[drdrek]

Years ago I backed two computer games. They both took about 5 years to be made and by the time they were ready I have already forgotten buying them. (They were good tho) Never felt the need to do that again.

Its a niche idea, unsuitable for VC money. On the other hand, non financial goals for companies almost always end badly. When you have more than one goal there is always an excuse for management to do what ever they want.

Want to do something for profits? we need this for the company survival. Want to do something financially irresponsible? Its aligned to our values. Unrelated to the core business? Social responsibility. Leave creative outlets to creative syndicates, leave charity work to non profits and leave money making to for profit companies... don't be another one of those that break the mold only to discover that people that came before you where not as dumb as you thought. Basically don't be Crypto.

[nottorp]

> They both took about 5 years to be made and by the time they were ready I have already forgotten buying them. (They were good tho) Never felt the need to do that again.

What's wrong with that? I've backed more than two games. Some were good, some were bad, some failed completely. But I knew that from the beginning. And I just prepaid for the games at a discount, I didn't buy $5000 packages or anything like that.

I might do that again, but every game I picked was mentioned in the gaming press, so was promising enough to get their attention. I haven't seen that lately. No mention of kickstarter, indiegogo, gofundme or whatever else is out there.

Is it because game makers don't crowdfund any more, or because the press only covers AAAs now?

[Goronmon]

What's wrong with that?

For me it comes down to numbers. I don't want for games to play. I already lack the time to play all the games I am interested in.

And that's for games that have been released that are a relatively known result.

What advantage is there for me to throw money at hypothetical games that in the future may result in something I am interested in playing? Especially when there is a decent chance nothing gets released at all?

[aeturnum]

I totally agree that, if you can't think of why you might want to support one particular future game over another, then kickstarter is not for you. However, lots of people like the work of particular creators, or like particular genres, or are looking for particular gameplay approaches. Those people may all think about funding certain games in development over others.

Just in general you might prefer to support some futures over others, and if that's your, kickstarter (and similar services) would appeal.

[nottorp]

I for one like a surprise now and then.

I've backed titles that sounded unusual just because they sounded unusual:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/476090608/the-good-life

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1698219403/stygian-a-lo...

The first I haven't played yet, the second was a nice surprise.

I've also backed niche games that are out of fashion:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/674951857/kaptain-brawe...

This one failed to get enough backers. I've backed more adventure games that didn't fail and enjoyed some of them.

Yes, every single project I backed was late. So what?

And yes, I have a games backlog that I won't finish in my lifetime. Thank 90% off sales :)

[baud147258]

> Is it because game makers don't crowdfund any more, or because the press only covers AAAs now?

I took part in one campaign for a video game last year, but it's a niche game in a niche genre, so I don't think it's been covered anywhere. Though two video game projects I backed in 2020 & 2021 have likely been covered, though I haven't kept up with the news. And I agree that the gaming press have stopped covering crowdfunding, mostly I guess because all the failed projects and scams, not helped by the long delays.