Post by sjoerd93 on Mar 10, 2015 1:38:59 GMT
Meh. Peter will most definitely have more difficulties getting resources if he opts for crowd-funding again.
However, this is assuming that he would go for crowd-funding again. I think that's really unlikely, it would make more sense to go for a publisher. And for a publisher ratings are irrelevant, it's all about the profits.
If Godus actually made millions (as Peter claims), then Godus was a success. It does not matter if the people liked it, if it raised money than it was successful, by definition. That is how the publishers see it.
We, as consumer, see making a quality game as the goal of development. To us, making money is a method to develop a quality game.
The publisher sees making money as the goal of development. To them, making a quality game is a method to earn lots of money.
We don't really care about said method (making money to fund development) If the game reaches it's goal of being amazing but does not raise a lot of money, we will still deem the game as a success and we would gladly kickstart it again.
On the other hand, the publisher does not care about said method either (making quality games to raise money). If the game reaches its goal of raising a lot of money but is generally awful, then they will still deem the game as a success and they would gladly fund it again.
What I'm trying to illustrate is that in the eyes of a commercial publisher, Godus could be seen as a huge success. (Depending on how much it actually raises). Lots of people hate Farmville, yet I have a feeling that the developer is more than satisfied with the 'game'.
I have a feeling that Peter will have no problems at all producing the trail without our support. As long as publishers think they can make money with the game, he will get funded.
Besides. A kickstarter is a pretty worthless method for a studio to gain funding. The kind of money you raise during a kickstarter is not nearly enough to develop a game in a decently sized team. Let's say a succesfull kickstarter campaign raises 0.5 million dollars. Kickstarter takes a portion, and there are costs involved for your pledge tiers, so I'm going to be optimistic here and I'll say that you'll get 0.4 million for your game.
Now let's say your studio has about 20 people (comparable to 22Cans). An employee quickly costs about 40.000 per year (a cost of 40k will result in a fairly low salary, so I'm being optimistic here). Thus with your money, you can pay your employers for 400k/(20*40k)= 0.5 years.
So after 6 months, you wasted your ENTIRE budget on your employees. Then I completely ignored the costs of the building, your equipment, licenses etc...
My guess, you'd be happy to survive more than four months with your kickstarter money.
Kickstarter has a lot of merits for a studio like 22Cans. One is feedback testers, and another is to see that there's demand for the game. (So you know that it's worth taking the investment). But it's not like it is the way to fund your development.
For an individual, or a really small group, the above is not necessarily true of course.
Sorry for my long rant. It's 2:38AM so I'm pretty tired and maybe a bit incoherent.
tl;dr: From the eyes of a publisher, Godus is a success. Also, Peter does not need kickstarter for a second game, in fact he needs to find other methods either way because kickstarter money is simply not nearly enough to develop a game if you're a mid-sized studio.
However, this is assuming that he would go for crowd-funding again. I think that's really unlikely, it would make more sense to go for a publisher. And for a publisher ratings are irrelevant, it's all about the profits.
If Godus actually made millions (as Peter claims), then Godus was a success. It does not matter if the people liked it, if it raised money than it was successful, by definition. That is how the publishers see it.
We, as consumer, see making a quality game as the goal of development. To us, making money is a method to develop a quality game.
The publisher sees making money as the goal of development. To them, making a quality game is a method to earn lots of money.
We don't really care about said method (making money to fund development) If the game reaches it's goal of being amazing but does not raise a lot of money, we will still deem the game as a success and we would gladly kickstart it again.
On the other hand, the publisher does not care about said method either (making quality games to raise money). If the game reaches its goal of raising a lot of money but is generally awful, then they will still deem the game as a success and they would gladly fund it again.
What I'm trying to illustrate is that in the eyes of a commercial publisher, Godus could be seen as a huge success. (Depending on how much it actually raises). Lots of people hate Farmville, yet I have a feeling that the developer is more than satisfied with the 'game'.
I have a feeling that Peter will have no problems at all producing the trail without our support. As long as publishers think they can make money with the game, he will get funded.
Besides. A kickstarter is a pretty worthless method for a studio to gain funding. The kind of money you raise during a kickstarter is not nearly enough to develop a game in a decently sized team. Let's say a succesfull kickstarter campaign raises 0.5 million dollars. Kickstarter takes a portion, and there are costs involved for your pledge tiers, so I'm going to be optimistic here and I'll say that you'll get 0.4 million for your game.
Now let's say your studio has about 20 people (comparable to 22Cans). An employee quickly costs about 40.000 per year (a cost of 40k will result in a fairly low salary, so I'm being optimistic here). Thus with your money, you can pay your employers for 400k/(20*40k)= 0.5 years.
So after 6 months, you wasted your ENTIRE budget on your employees. Then I completely ignored the costs of the building, your equipment, licenses etc...
My guess, you'd be happy to survive more than four months with your kickstarter money.
Kickstarter has a lot of merits for a studio like 22Cans. One is feedback testers, and another is to see that there's demand for the game. (So you know that it's worth taking the investment). But it's not like it is the way to fund your development.
For an individual, or a really small group, the above is not necessarily true of course.
Sorry for my long rant. It's 2:38AM so I'm pretty tired and maybe a bit incoherent.
tl;dr: From the eyes of a publisher, Godus is a success. Also, Peter does not need kickstarter for a second game, in fact he needs to find other methods either way because kickstarter money is simply not nearly enough to develop a game if you're a mid-sized studio.
