Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Publishers are smart.

The 'traditional' model, as I understand it, was to saddle developers with the lion's share of the risk while taking the lion's share of the profit via the milestones system.

One reason developers accepted this position, perhaps the biggest reason, is because publishers are the traditional gatekeepers to the people who buy games.

In 2012, Tim Schafer, Brian Fargo, and Jordan Weisman proved developers could use KS to cut out the publisher. This aspect was even one of the most prominent arguments of their project pitches.

Square Enix's Collective is an attempt by a publisher to step back in between developers and customers.

 Manchu wrote:
Publishers are smart.

The 'traditional' model, as I understand it, was to saddle developers with the lion's share of the risk while taking the lion's share of the profit via the milestones system.

One reason developers accepted this position, perhaps the biggest reason, is because publishers are the traditional gatekeepers to the people who buy games.

In 2012, Tim Schafer, Brian Fargo, and Jordan Weisman proved developers could use KS to cut out the publisher. This aspect was even one of the most prominent arguments of their project pitches.

Square Enix's Collective is an attempt by a publisher to step back in between developers and customers.

And it will fail, miserably. Double Fine opened the floodgates to where Developers don't NEED customers anymore; as long as the developers have recognition/the "Name".

However, a Publisher could very easily (Once publishers stop being stupid and want A TON OF MONEY! instead of ALL THE MONEY!) take a team straight out of college, tell them "If this idea raises X dollars in Y time on Z website, we will provide the rest of the funding and help you along with the game". and help them get that name going/out there. Naturally they would sign them into a contract if it works out, allowing the Publisher to keep the people/new brand.

Mind you, this will only happen when AAA starts making Horror Games, Square goes back to Final Fantasy games proper (When they were good), and EA hands out free puppies with their games.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Double Fine opened the floodgates to where Developers don't NEED customers anymore

Don't need customers you say?

I assume you meant publishers. But if that were really true, why would any developer sign up for Collective?

I think this shows KS has not completely marginalized publishers, as the video game "press" seemed to anticipate. Rather, publishers have themselves cultivated valuable brand power. Leveraging that brand into a crowdfunding platform is a smart way to undercut the KS model, which is already tough for developers that have not built up reputations and fanbases over the decades.

Well.... Need not so much, but they definitely want them

Yes, typo.

Crowdfunding video games is just a bad idea. There has been many a game that died in development hell, and many more that delivered but a year or more after their original release date. I avoid video game crowdfunding like a plague.

Ive been spoiled with Miniatures Games Crowdfunding by Zombicide, Dreadball, and Deadzone. CMON and MANTIC have turned it from a glorified pre-order mechanism to getting years worth of development into the span of a year, while giving the backers significant discounts, free stuff, and exclusive merchandise.