Square Enix too cheap to make games Kickstarter!

[whitesphere]

Big game companies are not indie, indies are not big game companies, I don't like seeing them mix, the greed and mistakes passing over to honest indie developers, they should be separate. And if Square Enix wants to support a game then guess what they can do it LIKE EVERYONE ELSE and just fund them.

In these days of never ending lies by big game companies, false showings using pre rendered footage and on PC is it any wonder why I do not like them.

I understand why you don't like big game companies, but let's look at it from the prospective of an indie game developer:

The biggest thing we would need is EXPOSURE, much more than money even.  And, if having a big company's name there gives a good indie developer a leg up, what's wrong with that?

The only problem I see is if the big company starts trying to control the indie developer.  But that's the last thing they'd want.  If they want to back a company in hopes of purchasing it, it saves THEM time, effort and yes money if they do NOT try to control the company.

This way they can back the developers they think are doing well, and let the market decide which ones prosper.  And if some triumph, then the big company can offer to buy the known successful developer. 

 

[mlogan]

I seriously do not understand the chip on your shoulder. Are you saying that if you had the opportunity to make big profit off of making your games - something you (I presume) enjoy doing - that you would turn it down just for the sake of staying a small, honest indie dev? And really, is every small indie dev honest?

Run your game projects the way you see fit and leave others to do the same. And it would be great if in the process that you would be able to see that not everything is black and white - there are many differing perspectives out there in the world and just because someone does not see something exactly the way you do it does not mean they are wrong. In fact, when I strongly disagree with someone, I try to take that as an opportunity to converse with them and see their side of things. Because, you know, occasionally I might learn something.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

You know, I like Indie games as much as the next guy... but sorry.

Big name publishers/developers are still involved in the majority of the best games being released. And I'm not talking just AAA games. I'm talking games like Nier, which, yes, Cavia wasn't exactly huge, but it was still an actual company, and it was published by SquareEnix (OH THE HORROR).

Are there issues with the big publishers? Absolutely. Are there still tons and tons of people working at those companies who want and do attempt to make kickass games? Absolutely.

And seriously, SE is doing a good thing getting publicity to Indie Games. Its not like they are putting the next FF on Kickstarter. (Though I suspect if they put a FFVII Remake kickstarter up, it would be the biggest kickstarter ever, and if they put up a Nier 2 Kickstarter, I would be backing that **** first day).

 

[Shelby]

This is one of the replies we got after messaging the SE team about this.

[SIZE=11pt]"Thanks for your email, and your comment on the blog post. I think you misunderstand what we’re doing with Collective, however.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The games that are featured initially on our feedback platform enable developers to start building awareness around their games. That’s for free, and we don’t charge anything – nor do we tie them into working with us in the future.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If the community likes a game idea, we may offer to then support that team through crowdfunding. What that means is that we use our Square Enix channels and relationships to boost awareness of that campaign, and help make it massively more visible as a result – thereby increasing their chances of success. We also undertake a team assessment, to help potential backers have more trust in the developer (and avoid horrible headlines that are bad for everybody).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]For that service we ask 5% of net crowdfunds raised, to help us cover the costs of the whole platform (and keep it free for everybody on that initial feedback phase). If they don’t hit their target, they don’t pay us anything.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]After the campaign is done, there’s nothing tying them to work with us. If they would like us to distribute, we cover things like getting the game on Steam, doing QA and handling the sales admin. That’s in return for 10% of net revenue.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We don’t take IP, we don’t control the dev direction, we don’t force any developers to work with us if they don’t want to. We only ask for some payment once the developer gets what they need, and the terms are probably the best you’ll find anywhere.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This has nothing to do with our other games, which we fund in the normal way; and raising the profile of smaller teams and helping them to have success is, I believe, certainly not ‘hurting them’.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Sorry you disagree, but it’s something we’re very passionate about, and giving small teams a chance at visibility that they might not otherwise get on their own is something we believe is important for the industry. We certainly welcome constructive feedback, so if you have any feel free to get back in touch.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Meanwhile I’ll also post this on your blog comment too, so that others can understand the platform properly.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Best[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Phil[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Phil Elliott |[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Project Lead, Collective[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] | [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Head of Community (Live Team)[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Square Enix Europe[/SIZE]"

They are taking money and saving money.

