Monaco Creator: Kickstarter Stretch Goals are "Bullsh*t"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

DVS BSTrD:
He does realize that the developer is the one who decides what those stretch goals are.

Zachary Amaranth:
What he said. Where is the control loss, exactly?

Control is lost because they have to develop the game to the scope dictated by the amount of funding they get. They pick the scope levels, but not which one they actually have to do.

It's not a massive amount of control lost, but a lot of designers get uneasy about the slightest hint of chance encroaching on their design process.

I also get what he means about the incomplete vs bloated problem. Whilst I'm personally of the opinion that it's almost always possible to think up plenty of sensible optional content for a video game, there's a lot to be said for the argument that a perfectly designed product includes exactly what it needs and nothing that it doesn't.

So if your game needs an extra character class, then you should just give it an extra character class. If you have the perfect balance of classes already, then you shouldn't offer an optional one that might mess everything up.

But translating into more languages, offering additional maps for multiplayer, etc. all seems pretty uncontroversial. Video games don't tend to be designed to the same level of precision as a physical product, so they can usually afford a bit of extra padding anyway.

This guy sounds like another Phil Fish to me... not everyone is lucky enough to recieve funding and so using kick starter is the only line of support for them and by offering features inside their scope it's the best way to go about getting funding.

All i could think of when reading what this guy has said is this image:
image

tahrey:
[snip]

I didn't say that you couldn't have time-cost stretch goals, just that you need to be careful about promising features you can't deliver on-schedule. Feature-creep has bankrupted more than its share of software companies.

My main point is that unlike Andy Schatz, I don't think that all stretch goals have this problem; anything that can be easily commissioned from people outside your organization, like localization and music, are perfectly justified, because you can get a written quote beforehand, and you can know exactly how much it will cost.

MetalMagpie:

Control is lost because they have to develop the game to the scope dictated by the amount of funding they get. They pick the scope levels, but not which one they actually have to do.

Something they themselves still choose.

Might as well complain that selling a game is "bullshit" because the consumer has ultimate control over whether or not it's purchased.

Zachary Amaranth:

MetalMagpie:

Control is lost because they have to develop the game to the scope dictated by the amount of funding they get. They pick the scope levels, but not which one they actually have to do.

Something they themselves still choose.

Might as well complain that selling a game is "bullshit" because the consumer has ultimate control over whether or not it's purchased.

Selling or not selling doesn't make a difference to making a game. Making 12 character classes instead of 10 does. How big a difference it makes depends on how finicky you are about game design. Engineers like to know the exact scope of what they're going to make before they start, rather than "it'll have three wheels if we achieve basic funding and four if we hit a stretch goal".

Of course, designing video game is inherently more flexible than designing a car. There isn't a "perfect" number of multiplayer maps. (Although I'm sure some indie game designers would disagree with me!)

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here