Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

Kickstarter can't just be funding for newcomers

Kickstarter can't just be funding for newcomers

Fri 23 May 2014 7:12am GMT / 3:12am EDT / 12:12am PDT
BusinessDevelopment

Crowdfunding's potential isn't just for indies; it can allow a culture of creative risk to flourish at traditional publishers, too

As I write this, the Kickstarter for a revival of Harmonix' much-loved rhythm game Amplitude is edging towards the finish line. Last week, it looked extremely unlikely that the game would reach its ambitious $775,000 goal; right now, it looks like it's on the home straight. Its momentum in the final days has been remarkable, fuelled not least by heavy promotion from industry peers and media; hunt through the project's backers on Kickstarter and you'll find a veritable industry who's-who.

Although I've written about Kickstarter several times in the past, Amplitude is the first project I've personally backed; the strength of nostalgia for Harmonix' PS2 era was simply too strong for me on this occasion. As such, I'm personally invested to an extent and very happy to see the project heading towards what will hopefully be success in its funding campaign.

Amplitude's success (fingers crossed, touch wood, and so on) is, however, one that comes in spite of an interesting and worrying undercurrent in public opinion regarding the game's funding drive. While the game itself, and Harmonix in general, attracts little but affection from everyone who mentions them, there has been an oft-repeated theme in commentary around the Kickstarter in particular. "Amplitude," it has been pointed out, "belongs to Sony; why should I put my hand in my pocket when it's a company like Sony coming around with the begging bowl?"

"No matter how much love there is for Harmonix and their games within Sony, it would be extremely hard to make a business case for funding another game in this series, and financially irresponsible of the publisher to do so"

On the surface, it's a fair point, although it ignores the fact that this is a small developer (Harmonix) asking for money to make a game using a dormant license owned by a large publisher (Sony), rather than Sony itself directly asking for money to make a new Amplitude game. The end result may be the same - Sony publishes a new Amplitude on its platforms without taking the initial risk of funding the game's development - but the particulars of the claim are rather different.

It's not the first time this argument has been made. On several occasions in recent years, Kickstarter campaigns by companies or individuals perceived to have enough money to fund their own endeavours have come in for opprobrium from consumers and critics alike. Perhaps the most vitriolic backlash of this kind was reserved for Peter Molyneux' Godus, but the likes of Brian Fargo and David Braben have also faced similar criticism. It's criticism founded in a personal concept of "what Kickstarter is all about"; the notion that this is a platform designed for plucky newcomers or destitute auteurs to raise cash for their endeavours, and that it is somehow spoiled by the presence of larger companies or developers with long track records (and healthy bank balances).

This is not a universal view of Kickstarter, it should be noted, and anyone shaking their head in mock sadness and saying "oh, this just isn't what Kickstarter is meant to be about" needs to recall that their own viewpoint is not one universally shared. I guess if they're actually a founder of Kickstarter then they're entitled to the exaggerated head-shaking, but there's no evidence that Kickstarter itself shares this narrow view. Rather, Kickstarter - and a great number of the backers active on the system - view it as being both a great funding vehicle for newcomers, and a fantastic opportunity for established developers to embark on risky projects that wouldn't have found funding elsewhere.

Let's consider the case of Amplitude specifically. Both the PS2 version of Amplitude and its predecessor, Frequency, were funded and published by Sony; neither of them was commercially successful. No matter how much love there is for Harmonix and their games within Sony, it would be extremely hard to make a business case for funding another game in this series, and financially irresponsible of the publisher to do so. Honestly, without some strong indication from the market that a new Amplitude was worth funding, Sony would have been daft to put money behind it.

What is Kickstarter? Kickstarter is a strong indicator from the market. For a game that's failed commercially twice, it's about the only indicator worth listening to - one which actually takes money up front from consumers to the tune of the cash required to fund development, or a decent percentage of development. This is, in effect, the last throw of the dice for a franchise like Amplitude. You can't blame publishers for not wanting to fund a game which has a history of critical success matched to commercial failure. Equally, you can't blame a developer for not wishing to remortgage their house or spend their personal wealth on the same project; why should they undertake risks that no publisher would?

