“The Oculus Rift has come a long way from a Kickstarter concept piece to billion dollar acquisition by Facebook.”

Oculus VR are not breaking new ground for the integration of VR technology and innovative motion controls into video games.  It has been attempt before in various different guises, from Nintendo’s Power Glove to Victormaxx’s ridiculously expensive Cybermaxx headset. Peripherals for video games have never really improved on the overall gaming experience, at least not enough to make gamers shell out cash on the high priced products. The Oculus Rift is really a refinement of the technology laid down by Jaron Lanier, Thomas G. Zimmerman and others alike. The wide field of view, HD display and head tracking the key selling points of the new device and may well be the final piece of the puzzle that was missing previously. The other issue that held back many devices prior to the current day equivalents was a simple matter of size. One of the first virtual reality head mounted displays was so heavy and cumbersome it had to be suspended from the ceiling, users nicknaming the device the “The Sword of Damocles”. Even Nintendo’s Virtual Boy seems bulky and unwieldy by today’s standards. There is no doubting that Oculus VR have put their work in trying to make their device slip seamlessly into the gaming experience and make the interactivity as intuitive as possible.

“Virtual Reality has come and gone in the past can the current trend maintain prolonged interest and more importantly sell in sustainable numbers.”

However it is not as if the company has a monopoly on the VR market as both Sony and Valve are looking to enter the arena with their own interpretations. At this year’s Games Developers Conference in San Francisco Sony came out swinging with their own version of a VR headset dubbed Project Morpheus. The Japanese tech giants have been working on VR prototype headsets for a number of years, integrating their own Move controllers into the system. Sony has the slight advantage of having a long history in the tech industry and all the experience that comes with it. However the Oculus team can boost about the veteran developers that have joined the company, with id Software founder John Carmack the chief technology officer at Oculus VR. Even Valve’s own VR specialist Michael Abrash has switched sides and joined the Oculus Rift team. It would seem that at any rate gamers will be spoilt for choice when these devices make it market, when that will be is still up in the air. Some hints point towards a late 2014 early 2015 launch for the Oculus Rift, but another important question arises in response to that is the devices proposed price point. Again no official pricing structure has been announced only guesstimates can be made at this time, the most recent Dev kit version of the device going for $350 (€254). $250(€180) to $300(€220) the price range been floated around by some market analysts. Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey has stated that he may adopt a similar model used by the console manufactures, dropping the price and making up the money on licencing deals with game publishers. This is integral to the success of any of the current VR headsets in development, the support of the video game developers to integrate the technology into their games. At the end of the day if there isn’t an extensive catalogue of titles that will support VR then the Rift, Morpheus, Gameface or any of the other VR headsets will ultimately fail.

“The Oculus Team have had VR market all to themselves the last two years but now competition is heating up with others jumping on the VR bandwagon.”

The decision by “Notch” to pull his official support for Oculus Rift integration with Minecraft doesn’t help with publicity for the VR company. Not that ‘Minecrafters’ desperate to see their blocky creations up close and personal are out of luck, as there are mods that support Oculus Rift input. However an official release of a VR compatible version of Minecraft could have been a big boon for the Oculus Rift over it soon to be competitors. The Rift is definitely carving itself out as a PC peripheral as opposed to Sony’s VR which obviously will be supported by their PlayStation console. Sony already demonstrating their eye tracking technology working with the current PS4 release Infamous: Second Son. So just like the console wars that take place between Sony and Microsoft it is the exclusive titles that can often sway customers moreover than hardware specs. There is even now a host of tech companies that want to take VR even further, not happy with just tracking movement of the player’s vision they want get them on the move. Companies like Virtuix with their Omni motion tracking device want to have Oculus Rift users get of their seats and start moving. The demonstration of Valves new VR headset at Steam Dev Days also incorporated spatial awareness and the capturing of full body movement. This entire aside the current generation of VR is still in its infancy with projects still in development and release dates still TBA. It would seem that there is enough momentum behind the VR push this time that it is unlikely to be a flash in the pan. Whether or not it will be a revolution in video game interaction is still out to tender. A quick review of interactive peripherals of video games past doesn’t paint a great picture. Even the evolution of the video game controller has been fairly stagnant for the last decade, although Valve might have something to say about that. The coming years and eventual product launches will offer a clearer idea for the future of Virtual Reality.

