[teamonkey]

No publisher is looking at Elite: Dangerous (or pretty much any other game kickstarter) and wishing that they'd have funded it first. Even Frontier couldn't justify funding it by normal means and they own the IP.

The game will probably cost at least $5M to make. The kickstarter just scraped $1.25M by calling on the core market. The game still needs to sell at least another 250k at full retail price to break even, and that's after many of the core audience have already bought it through kickstarter. Under perfect conditions, that level of sales on PC alone would already put in in risky territory.

As for indies, well yes, publishers already fund those as part of their portfolios. The ones that look like they're going to break even, at least.

[talmand]

I think I stated that the large publishers are not wishing to fund such titles and that I think they do so for the wrong reasons. It's just my opinion and I don't see how your statement is much different than what I've been saying.

The potential problems you describe sound like budget and project scale problems to me, not that the genre couldn't make money. If one wishes to spend 5 million plus on a game that only maybe 250k will actually pay for then you are destined for failure. I don't believe I stated otherwise.

If you have a large publisher funding your project, then you aren't an indie title. Plus I pointed out that they do these small projects from time to time to see if there's a chance a genre will be popular again for them to spam the crap out of. I didn't say that these projects were intended to make money.

[teamonkey]

> If one wishes to spend 5 million plus on a game that only maybe 250k will actually pay for then you are destined for failure.

Correct. But given that large, complex software projects take time and manpower to create, there is a subset of games and genres that simply cannot be developed and hope to break even.

It's not just the publishers 'at fault'. Developers don't want to downsize or go bankrupt, therefore they won't tend to develop games that won't let them pay wages in future.

There are alternative funding methods, but before kickstarter it was mostly arts grants and the like. Tale of Tales have developed several small art games on art grants, IIRC.

> If you have a large publisher funding your project, then you aren't an indie title.

No, not at all. ThatGameCompany are an indie company but Journey was bankrolled by Sony. Does that mean that it's not an indie title? Fez was created by Polytron, published by Trapdoor and distributed by Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft at least partially funded the XBLA version of Minecraft. DoubleFine's Brutal Legend was paid for by Activision, then dropped and picked up by EA (a big court case ensued). As I mentioned above, Tale of Tales have developed games using government money. The list goes on and on, because it's a very common way of working.

[talmand]

I'm not saying that every possible genre out there can be developed for and make money. I'm saying that there are genres out there that can make money that the big publishers are ignoring because it doesn't fit within their no risk taking mindset. I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing with each other here.

If Journey was bankrolled by Sony, then no, it is not an indie title. But then "indie title" can mean different things to different people. My definition is the thought that a major publisher was not directly involved in the development of the title. Fez is an indie title despite being "distributed" by Microsoft; I wouldn't give Microsoft much credit as a distributor just because it was on XBLA. Minecraft is clearly an indie title whether Microsoft partially funded the port for their system or not because that was not the original game. There could be debate whether the XBox version is an indie title at that point though. Brutal Legend is not an indie title if funded by first Activision and then EA.