Kickstarter is, above all else, a way to remove risk from the most risky game development projects. Up until now, publishers have focused on removing risk by following "safe" creative paths, copying commercially successful projects and making endless sequels and titles which fell comfortably within the bounds of existing genres. Kickstarter allows that risk mitigation to take place at a much more creatively beneficial place - in the realm of project financing. Kickstarter is a way to stand up with your idea, in all its unedited glory, and say "here's what we'll make - who wants it?" - and crucially, a way to sit down, dump the idea and work on something else if it transpires that nobody wants it.

"it would be beneficial to promote a view of crowdfunding which focuses on its potential to give life to projects that simply can't find funding without the market making a clear commitment to their commercial success"

This is not to say that there isn't discomfort to seeing developers with a track record of over-promising and under-delivering turning to Kickstarter with grand ideas which have little hope of being realised. There's a genuine and important concern that the Kickstarter audience doesn't have the ability to evaluate project plans, milestones, deadlines and overall realism which one might find in the (admittedly conservative and risk-averse) meeting rooms of a publisher's green light committee. Sometimes, when every publisher on the planet has turned down the chance to fund you, that's a sign that they don't understand your project or the fans who love it, and it's time to turn to those fans directly. Sometimes, it's just a sign that you're never going to be able to deliver what you promise and nobody should touch your funding drive with a barge pole.

Distinguishing between those kinds of projects is difficult. There's no magic bullet, no straightforward approach to determining which projects are well-planned but creatively risky, and which are just a disaster in the making. As such, some Kickstarter funders are most certainly going to get badly burned in the months and years to come (some already have been, of course). However, this is no reason to automatically dismiss the requirement for Kickstarter to function as a platform that proves consumer interest in creatively risky projects that publishers simply will not fund without clear market signals. If we're to throw the baby out with the bathwater over this issue, we'll end up with a funding platform that's of marginal interest at best, robbed of the vast majority of big-name projects that actually bring backers into the crowdfunding ecosystem in the first place, and then spread the love around other, smaller projects.

There's very little point, of course, in simply telling people archly that the way they think about Kickstarter is wrong. If you're spending money on a platform, you're broadly entitled to think about it however the hell you want. On the other hand, there's a growing need for both Kickstarter and the teams who use it to fund their projects to work on the messaging around the platform. Two polarised views of crowdfunding are emerging among consumers, neither of them conducive to a positive future for the model. One is the view discussed above, a kind of inverse-elitism that sees crowdfunding as valid only for debutantes and fringe cases. The other is the notion of crowdfunding as a kind of pre-order mechanism for goods that don't exist yet; consumers "shopping" on Kickstarter rather than seeking projects they consider worthy of backing.

In place of these ideas, it would be beneficial to promote a view of crowdfunding which focuses on its potential to give life to projects that simply can't find funding without the market making a clear commitment to their commercial success. That's an important thing regardless of the finances or industry status of the creators involved or the publishers in the background. If you love a game, a franchise or a genre that falls within a niche so narrow that it simply can't attract traditional funding - a trap into which a great many games over the years have fallen - then crowdfunding offers you a chance to show your willingness to buy new games in that niche in the only way that actually matters. That's the true value of the platform; if it becomes either a misguided shopping mall for non-existent pipe dreams or a hipster haven for unknowns and newcomers, it will entirely miss out on that extraordinary potential.

22 Comments

Nick Parker Consultant

298 174 0.6
Like any investment, money should follow the team and the IP; success seduces. Kickstarter favours those developers and brands that have been successful. Some of the industry may wish to preserve Kickstarter as a cool "indie" platform for raising funds but in reality Kickstarter and the backers must be as diligent as any investor.

Posted:6 months ago

#1

Justin Shuard J - E translator

47 180 3.8
"why should they undertake risks that no publisher would?"

Because they stand to profit from it obviously. There's no such thing as a risk-free investment. Why should consumers get lumped with all of the risk and none of the (potential) rewards? I really can't believe that they couldn't of found some other avenue for funding.

Posted:6 months ago

#2
The problem is Kickstarter "backers" have zero guarantee on the product they are backing. Its akin to chucking money at something, just for a larf, in the slim possibility it will get made. The payoff is often not commensurate to the "investment" Its almost no better than a Ponzi scheme

There should be stronger legal laws and protection towards backers akin to investors

Posted:6 months ago

#3

John Pickford Owner, Zee 3

46 152 3.3
Popular Comment
Legal laws are the best laws.

