[Irregardless]

I'd be extremely hesitant to trust these guys with a single cent right now. They requested $400k in their last Kickstarter and received over $3.3 million, but that project (now called Broken Age) is STILL overbudget and delayed [1]. They're funneling profits from other games into it already, and now they're asking for more money so they can work on a new game? Or is this just their way of getting a much needed cash infusion after all other avenues have failed, so they can fund their ailing project and then worry about this one later?

All this on top of the fact that their most recently released game, The Cave, was mediocre at best [2].

[1] http://www.gameinformer.com/games/broken_age/b/pc/archive/20...

> Broken Age was originally planned to be completed in April, but according to the documentary the schedule has been extended until September. The costs of a lengthened development have forced Double Fine to search for more money. Double Fine still welcomes supporters that missed the Kickstarter deadline, but in the documentary Isa Stamos, director of product development, affirms that the studio either has to dramatically increase funding or reduce the scope of the game. In Episode 8, Double Fine’s vice president of business development, Justin Bailey, reveals that profits from the release of Brütal Legend for PC will almost entirely feed into Broken Age.

> Despite the desire to stick within the confines of the Kickstarter money, Double Fine is facing the reality many developers face in the middle of production. Facing setbacks and asking publishers for more time or money is common in the video game industry, but possibly going over budget with loads of crowd-funded money is new territory.

[2] http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-cave

[sho_hn]

FWIW, inXile, the guys who ran a Kickstarter campain for "Torment: Tides of Numenera" to great success before delivering on the goal of their previous campaign for "Wasteland 2", explained that the company works most efficiently by rolling pre-production talent (concept artists, writers to a degree, etc.) onto a new project when the previous product goes into full-on production, instead of having them sit idle.

But after watching the Double Fine documentary vids I don't get the feeling the same explanation would apply here - employees there seem to specialize less and be more flexible in their roles.

That said, I'll be backing this because those documentary vids are incredibly entertaining. Even if "Broken Age" never makes it out the door or winds up mediocre, I'll easily have gotten enough for my buck to make the exchange feel worthwhile to me (at the same time I'll admit that seems worrying even to me, turning development into a sort of performance art ...).

[nostromo]

If you'll allow me to be a bit rude, why do you care?

I mean, it's $20 dude.

I understand the anger and skepticism a person feels when they make $30k a year and back a project for $50 that fails. But I don't understand it on HN. We're programmers and entrepreneurs. We know that timelines and resources are difficult to forecast. We know that companies and projects fail, even when they have millions of dollars to spend. We also generally make enough that $20 lost is negligible.

Yet everytime I look at the comments section for a Kickstarter I see mostly permutations of this comment.

[teej]

> I mean, it's $20 dude.

Here's how I see it. For context, I backed Broken Age for $100 and have the t-shirt. I typically spend $1,000+ on games a year.

####################

If I wanted a game for my $20 I could:

* Buy 3-5 classic 90s games on GOG.com

* Buy 1-2 indie games on Steam

* Buy 1 AAA game on sale, 6-12 months post release

The alternative of putting my $20 on Kickstarter is relatively well known now. I:

* Get to support an indie dev with a passionate vision

* Get sneek peek access during game development

* Potentially get the final product

And I'm okay with those tradeoffs. I don't back every game project on Kickstarter, but I have backed some. Sometimes my $20 is better spent on released games and sometimes it's better spent on Kickstarter.

The issues raised around Massive Chalice are different. They aren't general Kickstarter concerns - they're specific to this project and this developer. A big part of the Kickstarter experience is that we, the consumers, are shouldering a small amount of the risk of the project. That's not a bad thing, but in the case of Double Fine the risk profile has significantly changed.

For Broken Age (previously Double Fine Adventure), we were dealing with a long-standing game development studio taking a chance on crowdfunding a game that publishers simply wouldn't touch. As far as we knew, they had a history of delivering high quality games.

All those things are still true with Massive Chalice, but now consumers have more data then we had before. We got a detailed look in to the sausage factory. We've seen delay after delay. We've seen a project originally scoped at $400k get overfunded and go over it's new $3m budget. They say we'll get the game in September, but who really knows? I think it's rational to say that those events could instill uncertainty about Double Fine.

So it's not that I won't back Massive Chalice because games projects on Kickstarter are risky. I won't back it because I know exactly how Double Fine has handled a kickstarted game in the past. They've trained me to expect fantastic communication about the project as it develops. They've trained me to get excited to see the sneak peeks. But they've also trained me to expect delays and budget overruns. What happens if Broken Age doesn't sell well? Will they have more Brutal Legend residuals to fall back on? If they run over budget on Massive Chalice, will they run another kickstarter for another game just to make sure they can keep their people employed? I don't know.

