Kickstarter next week

[Tynan]

I know this may sound rough and improper but when can we estimate to be able to play the damn game? Lol please excuse my foul language I am just eager.

By my math, it would be November 2 or 3 if you're in the KS.

[Hypolite]

Wait. How com the game could be released if people canceled their pledge?

If you need more time, you should wait until the campaign ends. If the goal is reached, you get paid and backers get the Alpha of the game. If the goal is not reached, backers get their money back but don't get access to the game.

Or is there a thing that I miss?

If it reaches the goal, and I immediately send the game out, people can then cancel their pledges and not be charged. They've gotten the game for free and if enough of them do it the KS will fail.

I understand. My idea was to ship the alpha game after the actual end of the campaign, not during the campaign if the pledged amount reaches the goal.

[Tynan]

I understand. My idea was to ship the alpha game after the actual end of the campaign, not during the campaign if the pledged amount reaches the goal.

Yes I agree. That's basically the conclusion we're all reaching, I think. I'd like to offer people the game earlier but it seems there's no real way to do so.

[Hypolite]

And from what I see you answered to elemenofi, even the end of the Kickstarter campaign would not be that far, I don't think that would be a deterrent for the potential backers.

[Zorbane]

Just throwing it out there but:

Wouldn't releasing a playable demo be better for Kickstarter publicity?

[Tynan]

Just throwing it out there but:

Wouldn't releasing a playable demo be better for Kickstarter publicity?

Not a fan of demos myself, especially maintaining them, especially in pre-alpha. I'm not sure how you'd even make a demo of this game.

[Zorbane]

By demo I meant whatever people are running right now (if it is stable enough to act as a demo).  No updates without paying after that. 

I see a lot of comments for games where people say "NO DEMO NO MONEY" although it can be argued that these people won't necessarily pledge anyways.

Anyways just a thought since we were on that topic

[Tynan]

I wouldn't want to use this version as a demo of the final game. Everything is going to get smoother and less buggy; it would be terrible to have people making their purchasing decisions based on an old version a few months down the line. The pre alpha version isn't a small piece of finished game, it's a comparatively crappy progenitor of the finished game.

[enystrom8734]

I could start recording all my testing sessions. Some people like to watch pre release game play videos. Even streaming as well.

[Tynan]

I'll be sending the game to Lets Players during the KS so people can watch it and get some idea of what we're doing beyond the trailer. We've had a few already, though none in English (nobody asked!).

[enystrom8734]

Ah good. I'll start recording later this week, have to get everything setup properly.

[nomadseifer]

I think some people will definitely need something to play before deciding to support.  I can understand the comment, "No demo, no money".  I'd imagine there is a spectrum of people who will eventually purchase the game.  There are those whole will purchase a game based solely on the idea of the game without even a video of gameplay.  That's a small group.  Then there are those who won't purchase until the game is released and has atleast an 85% on metacritic.  That's a large group.  The kickstarter is going to take place somewhere inbetween. 

I think maybe the testers should be polled as to whether they think the current version released as a 'sampler' during the kickstarter would help tip people in the direction of supporting.     

[Jakadasnake]

I think some people will definitely need something to play before deciding to support.  I can understand the comment, "No demo, no money".  I'd imagine there is a spectrum of people who will eventually purchase the game.  There are those whole will purchase a game based solely on the idea of the game without even a video of gameplay.  That's a small group.  Then there are those who won't purchase until the game is released and has atleast an 85% on metacritic.  That's a large group.  The kickstarter is going to take place somewhere inbetween. 

I think maybe the testers should be polled as to whether they think the current version released as a 'sampler' during the kickstarter would help tip people in the direction of supporting.   

A poll with a sample size of 10 is unlikely to produce useful results. Although I think in principle you are correct in most of what you say here. The thing is, kickstarter isn't where he sells the game - it's where he pitches it. I'm not too savvy on this whole business but is it common for kickstarters to offer demos of the game? From what I've seen, it's where the developer showcases everything he/she wants the game to be, not necessarily what it is in its current iteration.

[nomadseifer]

I think some people will definitely need something to play before deciding to support.  I can understand the comment, "No demo, no money".  I'd imagine there is a spectrum of people who will eventually purchase the game.  There are those whole will purchase a game based solely on the idea of the game without even a video of gameplay.  That's a small group.  Then there are those who won't purchase until the game is released and has atleast an 85% on metacritic.  That's a large group.  The kickstarter is going to take place somewhere inbetween. 

I think maybe the testers should be polled as to whether they think the current version released as a 'sampler' during the kickstarter would help tip people in the direction of supporting.   

A poll with a sample size of 10 is unlikely to produce useful results. Although I think in principle you are correct in most of what you say here. The thing is, kickstarter isn't where he sells the game - it's where he pitches it. I'm not too savvy on this whole business but is it common for kickstarters to offer demos of the game? From what I've seen, it's where the developer showcases everything he/she wants the game to be, not necessarily what it is in its current iteration.

Some good points.  I guess my point is that its not clear that providing something playable would not help the kickstarter's success.  If that is true, then it certainly must be considered as an option.

I also don't think kickstarter is really used for 'pitches'.  Atleast not when its a new or small game developer.  If Tynan was going to pitch the game as an idea, he would have done it a year ago.  Now, he is trying to sell the quality of the current game as proof-of-concept for something much better.  So whatever method shows the quality of the current iteration of the game is the one that should be used. 

[Jakadasnake]

Fundamentally, your last statement is where we disagree. I don't think he's trying to sell a pre-alpha game. He's more likely selling features that the kickstarters will make into possibilities.