more. Even looking back to the EA/Activision debacle over Brutal Legend. I do not think Tim (Can I call you Tim?) is sitting in a dark corner laughing maniacally as his bank account grows but I do think he knew he had fans that wanted a game from him and they would pay to get it.

You make a great point about Kick Starter at the end there and that is very possible. Maybe it will open some peoples eyes who did not know it existed and we have even more donations in the future! Lets hope!

@Bibbly That is another point I didn't touch very heavily on but you are spot on. Many people are living in the past and are expecting something they want. I think Double Fine should have had more of an idea on what they were making when they started the project not just a description of a game genre.

@Scissors (part2) I wouldn't say I'm angry or upset at how fast it went but it is causing a lot of reaction and that might be why it became more of an issue. The reason I really wrote this (besides being a glutton for verbal abuse) was because SO many people have backed this and I am worried that those people are going to get burned. I hope just as much as anyone that the game is awesome! You point on the preorder is a good one also. I did the same thing with MineCraft. I guess the only difference is when I bought it I could play it. Even got a demo for free in advance.

Lastly thanks again for ANY comments you leave! I am new to this but have always had these thoughts just rattling around upstairs and chose the destructoid community to spew them onto!

peace
CS

Thanks Stephen! I was honestly expecting to get blasted with negativity and it shows how awesome this community is!

After re-reading your post and then reading your bio, I can see where you are coming from.

I agree, it would suck for a smaller developer (like Asylum Games) to have to compete for donations against a behemoth like Double Fine. I feel the same way. I'm trying to start my own video game based web series, but I realize that I am in competition with people who have much greater resources than I.

I don't know if you use Kickstarter or Indiegogo for your projects, but you have to admit, having a big name like Tim Schafer using the website will bring a massive amount of advertising to it, allowing for more people than ever to donate to projects. If anything, hopefully the team at Double Fine will pay the good will forward.

So your argument is that a shift in development funding from publishers to kickstarter benefits game developers who are no longer beholden to publishers for money while shifting all of the risk from publishers to gamers who invest online?

That's legit, but I think most Kickstarter users are already aware of such risks. Users can balance out risk the same way any investor does: by limiting their exposure. If you think the guys working on Ultimate Bong Fighter III - the sequel so awesome that it's the first in the series - may not be completely on the level, you can invest at a low level, or just wait until they have a gameplay video or something.

"I agree, it would suck for a smaller developer (like Asylum Games) to have to compete for donations against a behemoth like Double Fine."

This is the most interesting question to me going forward. In the wake of DF's success there's going to be a ton of 1) wannabe indie devs and 2) big-name developers and/or publishers 3) trying to get a slice of that Kickstarter pie. How projects that really deserve funding cut through all that noise could be a serious problem, but I have faith that creative developers will have creative solutions.

@Hellblazer

I never thought of this but you make a great point at the end. Is it really worse than $60 bombs, horrible online passes, and Day 1 DLC downloads? Not really.

Sorry, but sheppy's blog was better.