Kickstarter, Patreon, and other funding sites

Well colour me surprised that was a hell of an ending boost.

I think people like Miss Rodgers and sites like Nintendo Enthusiast, getting behind it.

The only kickstarter that I'm interested in is one for Letish Letish.

I think we can all get behind that.

Right... so... would Sean Connery's head be moving backwards and forwards with you firing lettuces in Puzzle Bobble-style, or is it more like NBA Jam (or, in the analogue world, Basketball I believe)?

I think it was more "get the lettishes into Connery's mouth". So, basketball-ish.

Not kickstarter but similar is patreon which Jim Sterling uses and now some long time severing IGN guys who have quit IGN including Colin Moriarty who you know I'm a fan off to start there own thing.

And they have this patreon thing where basically if you sub your paying there wages, what's peoples thought on this. Is it good or bad.

I know a few YouTubers (Ebolaworld, Kimble Justice and Caddicarus) who use Patreon to help pay the bills, and I don't object to it if they're providing decent content. As long as subbers are acknowledged in the credits (which they are in my experience).

Asking people to give £X a month is a bit much for most people, though. It would really be better if you could contribute one random amount as desired, like Kickstarter.

I've been funding Jim Sterling, but his podcasts have become too puerile for my tastes. Still, I enjoy his Jimquisitions.

Wrong thread, I know, I know.

I guess only problem with one amount is if everyone gives right away then that's it, they need a steady income coming so a sub makes more sense. I'm tempted to give a $1 a month.

masofdas wrote:

I guess only problem with one amount is if everyone gives right away then that's it, they need a steady income coming so a sub makes more sense. I'm tempted to give a $1 a month.

Yeah, there is that. Though I think it should also be an option for people to give when, say, they've seen a particularly good episode, or the creator has stated he/she'll be starting a series you're interested in or something.

I've just backed this

Double post, I've done some backing this, I've gone for the PS4 version. Not sure what version of the game posted in the post before this I will go for.

And this as well.

Triple Post

Project Ukulele the spiritual successor to Banjo-Kazooie will be going the kickstarter route, the page will be going up sometime this month.

Sorry for the Quad post but Yooka-Laylee (see what they did there) goes live on kickstarter tomorrow and Wii U version confirmed with pledges starting at £10.

I'm actually very interested in this one, following my desire for free-roaming platformers. Not a backer, but I'll keep an ear to the ground.

If it doesn't get backed, I'm blaming you Balla.

Anyone backed Bloodstained AKA SOTN2,

If I didn't know this was already past it's goal and they've already said they've got a publisher as well.

So doesn't really need my money and $60 is a fair bit.

$28 is a bit much for me to throw down, as much as I'd love to see another Castlevania in the guise of SOTN and their ilk. I'll pick it up when it drops in price on Steam.

Yeah, I didn't see a need to fund it -- someone else will always take my place, so I'm not making an altruistic difference given the widespread appeal of the kickstarter itself.

It's interesting that Igarashi said 90% of the game's funding will still come from publishers, though, and that the Kickstarter funds are there to prove there is a market for the game. I suppose they are following at Mighty No. 9, which even managed to secure a boxed release with the publishers, but I just can't see a few thousand backers as meaning a "market" -- for any non-budget game you'd need hundreds of thousands of sales, not just a few thousand.

My other problem with Kickstarter is how the creators tend to pander to the fans. Like how developers once answered to publishers on some creative decisions to ensure the game would sell better (in the publisher's eyes), Kickstarter isn't necessarily any better. You're still trying to please the guy with the money, and fans aren't necessarily the best people to ask.

It's a necessary trade-off for sure, given these games wouldn't be funded in any other way. But I think if backers are reminded that they are funding a business decision and buying into the creator's vision, we wouldn't see the need for backers to feel entitled that they have a say in the game's development (Yooka-Laylee's music says hi!)

There's a possibility of Bloodstained getting a Wii U stretch goal. If that could be confirmed, I'd back it.

I think I would back as well if meeting the stretch goal was the only way to get it on U.

It's happening, gentlemen. Time to "get my fund on".

I seen that, the only thing is what do I back at the moment as will I get Wii U get a physical release if I back that option (I think unlikely due to all the regions.) As I would sooner have a physical release for my collection.

So I might wait and see if the goal is met then back.

Urk. Having looked at the thing, it's $28 for a digital copy of the game, and unless the funding goal is met I won't be able to play it at all (got Steam, but on a Mac). Might leave it until they're into the last 100k.