We're in complete agreement. :-)


That's what I meant with "distribution plans" - that's why I compiled that list of questions I posted earlier. ;-)

I'm not sure that it actually indicates that they're open to a proper DRM-free release - many devs/ pubs (along with many gamers) don't seem to understand why someone would not want to use Steam and prefer a standalone DRM-free installer (you can't imagine how often I had this discussion via Kickstarter PMs).

What I find interesting is that they're so focused on getting on Steam, they don't even have an alternative plan for distribution - not a good sign, imho. Not sure how persuaded I'd be if they later came out and said something more promising about DRM-free.

That's a good point. I may be allowing my own optimism to colour the interpretation. It does sound like they are wed to Steam at this point, so very possibly they would never bother with a proper DRM-free release later. As a rule I don't fund any project that won't provide a DRM-free key initially as part of the offering, whether through Desura or Humble or direct download. Or GOG, in the best possible outcome. :)

That's the right strategy, though, if I'm not terribly mistaken, there have been campaigns that stated DRM-free, but after getting on Steam, backers had to fight to get a standalone DRM-free installer - what kind of support that version got, I have no idea.

I've looked into campaigns that were not clear about DRM-free and played inquisitor; one can tell by the way the project creators reply if they simply neglected to mention it, if they didn't think about it initially but are seriously considering and looking into it and whether they just play you to get you on board. - at least that was my experience.

For instance, I was interested in the The Banner Saga, but the exchange I had with the devs didn't convince me that they're serious about it, so I didn't back the game. Seeing how things went down after release, I still feel I made the right decision back then.

I can't recall which developer had said it, but he stated something similar to "Know what game you want to make, make a budget for that, and pitch that. Do not start cutting things out to make the goal shorter. If you do reach your goal, then think of what you can add to expand your game."
So let's take Worlds of Magic as an example. The goal was £30.000, and the stretch goals were a 7th faction at £35.000, 20 additional roaming creatures at £40.000, Mac and Linux versions at £45.000, along with an 8th faction, and 2 more factions at £50.000. All the factions were to be chosen by the community, which means that they already had the factions sketched, even if not planned. Would it have been better to set the goal at £50.000 at once, or go the way they went and cut out 4 factions, along with Mac and Linux versions, so they could have some stretch goals?

P.S. WoM also had a second kickstarter, for various reasons, and you can see the stretch goals for that kickstarter as well. Are those stretch goals cut content, or realistic project planning?

I think that's valid advice, and one has to decide in each case where they think that content has been withheld and is being parcelled out to drive up the funding, or whether it is truly extended content that would be nice to have but doesn't compromise the core game by its absence. An example of a project that I think did it right is The Universim - the core game and everything that was needed to make it full-featured was in the basic funding, and after that they went for fun expansions like cave people and space cows.

Does every project take a principled approach? Of course not. And I may be naive in believing some did. I am merely advocating that the developers should have a clear plan for what they must achieve, and how much that will cost, and then beyond it what they would like to add and what the expenses would be for those. I do not believe they should proceed in reverse, with "this is the game we want to make at the top tier", and then strip it down to meet lower funding goals. If the first goal won't fund the core of their vision, they don't need to be setting that low.

Yeap. So the stretch goals do need to be flexible, and if fully defined from the start, to be something that doesn't feel cut out. Having a few unknown stretch goals isn't bad, and the goals don't need to be game related after all. See Colin's apology for the Book of Elves ;)

Not something I have a problem with, and in fact a number of games I've backed have added interstitial tiers during the funding, for example to offer a new feature or bonus item. My complaint in this case is that that listing the numeric value of the stretch goals with just a bunch of question marks under them looks unprofessional. Better to either omit the milestone until such time as it is to be unveiled, or at least make it look intention with something like "Mystery Goal To Be Revealed!"

So it's not the practice I am decrying in this case, but the implementation thereof. :)

now that's a very interesting concept. Speaking of games and writing, another to watch is Story Teller, a completely different approach, though.

For anyone with an unfulfilled yearning for a 'musical Action Roguelike of epic proportions', Band Saga's Kickstarter ends in only 34 hours and is 95% of the way there: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rekcahdam/band-saga

Neat concept, and lovely artwork. Doesn't seem to be DRM-free, though. But a novel project, no pun intended. :)


Clever! Might give this one a backing. Thanks!

Yeah, I realized after I posted it that it seems to be Steam-only. It's a shame as it does look very interesting.

Battle Chef Brigade is just about $100 away from being funded, with 27 days to go, so maybe we'll be seeing some stretch goals added. :D

A puzzle/action side-scroller inspired by Flashback and Another World:
Black The Fall

I've written to ask them about DRM-free status. Looks like a groovy game. The playstyle may be in the Another World mold, but the graphics are very much of the more recent monochromatic games (Limbo, Naught, Contre Jour).