By Colm O’Sullivan

The post The State of the Industry: Virtual Reality The Future or Fad? appeared first on Game Design Ireland.

“For a seasoned developer with a half decent Kickstarter pitch, money does grow on trees.”

Broken Age is a perfect example of this where Tim Schaffer a developer with a long illustrious career in the video game industry made a pitch for peoples support. His pitch involved creating an old school point and click adventure like the ones his known for such as Grim Fandango and The Secret of Monkey Island. Not really pushing the boat out in terms of innovation. Not to say that Kickstarter is alone in this regard to this practice, the major publishers work on the very same principle and not just in regards to video games but the movie industry as well. The point is that Kickstarter and crowd funding are not a new revolution in video game funding, in fact they are more akin to traditional publishing then most people realise. Just like traditional publishing agreement a lump sum of money will be given to get the project of the ground. The project then remains relatively closed off only open to those who invested in the project. Those investors or backers will often put pressure on the developer to complete the game and are reticent to give more money until they see a finished product. The one major difference between the two methods of funding is that a traditional publishers will receive royalties on the games sales whereas backers are left with a t-shirt, poster, signed print, etc.

“Chris Roberts crowd funded game Star Citizen has a lot to live up to with a $38 million budget sourced so far.”

Crowd funding is a good idea it will just take a number of years to work out the kinks in the system. One issues is the budgeting and clarity in the use of the finances received. In a traditional publishing deal the games budget will be worked out before hand and agreed upon between the two parties. If the budget goes over which many games do, it is accounted for in the original contact or the developer is forced to release early. Tim Schafer set an initial budget of $400,000 for Broken Age, he received over $3 million. Yet this still wasn’t enough and he was forced to spilt the game into two parts, using the sales of part one to fund development on part two. Last week’s article discussed The Banner Saga which was also a Kickstarter project. They asked for an initial amount of $100,000 and received over $700,000. A comparison of the two games that share a very similar gameplay length and an equally high level of hand drawn animations, make you wonder how Stoic achieved what they did with a budget four time less than that of Double Fine. What did Tim Schaffer spend all that money on? This is the sort of question a traditional publisher with legitimate financial control would be asking. Some have looked to help backers understand the production process such as VFX wizard Freddie Wong with his Kickstarter for the second season of Video Game High School. In his Kickstarter pitch he include a breakdown of what costs go into a major production like his. Honesty and clarity is the one thing sorely missing from many Kickstarter projects. Traditional publishers always have a contract with the developers to keep things in check, but what can a backer do if the product isn’t what they had been promised or where simple swindled out of their hard earned cash?

By Colm O’Sullivan

The post Gaming Sidenote: Kickstarter Good or Bad? appeared first on Game Design Ireland.

“The games art style and visual appeal can’t be in doubt with the vocal talents of Elijah Wood, Jennifer Hale and Will Wheaton all featuring in this dialogue driven game.”

The game is a traditional 2D point and click adventure with no effort spared on the art direction. Broken Age features a hand drawn aesthetic that is very appealing in an industry that has become obsessed with graphical power. The Xbox One and PS4 vying for consumers by trying to pack as many polygons as they can onto gamers televisions. Adventure games by their nature have never really focused on pushing new advancements in graphical technology maybe aside from Myst. Broken Age like many of Tim Schaffer’s other games is more concerned about delivering a gripping narrative and establishing an engaging atmosphere. This game offers two dissecting storylines, one featuring a girl in a village tormented by a great beast that is only appeased by a sacrificial maiden. The other features a young man confined on a spaceship with an overbearing computer system, which has the personal traits of HAL crossed with loving mother. Personally I haven’t been able to complete the game yet not because the puzzles are too difficult on the contrary their far to one dimensional. I’m sure if you leave a group of monkeys in a room with the game one of them would beat it just by randomly clicking on the screen. The main reason I’m having difficulty playing the game is that it is not as engaging as I had hoped, I have no real personal feeling towards either character. In a game that is heavily based on narrative with any sort of gameplay mechanics few and far between aside from the few puzzle like mini-games, the story and character must be engaging. The main problem is there is a set path that must be followed and no chance for divergence. There are plenty of things to interact with but most just result in a short piece of dialogue with no real consequence. The player has no say in how things play out which means they can’t really connect with characters that only want to do things in a certain way.