Posted:6 months ago

#4

Christopher McCraken CEO/Production Director, Double Cluepon Software

111 257 2.3
"No matter how much love there is for Harmonix and their games within Sony, it would be extremely hard to make a business case for funding another game in this series, and financially irresponsible of the publisher to do so"
So, ipso facto because it's on Kickstarter it's no longer financially irresponsible for someone to fund it? If a publisher, with the ability to do market and ROI analysis thinks it's a bad bet, how does that magically go away because it's on Kickstarter? I have no love for game publishers, but at the same time...at least if it's for sale, I buy it, I get something for my money. If it's bad, well...I made the choice. If the game is crowdfunded...and the game does not get released....I lose the bet with nothing to show for it. How does that fit into the theory of "financially responsible"?

When an established company comes to KS, it comes off (no matter how it's spun) as pandering. Why does this established entity need to crowdfund? I realize that they aren't necessarily asking for a handout, but that will always be the perception. It always reminds me of the "Merchant Banker" Monty Python sketch. "I just ask people for money" ... "Do you have a list of their names and addresses?"

It's absurd. These people have the resources, and rather than use those...they put their tin cup out.

Posted:6 months ago

#5

Todd Weidner Founder, Big Daddy Game Studio

420 1,000 2.4
what does it say about the state of the industry when developers with such a great history as Harmonix have to use kickstarter. I think the days of the publisher are numbered. If they are not willing to take a chance and fund devs like Harmonix, what chance does anyone else have? I find it amazing that kick starter has seen so many of the legends of this industry coming to it for funding recently.

Dont get me wrong , I think its a good thing, but I also think it shows just how broken this industry is. I think publishers are pushing themselves right out of the field, and perhaps that is a good thing. Perhaps this is the rise of the new model of game making.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Todd Weidner on 23rd May 2014 4:50pm

Posted:6 months ago

#6

Todd Weidner Founder, Big Daddy Game Studio

420 1,000 2.4
The problem is Kickstarter "backers" have zero guarantee on the product they are backing. Its akin to chucking money at something, just for a larf, in the slim possibility it will get made. The payoff is often not commensurate to the "investment" Its almost no better than a Ponzi scheme
First off, I dont think you understand what a ponzi scheme is, and second off, I think it is wildly inaccurate to say there is only a slim chance something will be made if it is funded. I have funded quite a few games, and every one has been released, I have heard of very few that have been funded that werent released at some later time.

as for payoff, Usually the price asked for a game at kickstarter is roughly half what it will cost upon release. Sure I have been away from Wallstreet for sometime now, but a penny saved is a penny earned, and thus you are looking at a 50%-100% return on your money in as little as a year or two. Thats a pretty nice return

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Todd Weidner on 23rd May 2014 5:38pm

Posted:6 months ago

#7

Peter Dwyer Games Designer/Developer

482 293 0.6
as for payoff, Usually the price asked for a game at kickstarter is roughly half what it will cost upon release. Sure I have been away from Wallstreet for sometime now, but a penny saved is a penny earned, and thus you are looking at a 50%-100% return on your money in as little as a year or two. Thats a pretty nice return
Utter tosh! If kickstarter were an investment in something you'd expect to get some of the profit as well as your original investment back. Kickstarter backers get nothing back at all not even the guarantee of a product at the end of it. That's the whole reason Kickstarter had to change it's project wording because the law WAS coming for them on the grounds that people thought they were buying a product and not gifting money to someone's pet project.

As for what kickstarter is for. It is definitely and never was for funding corporations or publishers! It was for funding things that would otherwise never be made by established means. A publisher doesn't need your money to make a game that they will then charge you to buy at the end of the project. You're paying twice in that respect. I predict that, if publishers do try to use kickstarter to fund their games that kickstarter will simply end up dying as people walk away in disgust.

Posted:6 months ago

#8

Axel Cushing Writer / Blogger

105 131 1.2
Christopher makes a very good point. Perceived risk and market viability concerns suddenly do not go away because somebody waves the magic Kickstarter wand. What bothers me in this particular case is if this new version of Amplitude turns out to be more successful this time around, Sony reaps all the rewards without having assumed any of the risks.