And so frankly, I'm not excited about Broken Age anymore. After the 15 months that have passed, the lackluster trailer, and all the delays, I just don't feel the same about Double Fine as I did before. That, on top of seeing the way they've handled the project, and being concerned about the financial situation of the company, I just can't muster $20 for Massive Chalice.

####################

Yes, it's just $20, but games are a ruthless business and there's a lot of other places my $20 could go. At this point, instead of supporting Massive Chalice, I'm going to buy a new skin in Dota 2. Or maybe I'll buy the Humble Indie Bundle 8. Or maybe I'll buy whatever is on sale on Steam this week. Who knows?

[vectorpush]

Well put. If I went 5 months off schedule and 750% over budget and then asked the bosses to finance my next project without having delivered anything... I mean... well I'd probably just have been fired at 400% over budget.

[arrrg]

But they did not went 750% over budget. The budget was $3.3m. And with the bigger scope comes a – obviously – a longer dev time.

Oh, and also, backers do get tons of content all the time.

[giulianob]

Thats kind of the problem with the stretch goals. It just makes the development even more difficult and the wait longer a lot of the times because more money doesn't always mean you can work faster.

[vectorpush]

No, the budget was 400k. In what bizzaro world does 750% more funding delay project completion by five months? Just because you have extra money doesn't mean you should expand your budget to max out all your resources; try that excuse with any VC and tell me how it goes. Fortunately for Double Fine they're not actually responsible for how they spend their money.

[jamornh]

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that if Double Fine took the $3.3 million and delivered a 2D, mobile, prototype-esque game (which if you watched the documentary, was what they would have gone for with the $400,000) in the timeline they stated, people would have been happy.

It's exactly like they took the $2.9 million and ran. I think quite a lot of people would call that a scam at that point. In the end, with an extra $2.9 million, what were they going to do with it other than make sure that the game they end up delivering lives up to the huge sum that their fans gave them?

[aptwebapps]

The budget was 400k for the basic version, then they got 3.3m and changed the scope. So 3.3m was the new budget, or perhaps some number in between and the difference was pure profit.

[kinnth]

here, here.

[TillE]

HN seems to view Kickstarter mostly through the lens of hardware projects, which are incredibly risky and done with very thin margins.

Game development by an experienced team is not quite a guaranteed thing, but it is a much safer bet.

[sejje]

Agree with this. The risk should be very minimal that they can't, at the very least, ship the game as expected.

Whether they can make it a success is a different kind of risk.

[nkassis]

I bet a lot of people on HN don't even make 30K a year. It's a little weird to be assuming that everyone here is working in Silicon Valley making 100K+. Particularly for a site dedicated to early stage startups and tech and the philosophy of being frugal to lunch startups.

[raldi]

What do you think of someone who commits $1 million in insurance fraud? Spread out amongst all the other customers and shareholders, it comes to a very small amount per person, certainly less than $20. But you'd still be mad about it, wouldn't you?

[pliny]

Not everyone here is from the Bay Area.

[jasonlotito]

What does that have to do with anything?

[T-Winsnes]

To people outside of the US, $20 might be a substantial amount of money.

Saying "It's just $20" could, to them, be same as saying "It's just $1 000" to you.

[jasonlotito]

The comment said the Bay, not the US. Even still, if $20 is $1000 for you, then it's absurd to think you'd put it on a game on KickStarter.

[wmf]

There has to be a line between acceptable risk and throwing good money after bad. I suspect Double Fine is on the right side of the line in this case, but if we let "it's $20 dude" excuse everything then we're opening ourselves up to outright fraud (as another poster said). So I think it'd good to question cases like these.

[thoughtcriminal]

$20 to a homeless guy or to someone experiencing economic hardship will be appreciated more.

[papsosouid]

>fraud is totally cool because we're programmers and entrepreneurs

No, it really isn't. This is not a kickstarter to make a game, this is a kickstarter to help pay for the game they already made a kickstarter for before. It isn't about risk, it is about fraud.

[levesque]

Interesting how a lot of people in here assume this is a fraud to support their previous project. Why couldn't they honestly be starting a new project with a separate team?

[6thSigma]

Because there is nothing controversial in that.

[papsosouid]

Yes, it is interesting how a lot of people assume that the most likely explanation is the right one. Of course it is possible that they got money somewhere else and don't need this kickstarter cash to keep the company afloat while they finish their known to be delayed and overbudget game. It just isn't very likely.

[visural]

Do you have any evidence, because that would be news-worthy. Or are you just making stuff up?

[arrrg]

And if you are a backer you get beautifully made videos of this – and it’s glorious. All the tough decisions, all the problems, all the decision making processes and compromises, all the joy and sadness.