“I have to wonder what the game would have resembled if Schaffer had only reached his initial $400,000 goal and not the $3 million he received.”

A comparison to another company that has recently established themselves as the new darlings of the adventure game genre. Telltale Games have very quickly become the go to studio for new adventure titles. Many of its developers coming from LucasArts where Tim Schaffer and his team cut their teeth. The one title that really put Telltale on the map was of course The Walking Dead, an adventure game based on the popular zombie graphic novel by Robert Kirkman. Although not original IP with most Telltale game featuring licenced content, they still managed to create an entirely unique narrative within the Walking Dead universe. The game is based around two protagonist trying to survive during a zombie apocalypse. Clementine a young girl trying to discover the faith of her parents and Lee her inadvertent guardian on their journey through the zombie filled American south. The game allows the player to make decisions that have a real effect on how the other characters interact with you and how certain events unfold. The game has been meet by universal critical acclaim, picking up over 90 “Game of the Year” awards in the process. The game has led to a resurgence in interest in adventure games.

“Never has the in game relationship of two characters had such a profound effect on the gaming community, The Last Us a close contender.” 

The most interesting thing about the game and others Telltale have produced is that they were self-published. Tim Schaffer and others at Double Fine have stated that crowd funding was the only way to go with major publishers unwilling to entertain the idea of producing an adventure game. However for well-established studios such as Telltale and Double Fine do they need publishers at all in this age of digital distribution? In the past publishers would also act as distributers making sure the game was printed to CD or cartridge. However with the growth in digital distribution services like Steam, there is no real need for publishers. Other companies like Mojang have demonstrated that they are more than capable of producing a game with no need of a publisher. In some ways Kickstarter is just another version of a traditional publisher just instead of all the money coming from one source it comes from multiple sources.

“Telltale is going all out with four new series in the works for 2014. The communities’ appetite for graphic adventure games unabated”

Crowd funding still operates in the same manner as other publishers, with Schaffer stating that the game would not be possible without a certain amount of capital. The development process touted as been open and inclusive to the gaming community, like many other video game titles stayed relatively behind closed doors. When the project ran out of money they had to come asking for more, eventually deciding to split the game into two parts to ensure it made it to market. I don’t see how Broken Age was supposed to break the mould for video game production when indie game developers have proved that they don’t need a big lump sum of cash up front before they will write a line of code or start manipulate polygons. Titles such as Don’t Starve, Retro City Rampage and of course Minecraft proving that if the idea and concept is strong enough then development should not be halter due to financial constraints. There is nothing inherently wrong with Schaffer using crowd funding to make his game, however it is the concept that a games scope and breath is limited by how much money is in the bank account. It goes against the creative nature of what video games are supposed to embody but then again voice acting from Elijah Wood obviously doesn’t come cheap.

By Colm O’Sullivan

The post Broken Age Review appeared first on Game Design Ireland.

“Peter Molyneux’s amazing ability to make you care about a most mundane task and a seemingly insignificant cube”