Part of business, as in all facets of life, is risk. And past a certain point, a company that has a certain abundance of resources is in a position to mitigate a degree of risk that smaller companies cannot. "Risk" cannot be a dirty word that paralyzes large companies into inactivity. And you cannot be a player if you don't have any skin in the game.

Posted:6 months ago

#9

Tim Carter Designer - Writer - Producer

579 322 0.6
Traditional publishers should be funding that risk themselves. There are many techniques to raise funding, known to other arts industries, which the game publishing industry doesn't use.

Posted:6 months ago

#10

Tim Carter Designer - Writer - Producer

579 322 0.6
No Dr Wong... You're wrong.

There's already a stock market out there. To list a company on it costs $50,000 or more in legal fees.

If we listen to your advice, it will destroy crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is not an investment method. It's a way for small, creative, risky and unusual projects to get funded. If you need to file a legal prospectus and so on, costing many thousands of dollars, that will destroy crowdfunding. In the end, only the lawyers will win if we follow that route.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tim Carter on 23rd May 2014 10:55pm

Posted:6 months ago

#11

Todd Weidner Founder, Big Daddy Game Studio

420 1,000 2.4
Utter tosh! If kickstarter were an investment in something you'd expect to get some of the profit as well as your original investment back.
and you miss my point entirely. If I can help get a game made which I want to get cretaed, which I want to play and own and, which otherwise wouldnt get made, and I get this by paying 20 bucks now rather than 40 dollars or more later, you dont think there is any reward for doing so? You really need to expand your idea of what you think return on investment is.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Todd Weidner on 24th May 2014 1:50am

Posted:6 months ago

#12

Christopher McCraken CEO/Production Director, Double Cluepon Software

111 257 2.3
I get this by paying 20 bucks now rather than 40 dollars or more later, you dont think there is any reward for doing so?
You're way over simplifying this, and creating some false equivalence. Just because you kick $20 to fund a successful Kickstarter, be it from an indie or from an established house, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever you will receive anything at all. Or for that matter, receive what you intended to receive. It's one of the reasons crowdfunding is starting to see more eyes in regard to regulation.

Paying $40 for the published title, however gets you a set bill of goods. A quid pro quo exists when you purchase something from a store. You have the option to decide, then and there if you wish to trade the value of your money for the value of the product in hand.

Now, with that said: is it a more likely bet that Harmonix will deliver? Sure. They have a name they don't want sullied by not delivering on a promise. However, did they need to crowdfund this? Did they need to ask the public to shoulder the costs for development of a game when they almost certainly could have used other resources to do so? The problem here is not one of what the quid pro quo is. The problem here, is public and industry perception (especially among indies) and nothing more. Harmonix has some bad PR due to their Kickstarter. Whether it's a true or not, (and to be fair, it's hyperbolic) people equate this to an established company asking for a handout...asking the public to shoulder the production cost burden. It's seen as an established company banking capitalizing on the general internet goodwill to give that handout. This is what people have a problem with.

There is a general backlash here, toward companies and people (Zac Braff, Spike Lee) with resources coming to Kickstarter to ask for funding. That is the issue at play here. I think the backlash will only grow. I think if anything, crowdfunding is about to get a lot more precarious in the future. In the United States, the SEC is looking at applying some serious regulation to it. The type of regulation that could all but kill it as a funding source for people who have multiple barriers to entry in whatever field they're in.

Everyone gets the notion of paying less, everyone likes being able to pay less. But in this economy, people are also keenly aware of how much they have had to dole out to corporations. Under such guises as "too big to fail", and other such monikers. It's a pervasive, subtle and subconscious mood, and kickstarters like this only push that nerve more.