@Mlogan to answer your question no I would not be joined/associated with one of these companies if they offered lots of money, not so much for the sake of staying small which I like but I do not want my name tied to any bad business practices, like having our game falsely advertized as something it's not with fake pre rendered footage or having parts of our game cut and and then being sold to people like what happened in Watchdogs!

Of course sadly I am not 100% in control of what we do.

 

[bgillisp]

3 examples?

NCAA 12, EA showed off gameplay that didn't actually exist in the final product. I'd post the links to prove it but those videos/links all mysteriously disappeared on release date of that game. I'm sure with the rest of us we can come up with 2 more for you.

 

[mlogan]

I see nothing wrong with what they are doing. If a small developer is okay with giving10% to a large company to increase their overall profit, then that is their business. I look at it this way. If I can make and pocket on my own $100. Great. If I can partner with a bigger company and bring in $1000, of which I give them $100, all the better. I mean, I just pocketed 9x what I would have on my own, and I'm doing something that I love.

It is fine for you have to your standards and to stick by them. By all means do so. What is not okay is to blast everyone else for doing differently or try to force your standards on others.

 

[??????]

Simply: I think the fact that SE are actually helping indie devs gain awareness is fantastic. And the fact they are doing this (initially) for free is even better. Why wouldn't an indie dev want to get free promotion from one of the most known names in the business? And if your saying you wouldn't let them help, you are either 1)-lying or 2)-stupid as hell.

If it is the latter, then dont let them help you. It will simply mean there are not as many people aware of your project / you dont get the exposure you could have. There aint no need to gripe about it, or post private emails on a public place. As that to me, is stooping much lower than SE taking a small cut from giving even more help to promising projects.

 

[Shelby]

NCAA 12, EA showed off gameplay that didn't actually exist in the final product. I'd post the links to prove it but those videos/links all mysteriously disappeared on release date of that game. I'm sure with the rest of us we can come up with 2 more for you.

Let's not forget aliens colonial marines! Gearbox had a FAKE demo made with features that were not in the final game! To be fair they didn't know what they were doing and outsourced that game to MANY others.

 

[Seacliff]

Let's not forget aliens colonial marines! Gearbox had a FAKE demo made with features that were not in the final game! To be fair they didn't know what they were doing and outsourced that game to MANY others.

Sega did that too, if we're going to complain about a cheap business tactic, may as well blame the industry as a whole.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

Man, after reading that email from Phil there, I can see absolutely zero wrong with what SE is doing. In fact, this is probably the coolest thing I've seen a big name company do for indie devs. Are they probably making money off it? Yeah, probably a bit. But honestly, SE is providing a lot of publicity and services (QA alone is huge, proper QA, even though QA people aren't paid tons, still costs a good bit because it is SUPER time consuming) for such a small cut. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual profit margins on this were REALLY slim, in some cases even nonexistent, and they are betting on a few huge hits to carry most of the others.

More power to them.

 

[whitesphere]

After reading what the SE team replied, I think it's a fantastic win-win for SE and for the indie developers.

Why?

They say, in essence, "We ask for 5% of the crowdfunding funds gathered IF they reach their goal.  If they do not, they owe us nothing.  And, in either case, the indie developer retains full control over product development, IPs, etc.  After that, IF they choose to accept our help, we will take 10% of the revenue in exchange for, basically testing, marketing, getting the product on Steam, and handling ALL of the sales logistics.

For SE, it's an inexpensive/free way to find the best indie developers.  And, if the developers want, SE gets a chance for some probably minor (to them) revenue, with an off chance of a large revenue stream if a game really takes off.

In exchange, the indie dev can focus solely on making great games, but WITH the huge addition of the exposure gained from the loose association with SE.   Sure, they might give up 10% of the net revenue, but with SE's sales channels and such, they'll probably make far more money on their game than they would have otherwise.  And they don't need to do all of the crucial but boring testing, marketing, sales logistics and the likes.

If, with the SE exposure, a game can make $10,000, of which the dev sees $9,000, but without it, the dev would make, maybe $1,000, it's a huge win for the dev, for no extra work on the dev's part.   Instead, the dev can focus on, perhaps, making a sequel or a different game.

Personally, if I had a game I felt were truly good enough to go commercial, I'd gladly go that route, if the option were available.   I feel it is very much a win-win for SE and the indie developers.  After all, sales logistics, QA and marketing are often things indie devs are NOT good at doing --- they're good at making games, but marketing, QA and logistics are completely different skills.