This was the deal from the beginning and they were very explicit about it. I mean, this whole thing got started because they wanted to document the game making process – warts and all – but you cannot typically do that with a publisher on board. They had to do their own thing.

If you are not a backer it’s very, very easy to get the wrong impression about this – but if you are a backer there is nothing better than getting an update email with a new video on their progress.

This shit is fucking awesome. I don’t even care whether there ever is a game. If this fails and I have it all on video I will be happy. (Well, I will be sad because I have empathy, but I will have enjoyed the ride.) I got hours of excellent video material for next to no money.

I don’t think you are really getting this. And it’s easy to not get it if you are not a backer. (Plus, The Cave has nothing to do with this. That game was made by different people. And I would call it a polarizing game, not a mediocre one.)

[binarycrusader]

Hesitant to "trust these guys" -- the same guys that pointedly stated in their video and materials that the DoubleFine adventure could be a wild success or complete failure?

They made it very clear from the beginning that this was new territory, something not done before, and the risk was high.

As for starting another game before finishing another, that's a silly argument. There's this mistaken belief amongst the general populace that software companies can only work on one project at a time. That couldn't be farther removed from reality.

The reality is that any large software project requires the efforts of dozens (and sometimes hundreds or thousands) of people all of which perform different tasks. There are many parts of software projects where not all of the staff can be involved or working on it, or where their portion of the work is done.

At that point, you're left with the choice of firing the people you don't need, or paying them to sit around and do nothing. Isn't the more logical choice to start another project so you can keep those people employed and pay them to do something meaningful?

The fact that the source of their funding for one of their current projects was kickstarter should not restrict them from starting another project using kickstarter.

[kelnage]

So I can't deny that Double Fine are having to find additional funds for Broken Age - it's true and they've been using multiple different ways. However, I think that's mainly because the scope of the game increased significantly due to way the Kickstarter blew up as it did - at the time I don't think anyone expected it to reach $3 million and as such, expectations are higher.

However, I can definitely say that judging Double Fine on purely their last game is a mistake. They've created many games that have had very favourable reviews in recent history (for example: Stacking, Costume Quest, Brutal Legend) [1].

[1] http://www.metacritic.com/company/double-fine-productions

[com2kid]

> However, I think that's mainly because the scope of the game increased significantly due to way the Kickstarter blew up as it did - at the time I don't think anyone expected it to reach $3 million and as such, expectations are higher.

The excuse "we got more money, so expanded the project scope too much, so now we need even more money" does not bode well for their project management abilities.

Part of project management is knowing how far one can expand scope given additional funding. I problem I see with a LOT of Kickstarter projects, especially the video game ones, is that they do a very poor job estimating additional costs.

More than once I have seen a project say "and if we raise another $10k we'll port to every platform known to mankind!

I have even seen projects claim they will go from being a PC to adding iPad support!

For a few game genres, sure, that may work, but for the most part? The entire game balance chances, reaction times change, the entire UI changes, performance characteristics of your platform have changed dramatically! Engines like Unity may help, but you still have to tweak the ever living daylights out of any sort of reaction based gameplay to make up for the differences in control methodology, and that means a lot of game balance work. It is rarely as cheap as many developers make it out to be.

But that one (wide spread) example aside, Double Fine needs to provide some reassurances that they know how to properly scope out a project.

Being under the yoke of a publisher does provides one with a hard deadline, schedules, and someone who says no. That is often a useful attribute! (See: Why programmers have project managers!)

[nknighthb]

Please regale us with tales of the software projects you've successfully shepherded to on-time, on-budget releases.

[NoPiece]

When you have a small company like Double Fine, fighting for creativity and independence, and competing in a space dominated by giant game publishers and media companies, I vote to give them the benefit of the doubt. Even if it fails, I'm happy to support the effort.

Also, the documentary coverage that was part of the last Kickstarter already made that more than worthwhile for me. It provided a great inside view of the development process. The game is just a bonus at this point.

[jasonlotito]

2 pieces of gross misinformation:

> They requested $400k in their last Kickstarter and received over $3.3 million, but that project (now called Broken Age) is STILL overbudget

They learned from this, and have restructured what they are asking for this time around, as well as where they are offering bonuses.

> and delayed [1]

It's only delayed if you assumed you were making a pre-order on KickStarter, which is not what KickStarter does in anyway. It's been clear from the beginning. Imagining it's a unicorn does not make it a unicorn, however.

[visural]

After viewing all the negativity on here, I'd actually recommend people that feel the same _should_ stay away from Kickstarter.

If the only value to you is getting the game itself, then wait for it to be finished and buy it through Steam or your store of choice.

