Video game crowdfund bubble bursts in 2016, video game Kickstarters down in revenue by 60% - Polidicks

I absolutely love the idea of crowdfunding, and quite a lot of my favorite games might never have been made if not for Kickstarter. Like FTL, Shovel Knight, Banner Saga etc. But it's nice that people are being careful with their money.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51787850]-snip-[/QUOTE] I do in fact own the game (wasn't a backer, got a game promo code). I keep up with the development to a reasonable degree but honestly I have a hard time seeing much of a game atm in star citizen itself. I download the current build every few months and try it out, but the game feels like a giant sandbox hipoly tech demo. Would be great to see it turn into something really interesting but personally I think the scope got a bit out of hand and they are going to have trouble delivering a cohesive product. Don't really know much about squadron 42 but I think something more narrative driven has potential to have a scope that is possible to realize and feel complete cover to cover. part of the issue for me is that the original pitch for the game was little more than technological masturbation, fancy graphics high poly etc. and an appeal to nostalgia (primarily with wing commander). This was stated right in the original kickstarter pitch video, and don't get me wrong we all enjoy graphics that push the envelope. But even back then it felt like the project didn't really propose a game or define much of the core mechanics beyond a hazy idea of spaceships/space dogfighting and trade. Hell, its been so long since the original pitch that the graphics everyone was ogling over in star citizen have become par for the course in AAA titles. The current game grew out of the massive amt of money they have continued to be able to raise for whatever reason, and they have gone more in the initial development direction of creating a massive online game as the shipping product. I know that the thing is that is what the intended end goal always was, but it always feels like things could have gone better if they shipped a more controlled experience first and then worried about expanding on that foundation. I'd like to see the finished squadron 42 at least and they were saying this year, no idea when star citizen will be a complete product. Seems like there is way too much left to do for it to be in shipping state anytime in the next few years.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51787850] [B]TL;DR huge ambitious projects like SC take time, but the devs' periodic fuckups haven't helped them[/B][/QUOTE] If there's one thing that Kickstarter flops have created that bugs me, it's a very hostile and suspicious attitude towards delays or extended development cycles, which is an issue when stretch goal bloats your development time on even less ambitious titles. Ever since MN9 in particular people look at a shifted release date as the first sign of a troubled development whether it warrants it or not.

i'm still glad i backed the pathologic remake if only for the kickstarter updates, they're the most well written dev updates for a video game i have ever read

Kickstarter has been responsible for many great indie titles like Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, Dvinity, Darkest Dungeon, Pillars, Superhot, Bannersaga, Grim Dawn, and Rimworld. So while it squeezes out mostly turds, I'm glad its around.

I always see hate on SC for taking so long, but it is far from the average completion date of an mmo. Iirc wow for example took 7(?) years. Edit Four years, still on time though!