 

[Necromus]

Thanks for posting that E-mail, now we really know that its a really nice deal for everyone, really awesome from SE.

 

[Shelby]

Sega did that too, if we're going to complain about a cheap business tactic, may as well blame the industry as a whole.

"may as well blame the industry as a whole" Music to my ears!

But to answer everyone else it is always good to have or hear the other side of the coin, he has gotten back to us with a more...understanding explanation we are throwing some good points back and fourth and I feel that it will turn out good, I hope lol. I had to send my partner off for ice creme since things were getting a bit heated lol. 

 

[??????]

Think I'm gonna find out more about this 'getting your game promoted by SE' thing... I got a small project running  atm that could certainly use the exposure!

Thanks for pointing me in their direction Shelby. Probably not what you intended, but hey, thats the roll of the dice

 

[Shelby]

Think I'm gonna find out more about this 'getting your game promoted by SE' thing... I got a small project running  atm that could certainly use the exposure!

Thanks for pointing me in their direction Shelby. Probably not what you intended, but hey, thats the roll of the dice

Oh i'm sure they will help you out, tell us all about it BD

 

[crimcrim]

square-enix is a publisher

and they are publishing a game by giving it more exposure

what part of this seems foreign or wrong to you

 

[Shelby]

square-enix is a publisher

and they are publishing a game by giving it more exposure

what part of this seems foreign or wrong to you

Feel free to read the posts in the topic.

 

[Scinaya]

There seems to be nothing wrong with what is happening. It is beneficial for the indie developer too and I think it is sweet to see a company caring enough of the field that they want to help support in one way or another small start ups. O_X

 

[hian]

One thing which is good with kickstarter and other crowd-funding techniques is that it can bridge a gap between players and devs and thus resolve a lot of the issues that you see nowadays, by removing the need that most companies have to answer to economical backers that don't necessarily care one squat about games, or gamers.

Take for instance, if you're one of those people who agree with Anita Sarkeesian on issues with game narratives, a trend of crowd-funded projects is perfect - because then it becomes clear immediately what kind of games are wanted, and which aren't.

When AAA productions are made, you'll have devs stumbling head over heels to satisfy share-holders and backers who ultimately make sure the producers have the necessary funds to make their game. If everything is fan-funded, then the devs are going to have to stumble head of heels for the prospective fans instead, not some sort of projected image of potential buyers determined by statistics as interpreted by major share-holders.

This way you'll see more games realized for more diverse audiences, which is a good thing.

The irony is that I don't generally agree with Sarkeesian in her perspectives on gaming, but even I can see the pros with this kind of trend.

Whether these crowd-funding efforts are initiated by minor companies or big companies really make no difference.

Saying major companies can afford making/backing games without crowd-funding, so they should, is silly.

That's like saying rich people shouldn't be allowed to ask for money. Why?

Having money, and a lot of it, isn't a crime. In the world of business people are always going to prioritize money. Why?

Because it's a high-risk field. You never know when a recession might hit, when your company goes down the drain due to a failed product, or something to that effect. Surplus is good in that sense, because it's your insurance against future hard-ships.

Also, nobody forces anyone to donate. It's a choice. Don't like a prospective project, or don't want to support a big company? Don't participate. It's that simple.

Can crowd-funding be exploited? Yeah, sure. One way to regulate that would be create stricter laws around it. Say for instance, that companies that rely on funding from non-companies(I.E fans), are liable for any promises they make - meaning that if they reach their monetary goals, but don't release a product, they'll be held economically responsible(reimbursement or fine/jail).

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

If I think about it, SE giving publicity to the indie dev is a win-win situation for both parties (indie getting much more publicity while SE too gains some more positive outlook + when successful, money)


Yeah they might charge 5% of the total funding, but do you even realize how much money the SE name will bring to your crowdfunding? It might even be one of the major factors about whether your KS will be successful or not. I'm sure the extra money you will get will never be below the 5% that SE will charge for you.


Whether you like it or not, majority if not all companies (in any field) exist to make money. Without money, they would cease to exist so that would be their first priority. And if they cease to exist, think about how many people will lose their jobs. So would you rather these companies don't think about profit and risk a lot of people losing their living?


What they're doing is good IMHO. Why? They are actually helping these indies survive while they themselves also gain extra money that will be for their own survival. So if everything goes fine, it is indeed a win-win situation for both parties.


And yeah, if you don't like it, then just don't support them. It's not like you're required to join the crowdfunding.