Kickstarter is meant for people who find value in not just receiving the product, but in watching, and discussing it through its development and also allowing creative people they respect the opportunity to the do the work they'd like to do.

Most of the negativity in these comments seems to be from people that just "want the game". Well that isn't what you signed up for. If you feel burned by the first one, you would be well advised to stay away from future Kickstarters, from Double Fine, or from any other developer.

[arrrg]

Yeah, if this is your thinking you should just stay away from Kickstarter. It’s not for you and that’s ok – but please, please don’t change the way Kickstarter is by your stuffy insistence that it has to be something it is not. Just, please stay away from it and let people have their fun.

[egypturnash]

I feel I have to disagree.

Kickstarter has been used quite a lot by a whole bunch of artists to deliver comic books; if you look at money brought in, it's consistently ranged from being the #2-5 publisher of comics in the US.

While some of these comics were done on the "here's a pitch and my track record, pay me for a year's work in advance and I'll make this" model that the Double Fine adventure is being made on, the vast majority of them were not - most of them are about "here's some stuff I already drew, I need this much in preorders to make a print run economical." This goes all the way from little campaigns like the one I ran[1] up to huge ones like the $1250k one for the Order of the Stick reprints[2]. Kickstarter has helped make independent comics a lot easier to sell. It's also been a huge boon to board game makers, who work in a similar "make the thing, then seek money to publish it" model.

It is quite possible to run a successful Kickstarter based solely on delivering the product to the audience, with absolutely none of the glimpse into the creative process that Double Fine is providing.

That said: be aware of what you're getting into, be prepared for it to never happen.

[1] http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/52397119/decrypting-rita...

[2] http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/599092525/the-order-of-t...

[visural]

I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said about DFA and other similar Kickstarters.

If you backed a Kickstarter that was pitched as solely a preorder for an already complete product, then you have every right to be upset if that Kickstarter doesn't deliver.

The original point though, was about kickstarters which are funding the development of products from scratch and allowing tracking and input from the funders.

[egypturnash]

"Kickstarter is meant for people who find value in not just receiving the product, but in watching, and discussing it through its development and also allowing creative people they respect the opportunity to the do the work they'd like to do."

You didn't constrain your comment to just "pre-buy this thing so I can pay rent while I develop it" campaigns. What you said certainly goes for those. But you were suggesting that ALL of Kickstarter is about that.

[jdboyd]

And that is exactly why I will pass on this kickstarter and wait until it hits steam.

[6thSigma]

They just raised a lot of cash from their Humble Bundle. I believe over $1m was raised, although I'm not sure how much of that went to Double Fine.

[mey]

As a backer of Broken Age, I have similar fears. I do believe in their creative talent, but I wish this kickstarter was being done after Broken Age was delivered.

[datasage]

Its better for the company and team continuity if this project gets off the ground before the other one finishes. If they wait until the end, they would end up going through a bit of turnover in the downtime between projects.

[wmf]

If you read their pitch, Massive Chalice has a separate team from Broken Age. I think inXile are the ones using the team continuity argument. Obviously it's better for the company if fans keep shoveling in money regardless of (lack of) any results, but you have to admit this sets a risky precedent.

[commandar]

It's a fairly similar logic though, isn't it? They have other teams coming off other projects, so rather than leave them idle until Broken Age is finished or going to a publisher for a project, they decided to Kickstart another independent project.

[eropple]

Independent-in-theory though, yeah? I mean, if Broken Age is running over budget (as they've acknowledged is the case), money has to come from somewhere. I don't think it's super unfair to wonder if that's what this is in part about--whether they hope to use these funds while Broken Age is in development and recoup it to fund Massive Chalice when Broken Age ships.

[ekianjo]

On top of that they used Humble Bundle to obviously put more funding to Broken Age.

Indie developers not being able to manage their cash is funny. They wanted freedom and responsibility, now they have it, and they realize that having publishers behind your back can be a good thing, actually, to stop focusing on funding the whole time and focus on the game.

[asb]

I don't see it as at all odd or surprising that the profits of the PC release of Brutal Legend will go in to the game. Double Fine will be reaping all of the profit from Broken Age, so it seems sensible that they carry some of the risk through investing their own money.

[LandoCalrissian]

It's Tim Schafer, he could ask for my firstborn and I would probably give it to him.

[jamornh]

Keep in mind though, Tim's not going to be as involved on this particular project. He's not the lead on this one ;)

[Aloisius]

All this on top of the fact that their most recently released game, The Cave, was mediocre at best [2].

How is a 67 on Metacritic "mediocre at best"? It had mixed critical reviews and generally positive user reviews.

[MartinCron]

I'd be extremely hesitant to trust these guys with a single cent right now

And by, "these guys" you mean the backers of every single Kickstarter project, right?