Posted:6 months ago

#13
Kickstarter is a fad in the absence of a decent publishing platform at present. One can argue that although it is good for retrospective products such as sequels or remakes of classic games and books and other memerobilia that hark back to the past it is not a replacement for publishers backing new IP with serious money. The underlying trend has been a consistent reduction of advances against royalties for new IP since 1996 to the present date (almost 20 years now) this lack of risk taking is also replicated at Kickstarter level as people only want to invest in what they feel they know, a bit like shareholders... it can work for some very low budget new IPs of under 200,000 but let's not kid ourselves it will never be a replacement for true traditional publishing. And despite the horror stories most of the decent titles you played in your childhood were a result of good developer/publisher partnerships. This model survived for 15 or so years before the corporate era really kicked off and dev studios either went bust or were acquired by the giants. Kickstarter is just a temporary reaction to an industry led by Bean counters running PLCs

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jon Hare on 24th May 2014 2:47pm

Posted:6 months ago

#14

Christopher McCraken CEO/Production Director, Double Cluepon Software

111 257 2.3
Kickstarter is just a temporary reaction to an industry led by Bean counters running PLCs
I have to say, I agree with you there on some level. To that end, it's also spawned some new innovative models. Steam Early Access is a good example of reshaping the idea of crowdfunding. Certainly, Early Access lends itself to being curated, and vetted a bit better. Even then you get some really skewed stuff there. Planetary Annihilation was a good example. When it was first up on Early Access, IIRC is was something like $99 USD.

That said, I believe GoG has started rattling its sabers for similar features for their service as well. Early access games combines the nature of crowdfunding with a curated experience...that includes at least a baseline quid pro quo: you're getting something immediately for your outlay of cash.

Posted:6 months ago

#15

Todd Weidner Founder, Big Daddy Game Studio

420 1,000 2.4
You're way over simplifying this, and creating some false equivalence. Just because you kick $20 to fund a successful Kickstarter, be it from an indie or from an established house, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever you will receive anything at all.
actually what you call oversimplifying, others such as myself call getting to the heart of the debate. You KS haters keeping spouting off as if all these games are being funded and never released, please list me these long list of games funded and never released, Im waiting.., ...Then compare them again those that have been. Then give us a percentage. You seem to act as if it like 50% or something... I'm calling BS.

My point remains, as a former Wallstreeter, I see better return of my investment paying 20 bucks for a 40 buck game that I want made, then say dropping money(investments) into the rigged casino that is wallstreet. Just wait til this FED bubble pops, People are going to lose trillions, poof.... and its gone... I trust some indie game publisher way way way more than I do the banks and rigged market. I've worked with both.

A penny saved, is a penny earned.. tax free.

Edited 4 times. Last edit by Todd Weidner on 24th May 2014 6:31pm

Posted:6 months ago

#16

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,613 1,474 0.9
Just because you kick $20 to fund a successful Kickstarter, be it from an indie or from an established house, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever you will receive anything at all. [...] Paying $40 for the published title, however gets you a set bill of goods.
It's definitely not as black-and-white as this, and in a way, portraying it as such is not useful to the discussion of if Kickstarter helps or hinders the industry. To elaborate:

I help kickstart a game. Whilst I do not control what goes into it, or how the money is spent, my money "buys" me goodwill, and a theoretical extra-effort on the part of developers to try and solve problems. Their game would not (probably) have existed without me, and everyone concerned knows this.

I buy a game. Let's say, Deus Ex: HR Director's Cut. The DC used the base release code of the original game, which has many problems (glitches, frame-rate issues, a game-breaking bug or two). The publisher has my money, and the developers are under no obligation - moral, legal, or diplomatic ("goodwill") - to fix it. They produced the game - were going to produce it anyway - and released it in a broken fashion. And broken it has stayed. No recourse exists for me. No amount of complaints will help. The publisher and developer does not feel beholden to me, and as such does not care.

Arguing that
there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever you will... receive what you intended to receive.
goes both ways in this industry. To use it as a stick to beat Kickstarter with is fair, but only if you acknowledge that the alternative that currently exists - that of paying for a game that is already produced, may be broken, and may continue to be broken - does the consumer no favours.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 24th May 2014 10:17pm

Posted:6 months ago

#17

Nick Wofford Hobbyist

180 190 1.1
@Morville
But I would argue that the current system (publishing) has a built-in method for protecting consumers from broken games: reputation. True, this affects KS developers as well, but they may not have had a reputation to care about. Or even the intent to make more than one game.