For those who are not familiar with the Curiosity Project or to give it its proper and more fitting title Curiosity: What’s Inside the Cube? The game was released on iOS and Android devices last November and offered the players only one instruction to tap and destroy the cubelets on screen in order to peel off layer by layer of a larger cube. It soon become an experiment in social engineering more than a simple mobile phone game, players used the cube as a virtual canvas in order to create amazing pixel art or write messages into the cubes faces (most of it being profanity), those works of art where only present for a fleeting moment as inevitably the layer of the cube would be wiped clean by players hungry to get to the next level. Initially the game raised so much interest 22Cans servers failed to keep up with the rapidly expanding user base and the game was unavailable for a period of time which turned many players away. The experiment continued for several months with new features being added over time to speed up the process of destroying cubelets by offing players pickaxes or firecrackers to give their tired digits a rest, these tools where bought with the games digital currency earned from destroying cubes, however at one point during the project players could use this currency to add more cubelets back onto the cube in an effort to hinder other players. Players could now spend real money to gain more digital currency in order to slow the progress of the game, why Peter Molyneux thought it would be a good idea to introduce a trolling feature to the game is beyond me but it didn’t stop very inquisitive gamers and on the 26th May after 202 days, 326 layers and 25 billion cubelets, Edinburgh native Bryan Henderson was the player who destroyed the final cubelet and revealed the prize waiting inside, he was given the choice to keep the information to himself or share it with the world, he of course choose the later and is now the centre of attention so too is 22Cans upcoming game Godus which has led some to see Curiosity as nothing more than a publicity stunt for the new game. If so then it is a very successful publicity stunt and is a more then fitting summation of Peter Molyneux’s attitude towards innovation within the gaming industry, with other developers now surely thinking about the ways they can market their own games in this every changing medium.

“A certain Monty Python film comes to mind when reviewing the situation that young Bryan is in”

To return to my original argument I honestly think this is a huge gamble by 22Cans as this decision could easily backfire for the company. Now anyone who has read my previous articles will know that I have a certain dislike for Kickstarter and its influence on the gaming industry and I don’t wish to spend the rest of the article questioning its credibility but as Godus was funded by the crowd sourcing site I have to make a small point regarding the latest news of its development now apparently involving the winner of Curiosity. When 22Cans promoted their Kickstarter they detailed the goals and aims of the development process and gave a few hints of what the game would entail, however it was not known at the time that mid-way through development that a random person would be introduced into the development process to make changes to the game that will fundamentally affect how it is played. If those who put money towards the game knew this, would  they have be so keen to part with their cash especially since Peter Molyneux had made grand claims that they would be the ones to help 22Cans in the development and design process. To now hand that task over to one man is a huge risk and especially someone who had never heard of the game before. If Godus had been funded in the traditional way through an established publisher a development change like this could have ended the funding of the game and would be seen as a breach of contract, Duke Nukem Forever’s development being the perfect example of this. Some would say then it was a good thing that Godus wasn’t funded by a publisher but I think the more important issue is that because there is no accountability with a site like Kickstarter developers can make drastic changes mid-way through development and then not have to answer if those changes halt the progress of the game or lead to a product failure. The other sore point for many of those who funded the game is that even though it is thanks to them that 22Cans have being able to move forward with the development of their game they will not see any return for their investment and now someone else who had no previous involvement with the game will share in its profits or possibly could be seen as responsible for its failure. Molyneux has gone on to say that Bryan’s reign as the all mighty lord of Godus is not permanent with the possibility of the players being able to overthrow him and take his share of the wealth, which to my mind raises a legal quagmire for 22Cans with video game players not known for their compassion or sympathy towards others. Godus could become a virtual blood bath rebels and usurpers that could easily spill over into reality.

“Like Curiosity is Godus set to be more of a social experiment than a game”

I sincerely hope that this will not be the case for Godus as I’m personally a massive fan of Peter Molyneux even if his ideas are sometimes a bit outlandish and may not always come to fruition but it is people like him that look to keep the gaming industry exciting and moving forward with new and innovative ways for development games. I just think it is quite a leap of faith to introduce a random person midway into the development process of a game and as for Bryan Henderson the person in question I’m worried that many will see him as a target of their anger and frustration if Godus turns out to be a failure. It will be interesting to follow the development and final release of this game and to see how this grand experiment pans out, will Peter Molyneux be vindicated for his ground-breaking approach to video game development or will Bryan Henderson be used as a scapegoat if the project fails.

By Colm O’Sullivan

The post Curiosity Review appeared first on Game Design Ireland.

Minecraft is probably one of the most talked about games in the industry at the moment and its creator Markus Persson more affectionately known as “Notch” is hailed as a pioneer breaking new ground in the video game development scene. In a recent documentary that explored the success behind Mojang which is Notch’s company, many industry veterans such as Peter Molyneux and Tim Schaffer quoted Minecraft’s development process as being an inspiration for them to break away from the industry standards and attempt to emulate Notch. However both have opted to use Kickstarter to fund their projects and have not followed the same development path as Mojang did with Minecraft. It seems that many were praising Notch and his successful development process but few were looking to imitate that process until last week with the release of Don’t Starve an open world survival game that does bear a lot of similarities to Minecraft, most important of which was the development process.

