Forgot password?  |  Register  |    
User Name:     Password:    
Editorial   

Publishers: A Necessary Evil

A recent update from Double Fine gets Jesse thinking that maybe publishers aren't completely useless after all.

It’s been a little over a year since Kickstarter kicked down the door of the video game industry and introduced itself.  Double Fine’s then untitled adventure game utilized the crowd funding site to finance a game in a genre that most have presumed dead, or at least mostly dead (which means a little alive), for quite some time now.  No reasonable publisher would hand money over to a studio not known to be especially financially successful, for an unproven IP in a genre that some younger gamers may not even know exists – and it’s hard to blame them.

The rest is history, and Double Fine Adventure went on to bring in a metric ton of money from a group of gamers that included Double Fine fans, adventure game fans, and those just interested to see if this experiment in funding could even work.

Double Fine Adventure, like so many others, was the first in a series of projects I backed on Kickstarter.  It was hard not getting excited about the premise of games being made that most publishers would typically pass on.  I've backed Wasteland 2, The Banner Saga, Diamond Trust of London, Shadowrun Returns, Torment, and Shovel Knight.  Of those projects, Diamond Trust of London is the only one to be completed, though Shadowrun Returns is nearing release as well. 

Tim Schafer and company’s initial goal for the project was a modest $400,000.  They instead brought in over $3 million.  Most would see that as indicative of being a great success, but now that time has passed and the project has been delayed numerous times, something else has become apparent.  Could it be possible that publishers, for all the ill will we as the gamer collectively hold for them, aren't completely superfluous after all?

The difference in what Double Fine asked for and what they received was a tidy sum of $2.9 million.  This is by no means a lot of money in development dollars, but to the everyman – the backer – it’s quite the pile of bones.  But even with this money, Double Fine has never ceased to ask for more from the community. 

It’s hard to quantify how much has actually gone into this game outside of the initial funding (and even that amount is questionable since backer rewards and Kickstarter’s cut come out of those monies).  Double Fine has set up a tip jar for folks to donate to development, has set up a “slacker backer” donation program, participated in a Humble Bundle, and most recently, has elected to participate in Steam’s “Early Access” program, which will deliver the first half of the game in January of next year.

All of this has been done to secure funding beyond their initial budget of $400,000.  It is understandable that as budgets grow, so does the scope of the game, but there comes a time when something has to give.  We all want Double Fine to make the adventure game they want to, but they also need to exercise more financial responsibility than they have up to this point.

It’s at this point that it becomes clearer how important the role of a publisher actually is.  As backers to a Kickstarter project we may have some small amount of input regarding how the game is designed, but this input does not come with any actual authority.  The recipient of monies received via Kickstarter is not beholden to those backers.  They are not held to deadlines, quality standards, or budgets.  We’d like to think that as backers we are essentially the publisher, but this quite simply isn't true.

A publisher “backs” a game by funding it, but this funding is usually fixed, and comes with goalposts to incentivize efficient development.  If a developer wants to get that publisher money, they better stay within their allotted budget and hit goals by a certain date.  You’d be absolutely right in saying that this can result in a poorer quality product than the developer would like to deliver, but the game will get released on time.

Double Fine’s handling of this project has not been all that great.  They've missed deadlines, have gone way over budget and we still have no idea when to expect a finished product.  It’s only because of Tim Schafer’s general likeability and our optimistic hope that our money hasn't been wasted or underutilized that we aren't hopping mad about this.  It’s a double standard to be sure.  If EA or Activision took our money and didn't deliver a product on time – instead asking for more money while pushing delivery dates back – we’d be pissed.  We’d be calling for heads to roll.  We may even vote them the worst company in America.

Oh right, that happened anyway.

The point I am making is not that publishers aren't just suits looking to make a quick buck, even if it comes at a cost to a developer.  It’s that there is a reason we have them in the first place.  We need them to fund the games that are just too damn costly for us to back on a forum like Kickstarter.  We need them to keep developer aspirations in check – those dreams and wants are fantastic, but they’re often expensive and superfluous. 

Most importantly, we need them to help produce games without asking us for money up front before development can even begin.  We need them to not make overly optimistic promises to us as customers, and we need them to deliver.  Period.


 

Comments

Justin Matkowski Staff Alumnus

07/08/2013 at 04:04 PM

Very well said, Jesse. While certain publishers have certainly made themselves out to be asses, I don't believe it to be worth condemning them as a whole; I think better business practice, and us voting on that with our dollars, is the wiser route - imagine how many titles wouldn't get made without publishers. Because of the voice given to gamer's via the internet, which changes policies and business models (Microsoft would attest to this), I think we can hold publishers and developers alike to a higher standard, and that would prove more positive for everyone rather than a call to remove publishers from the equation altogether.