Take Duke Nukem Forever and Aliens:CM. Those games seriously damaged Randy Pitchford's reputation, to the point that I can't read a single press statement from him that isn't blasted in the comments section. Publishers (as opposed to KS developers) always plan on releasing other games. This means their reputation is completely vital to their financial success. Dice/EA are getting this same flak for Battlefield 4, and I definitely think it's going to hurt Battlefield 5.

This is something that a KS developer who just has one game idea in mind will not have to worry about. If my mom has an idea for a nifty game (and only the one game), then what does she care if it's good? She gets the KS money and then she's done. "I'll never give you money again!" -says the KS backer. But my mom wouldn't care.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nick Wofford on 25th May 2014 1:16am

Posted:6 months ago

#18

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,613 1,474 0.9
Mmm... This is true, but personally I think only up to a point. I would argue that there's as many established (reputation-based) developers taking Kickstarter as there are in the mainstream publishing model. Brian Fargo. Tim Schafer. Chris Roberts. David Braben. Chris Avellone. Even Peter Molyneux. Which means that, whilst your nifty new game by your mom is a possibility, it's also drowned out by the $44m that Chris Roberts has to play with, and the damage to his reputation if he cocks Star Citizen up with that money.

But aside from that, there's no real penalties to people who lie/damaged reputation in the mainstream publishing model. It's telling that you say (bolded part)
Those games seriously damaged Randy Pitchford's reputation, to the point that I can't read a single press statement from him that isn't blasted in the comments section.
Woo, he's blasted in the comments section. Oh, the horror. Okay, sarcasm isn't useful, but you get my point - who cares what's said in the comments section? People are still pre-ordering the shiny new Homeworld Remastered collector's edition. Polygon have been quite vocal about BF4's continued poor quality, it's true, and you may think it'll hurt them long-term, but I certainly don't. Same with my Deus Ex example. And Peter Molyneux's Godus... Well, I think he's the guy who can prove both of our arguments - exaggerated in both standard publishing and KS and still nothing sticks to him.

But it's something which both sides can be argued, I think. And I suppose that's the point of this post - to show that Kickstarter is in some ways much more about reputation than the standard publishing model, just like the standard publishing model is open to the same abuses that Kickstarter is. :)

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 25th May 2014 10:19am

Posted:5 months ago

#19

Nick Wofford Hobbyist

180 190 1.1
When I say "blasted," I'm referring to people actively saying they won't be buying anything Gearbox makes except Borderlands (as opposed to the usual Internet vitriol). Pitchford has burned up all of the goodwill of his company, and I do genuinely believe DICE as done this as well.

I'm actually a huge fan of Kickstarter. But I was just pointing out one of the problems that it has, and KS needs to be aware of it.

Posted:5 months ago

#20

Pascal Clarysse Executive Consultant, Scale-Up Consulting Limited

14 20 1.4
If you think about it, Konami (much better funded than Harmonix) already did exactly the same with the Beatmania series a decade ago, before there even was a Kickstarter. After a number of installments in the series, Beatmania sales were plummeting. The DJ controllers were not cheap to make or keep in storage either. Yet the hardcore fans were clamoring for the series not to be discontinued. Konami then pulled a "put your money where your mouth is" and opened a preorder page for the next episode, with a minimum requirement of preorders to be collected (I think it was 100.000 but can't remember for sure) before a given date if the game were to be made. It's not about eliminating the risk. It's about hedging/mitigating it, gauging real-life potential in the most precise manner possible (surveys don't achieve that, for people don't do what they say) while adding to it the sweet bonus of raising awareness early in the product cycle, by creating a real engagement connection with the most hardcore fans long before launch, which will turn them into an army of evangelists.

Posted:5 months ago

#21

Eyal Teler Programmer

93 98 1.1
@Axel Cushing, re:" Sony reaps all the rewards without having assumed any of the risks."

So? What do you care about Sony? It's the gamers that reap all the rewards, because they get a game that otherwise wouldn't have been made. Sure it seems unfair that a business entity also gets something from it without investing a dime, but that's not a good enough reason to prevent the game from being made.

Regarding publishers, we need them more than ever, not for funding but for marketing. However, we already see publishers going through crowdfunding for the money, such as Square Enix with its Collective and Double Fine. The latter is a good example of how we're likely to see more and more publishers in the future.

Posted:5 months ago

#22

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now