In order to give some context to my argument a brief history of Mojang and Minecraft would help. Notch released the first version of Minecraft in May of 2009 with its initial title of “Cave Game”. These early indev versions of the game was more a test of Notch’s procedural generated landscape programming more than a game, however with interest in the game growing the development quickly picked up pace even with Notch still working another job at the time. When the game reached the Alpha stage of development and Notch increased the charge which had been introduced in the indev stage from €5.00 to €10.00, and with sales passing 200,000 units he had found his source of income and could leave his job at JAlbum.net and work full time on the game. To speed up development Notch used the money gained from the initial Minecraft sales to start his own company and hire his friend Jens “Jeb” Bergensten to help with programing. By the time the game reached open Beta in December of 2010 it had already garnered a lot of attention from the gaming community and reached a million sales by January 2011. It was that community that helped guide Notch with the development of the game, with updates being heavily influenced by the modding community that sprang up around the development of the game. Its sales were also driven by the huge number of content creators who used the game to film machinima series, how to guides and whole multitude of videos all using the Minecraft engine. It final release was celebrated with much fanfare at the first Minecon Event that took place in Las Vegas on the 18 November 2011. The game continues to be updated for free with ports of the game being released onto smartphones, consoles and even the raspberry pi computer. The current combined sales figures easily put the game over 20 million units sold, vindicating Notch and his development process.

“Is Minecraft the most influential game of our time?”

This brings me to question the likes of Peter Molyneux and Tim Schaffer and there supposed revelation and influence gained by watching the rise of Mojang and Minecraft. As was demonstrated by Notch with his free to play model evolving into a low cost pricing structure as the game continued to be developed, is clearly replicable to anyone with a good idea for a game. If the game isn’t popular enough then the developer can simply stop and not waste any time or money and go back to the drawing board and reassess. The Kickstarter model however doesn’t allow for that, developers our given all the money up front before any of the consumers have seen the game and then they are forced to deliver the product even if they feel the game will not succeed or the development process isn’t working out as intended e.g. Haunts: The Manse Macabre. There are claims that the community will be involved in the process but it is hard to see how with either no playable demo or a closed off beta which can hamper the creation of user created content that clearly helped in the development of Minecraft, with most updates for the game simply given a reply to what the players wanted or had already modded into the game. I know in previous articles and comments online that I have made clear my opinion and scepticism about Kickstarter and crowd funding in general, but it purely comes from the influence of Notch and his development process. He has proved that anybody in the industry can start from nothing and build themselves up with support from the community once they have a good idea and the determination to follow through with it. The various industry veterans claim that the need x amount of money to reach certain development goals which from the evidence of Minecraft is untrue. These AAA development stalwarts are still clinging to the old ways with an individual(s) haven to give them start-up money before they will risk any development time on the game. They have forgotten where they started with the likes of Peter Molyneux publishing and distributing his first game “The Entrepreneur” by himself. It seems that it takes adventurous indie developers to break the industry norms and look to establish new ways of developing games.

“How much money do developers really need when Notch has achieved success on a shoe string budget.”