Matt Snee Staff Writer

07/08/2013 at 05:22 PM

I think our system now of big publishers making AAA games and indies making small games is good.  I just wish there was more of a middle-ground, with more medium sized games getting made.  I think this is true for the PC, where you don't have the cost of retail release.  But I think a situation where you have everything from huge corporations to medium sized companies to small indie groups making games is ideal.

SanAndreas

07/09/2013 at 02:29 AM

This all the way. My favorite games this generation, with few exceptions have come from neither the bloated excesses of EA, Activision, or Ubisoft, nor from low-budget indies, but from the middle class of games that seems to be narrowing as the industry polarizes towards the two extremes.

Michael117

07/08/2013 at 05:43 PM

Well said J-Bone. I don't have a problem with publishers, I just have problems with any particular people in any company big or small that have the wrong ideas about how to make games or do good business. There's a lot of bad news and bad stories developers can tell you about publishers, but there's also a ton of good stories people can tell, those stories just aren't as catchy. Publishers can help focus a team, instill an air of discipline and professionalism in an environment that can ultimately lead to happy employees, better games, and a development studio that survives past its first game. It all just depends on the policies and attitude of all the people involved.

It's not as simple as it sounds obviously, but the perfect recipe for making a game and being in a good environment requires you to blend all the skills of the two sides of the brain. You need left brain and right brain people to make it all work well. I don't want to work at a place where games are all charts and cold hard bullet points, but I also don't want to work at a place where people just run around all day spinning high minded concepts, sitting around the drum circle, and prophesizing how they're going to save the world through games. It can't just be g-men in suits or hippie artistes. You need diverse people that are all capable of settling into a solid middle ground where all the different minds can converge, share ideas, debate, decide on things, and then actually get the work done. Sometimes the best place to learn that kind of cohesiveness, discipline, and work ethic is from a good publisher.

Depends on the individual people because sometimes things can go horribly wrong and people end up hating certain people at publishers and how they've been treated by them.

gigantor21

07/08/2013 at 07:17 PM

One of the first things I wondered once Kickstarter became a thing was "how are people going to react when things go wrong?" You see plenty of delays, bugs and other problems in both indie titles and big publisher-backed efforts. What would be the reaction when issues came up that weren't related to fraud or foul play, but development itself?

As Jesse pointed out, for all the declarations of "BLARG FRAUDSTARTER" over DFA, the reaction would've been MUCH worse had it not been a Tim Schafer-backed project. He's built up lots of good will. That rep was also a key reason for the success of both of their Kickstarters to being with.

But this episode is revealing the underlying tension in the Kickstarter idea. People can donate thousands of dollars, but they aren't really investors and devs aren't as accountable to them. It's more a gamble than an investment IMO. Backing projects projects an image of ownership greater than the reality, which can only result in a sense of betrayal and disappointment when things go wrong. That's especially true here, seeing as devs are still figuring out how to manage time and costs without being accountable to publishers.

I have no shortage of problems with big publishing houses (just look at my blog, LOL). But the fact is, they not only provide backing for projects no Kickstarter will ever big big enough to fund, but provide accountability and structure that devs can need sometimes. When the latter isn't there, you see plenty of problems even in big publisher projects. Just look at Final Fantasy XV and The Last Guardian.

While there have been several projects I've wanted to back, I haven't pulled the trigger because the whole thing seems Mad Max right now. I'll wait for things to mature before I put money down.

Pacario

07/09/2013 at 08:24 AM

It would be nice if there was a version of Kickstarter, or a similar crowdfunding service, that actually did make the contributors true investors/partners in the game's development. Not sure how it would work, exactly, but the company would thus be held more accountable, and the thrill of actually receiving returns off the game's success would be satisfying. (The guaranteed name in the credits would also be cool.)

KnightDriver

07/08/2013 at 07:08 PM

I guess there are dangers in either model. Creatives, funded by the public through Kickstarter, letting their dreams get ahead of resources and a reasonable time frame, or publishers limitting developers to a formula that worked before and setting up unrealistically fast development cycles. Maybe there's some fusion of a Kickstarter and Publisher funded project that might work?

Pacario

07/09/2013 at 08:20 AM

I've experienced similar issues with a few games I've helped fund--iOS's Republique, for instance, has been delayed already, and judging from the team's updates, I really wonder whether it'll live up to the early previews showed over a year ago.

Double Fine's problem reminds me much of the poor stooge who wins the lottery, thus becoming incredibly wealthy, but then somehow squanders all that money just a few years later. Mr. Schafer bit off more than he could chew, obviously, but if it all turns out to be a train wreck, at least it'll serve as cautionary tale to some, and a perverse spectacle to others.

transmet2033

07/09/2013 at 11:29 AM

I back projects, and then sit and wait cautiously optimistic.  I have always been a little worried that this situation would happen with one of the handful of projects that I have backed.  Most of them have been pushed back, but that problem does not bother me one bit.  

Log in to your PixlBit account in the bar above or join the site to leave a comment.