Now finally onto the game in question Don’t Starve made by Klei Entertainment who have also produced other indie titles such as Shank and Mark of the Ninja. Klei Entertainment decided to copy the development cycle that Notch pioneered and apply it to their own project. The development started late last year with the game been sold on the same low cost pricing structure, as with Minecraft the earlier in the beta that the player buys the game the cheaper it will be. They have also release constant updates during the development process, given themselves the ambitious target of releasing an update every other week which they have kept too so far and just like Minecraft they have also promised to continually update the game for free after its final retail release. The game itself contains very stylized art aesthetic and is based on the open world survival genre. It might draw some similarities to Minecraft and even raise a few criticisms of plagiarism but it is more that Minecraft has now set a precedent for a new genre of open world survival and Don’t Starve just happens to fit into that category. It feature an isometric view that really enhances its gothic inspired 2D graphics that almost gives it a pop-up storybook feel. The player is tasked with traveling around the map gathering food and resources in order to survive, all the time avoiding the many mobs the litter the landscape who would like nothing more than to tear you to shreds (hounds will cause you to turn tail and run whenever they spot you). The key aspect of this game is survival unlike Minecraft which focuses more on terraforming the world and creating amazing buildings and structures out of blocks (Voxel Box will make your Minecraft creations look like playschool art projects). Both games warn you not to venture off into the wilderness at night in fear of dangers you might encounter, however once you become accustomed to dodging a handful of skeletons and creepers you can freely explore Minecraft night-time landscape, whereas if you were to take one step into the invasive darkness that surrounds your must have campfire you will find yourself at the sharp end of a unseen monsters teeth and claws. Suffice it to say you spend most of the night huddled by your fire replenishing it with logs and fuel not daring to let it burn out, this is a game that is truly about survival that even has you battle with your own characters ever failing sanity (wearing a garland of flowers seems to level him out though). There is plenty of end game content to discover once you get used to the basic survival mechanics with plenty of object and tool crafting and exploring of mysterious relics that will keep you well entertained for hours on end.

“Very dapper, now I only have to worry about the constant starvation and the treat of multiple enemies but at least I have my top hat.”

Don’t Starve and Minecraft has shown that video game developers have the ability to publish their own games and don’t need to rely on venture capital from major publishers or crowd sourcing projects like Kickstarter. If gamers are offered a cheap or free version of a development stage game and it is well received then there is no need to worry about time and costs as the fans will fund the development process through their purchases of the game. It is how many of the big time publishers like Activision starting by self-published their own games which fund the company’s future growth. This model is even easier to achieve in the current video game climate with a host of free game engines available to work with and a multitude of online distribution outlets allowing anyone to create and publish a game for little cost once they have the drive and determination.

By Colm O’Sullivan

The post Don’t Starve Review appeared first on Game Design Ireland.

Since its launch in 2009 Kickstarter has raised over $500 million dollars through the donations of over 90,000 different projects, from films & gadgets to music and most importantly video games. It has seen the release of multiple films that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and has seen a number of projects break the $1 million mark and beyond.To any casual observer it would seem like publishers and investors days are numbered with their customers looking towards crowd sourcing as the way they want to industry to be funded. However if you look at the stats available on the Kickstarter website it is clear to see that the number of failed projects outweigh the number of successful projects with 50,000 unsuccessful to 39,000 that have reached their target amount or more. What isn’t clear from these stats is what measure is a project deemed successful, it may have reached its target amount of money but there’s no guarantee that what was promised is ever delivered or if the project itself was commercial viable beyond its initial crowd sourcing phase. Video games rank sixth in the number of projects funded with over 1,500 reaching their target goal and that number is surely set to rise in the next few years. Is crowd funding going to change how video games are made and should big time publishers be worried with last week’s article showing that publishers are vulnerable to fail and the industry itself is going through some financially tumultuous times at the moment which has given Kickstarter and others a gap in the market to exploit.

It was Tim Schafer and his company Double Fine with their project Broken Age that brought Kickstarter and the idea of crowd funding to the attention of the video game industry. He certainly wasn’t the first game developer to use the website but was the first of the big time developers to use it instead of getting investment from major publishers which has being the traditional route for developers in the past. The game itself is in the adventure game genre to which Schafer has a healthy pedigree producing titles such as Grim Fandango, Maniac Mansion and The Secret of Monkey Island. The reason for his move to crowd sourcing was a lack of support for adventure games by major publishers as the genre is seen as outdated and unpopular which is slightly contradicted by the fact that in the month that the project was open to backers they managed to raise over $3 million dollars with the initial target only set at $400,000. As with most Kickstarter projects gifts and rewards where offered at different levels of donations ranging from tee-shirts and signed posters right up to lunch with Tim Schafer himself. The backers are also invited to be part of the development process and help guide the art and content of the game.  Double Fine’s success at gaining investment without publisher’s interference made other long time developers look towards Kickstarter as a way to fund their own projects. Peter Molyneux who is best known for his Fable and Populous series of games decided to use Kickstarter as a way to fund his latest project Godus. The project successfully raised its target amount by December of last year although no release date has yet been set. Another long time game designer Richard Garriott also recently used crowd funding to back his newest instalment Shroud of the Avatar in the long running Ultima series again easily raising the money needed in the space of a month. As with many video game project on the website Garriott’s Kickstarter project set out a list of development goals and what could be achieved if a certain amount of money was raised with $2 million raised for this project double the amount that was projected a series of additional development goals where added however not enough was raised to cover them all. This highlights a very important point, if crowd sourcing is a way to circumvent the influence of major publishers then why have these projects set themselves self-restraining goals and without any contractual agreement set for these development aims there is no incentive to deliver on what is promised. The one underlying problem with Kickstarter and the projects created on the website is a lack of accountability and financial responsibility. A perfect example of a project that failed on both accounts is Haunts: The Manse Macabre a project created by Rick Dakan and his development studio Mob Rules Games.

“How much money does one man need when other games have been made for less, Minecraft being the perfect example”

The project set a target of $25,000 which it easily surpassed ending at $28,000 in donations and promised to deliver a turn based horror game by the end of 2012. A few months after the initial Kickstarter campaign Rick Dakan announced that certain elements of the promised game would be scrapped in favour of taking the game in a different direction. Soon after it was announced that the lead programmers were leaving to work for a different company and development on the game had ceased. Dakan himself admitted that prior to the crowd funding phase he knew that the programmers where set to leave but had hoped to finish the game before that. He had also promised to be open with the finance of the company throughout the development process which he failed to do. This is where the problem lies for crowd funding, backers donate money to a project with no guarantee of seen any return in the promised game unlike major publishers who will usually has a contract drawn up for the developer to deliver the game at a certain date our face a cessation in investment. Those who pledge money through Kickstarter have no such agreement and have no way of reclaiming any money invested. Kickstarter and crowd funding is susceptible to manipulation and fraud. That doesn’t mean that crowd sourcing is the wrong way to gain investment for a project but the way Kickstarter operates it business is not the best way to go about it. A new site that was founded by Paul Hanraets Andy Payne, Harry Miller and Mike Wilson called Gambitious looks to refine the idea crowd sourcing by using the model of equity crowd funding. People can donate money to a project just in that same way as they can with Kickstarter but each person who donates money gains a stake in the profits gained by the backed project. This system is a closer to the existing system present in the video game industry where publishers expect to see a return in their investment and possibly an equity stake in development studio or future games in the series. This new way of crowd funding still allows for a certain level of freedom for the developers but still holds them to account on delivering on their promises. So far the site has not seen as much popularity and success as Kickstarter with Train Fever by Swiss developer Urban Game Studios being the first major project to gain attention in the industry. The reason why equity crowd funding is not the preferred method for raising money for most video game projects at the moment is that it is still illegal in the United States and Canada to solicit investments from the general public unless you’re a registered investor. A recent act signed by President Obama in April of last year might change that law however it might be another year before it is officially passed. Gambitious is a Dutch based company and laws regarding crowd funding are different in the EU which is relevant to those in the Irish gaming industry interested in using equity crowd funding as a means of investment.

“Is this the first of many Kickstarter failures or just a rare occurrence?”

Until then Kickstarter projects will continue on the route of putting their hands out and asking for your money with a promise to deliver the final product all the time having their fingers crossed behind their back. In other words a form of virtual begging as illustrated by the web comic The Oatmeal. The next few years will be an interesting time as the video game industry will wait and see if these major developers will release their games as promised and prove the system right or will they fail and leaving many gamers with their fingers burnt and the reputations of beloved game designers in tatters. The most interesting of these project set to release soon is the Ouya console that is set to revolutionize the console market with their cheap android based device but how will it compete in a market already dominated by the likes of Sony and Microsoft. Are we heading towards a glut of consoles flooding the market that bears resemblance to the video game crash of 1983 or are we set for a renaissance in video game development where the dominant competitors are being challenged by the independent upstarts?

 By Colm O’Sullivan

The post The State of the Industry: The Gamers Have Spoken appeared first on Game Design Ireland.