[QUOTE=nintenman1;51788104]-snip for length-[/QUOTE] Okay, so this attitude is actually fairly reasonable, because, yeah, when the Kickstarter happened, a specific goal was pitched, and that's what a lot of people went for. And then the money started pouring in like crazy and they had literally no justification for not expanding to encompass all the things they wanted to do but didn't expect to afford with a $6 million budget (but could easily justify after taking in, say, $30 million). The devs also held polls on their site and an overwhelming majority of backers agreed to expand the scope of the project (with corresponding extensions to the timeline) on the basis of go big or go home. The minority of backers who [I]didn't[/I] want this could only choose between getting a refund and bailing or holding their nose and letting themselves get taken along for the ride. This is a legitimate complaint. Unfortunately, it's a mutually exclusive situation, so unless you feel strongly enough to get a refund you'll kind of have to go along for the ride and accept the delays. On the other hand, you are getting so much more game for your pledge with no additional cost, because it [I]isn't[/I] the Freelancer clone but shinier that it originally would have been. However, I want to touch on two particular parts of your comment: [QUOTE=nintenman1;51788104]part of the issue for me is that the original pitch for the game was little more than technological masturbation, fancy graphics high poly etc. ... But even back then it felt like the project didn't really propose a game or define much of the core mechanics beyond a hazy idea of spaceships/space dogfighting and trade.[/QUOTE] Considering part of the reason they were going the crowdfunding route was to give their community the opportunity to help shape the game, I think it's not too surprising that they didn't have detailed-to-the-last-database-call plans for designs on the various aspects of the game. I don't think Borderlands' random guns system and sidequest-full mostly linear gameplay flow was firmly locked down when it began development, either. Much the same with many games. Prototyping is king in that regard, because there's nothing worse than sticking to a design even though it turns out to be shit. All in all I think it's fairly reasonable that they didn't have everything hard planned out, but I think it's also fair criticism that SC was definitely dreams and concept art for the first year and some. The forum was rife with theorycrafting and drama from arguments caused by duelling theorycrafters. Also, shiny graphics and not much in the way of fully-developed plans for all the gameplay details, that's fairly standard for a concept pitch. You don't have the money yet, why design everything down to the last detail before you even know if it's happening? [QUOTE=nintenman1;51788104]I know that the thing is that is what the intended end goal always was, but it always feels like things could have gone better if they shipped a more controlled experience first and then worried about expanding on that foundation.[/QUOTE] Look to Elite Dangerous, because that's exactly what it did. Its Kickstarter was right after Star Citizen's ended, it officially launched two years afterwards, and two years after that it is still [I]mostly[/I] a mile wide and an inch deep. It is just as unfinished as Star Citizen is, but it went for getting together the bare minimum concept and polishing it until it ran nice and fast (with killer sound design) and shipping this hollow shell with the idea of bolting parts on as they go. It'd be unfair of me to shit on Frontier while giving Cloud Imperium a pass on taking time to finish the game so don't take this as knocking FD, it's just the facts. Some people like Elite for what it is and I'm totally cool with that, I hope they get tons of enjoyment out of it -- because I don't. It's a handful of gameplay mechanics that are mostly siloed away from each other with very little connecting them together, even two years after release. This is the consequence of the "build the basics, ship it, and add the rest later" methodology that Frontier chose. The Horizons expansion, which was supposed to be complete in one year, is at least five months overdue, and only starting in the imminent 2.3 patch will players be able to share mission rewards for teaming up, two years after this always-online game launched and then added the ability to group up together in a post-launch update. Star Citizen's approach is instead to build up the foundations all at once instead of focusing on one at a time and hoping to bolt stuff on the fly with the live economy, and I personally believe it's better than the situation Elite has created for itself. It must be acknowledged that ED did not raise the insane amount of cash SC did, so David Braben probably didn't have the luxury of being able to take a "when it's done" attitude to start with. [QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;51788163]I always see hate on SC for taking so long, but it is far from the average completion date of an mmo. Iirc wow for example took 7(?) years. Edit Four years, still on time though![/QUOTE] People also neglect the fact that there wasn't a studio with 300 developers at their fully-kitted-out workstations, bored and waiting for tasks, when the SC crowdfunding drive ended. The company headcount was about 8 and so their first order of business was to basically start hiring people and finding a suitably large office space. Developers were certainly put to work as they were hired and familiarized with the tools, but this ramping up wasn't instant and it can be argued that they didn't really hit full speed until the beginning of 2014 with the opening of Foundry 42 in the UK, when their headcount increased by a lot and they still didn't stop hiring. It's actually kind of impressive how much [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFSnSuV9jz8"]they've accomplished in that time,[/URL] really.

I'm glad we got some good games out of kickstarters though. Chiefly Wasteland2.

The good ones will still get funded, it's just people are refusing to fund projects that have a dubious chance of being completed.

I'm scared to even touch this topic, but this is something I've been talking about for years, how the lack of liability and oversight in most crowdfunded projects was going to kill the whole system. Don't blame the fans for it, they're the ones who take all the risk. The problem is of course, how easy it is for the common person (compared to an entrepreneur) to overcommit, putting $1k in a project would seem like a really low figure as far as investments go, but you gotta remember that the average person who is doing that is 20 something, working their first job, and probably several thousand dollars in debt already due to college, mortgage, loans, and so forth. Losing that investment, even if it's low, can be devastating to that demographic, and the sometimes predatory practices these projects use, leads to huge disappointments and outrage whenever a Kickstarter goes under. This is made even worse by the idea that their "pledge" is more of a donation rather than a loan and thus the creator of the crowdfunded project has zero liability and can just disappear with all of the money whenever they want, whoever tells you that this is how any investment works is lying. To fix the system, you need better oversight, you need some form of regulation, you need more transparency. You need to provide people with more financial information so that they're able to make more informed decisions, it's not going to make Kickstarter foolproof, but at the very least it'll make funds stop suddenly evaporating like they often do.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51788528]The problem is of course, how easy it is for the common person (compared to an entrepreneur) to overcommit, putting $1k in a project would seem like a really low figure as far as investments go, but you gotta remember that the average person who is doing that is 20 something, working their first job, and probably several thousand dollars in debt already due to college, mortgage, loans, and so forth.[/QUOTE] Just gonna say that if you're young, working your first job, thousands of dollars in debt due to student loans/etc., and you somehow manage to convince yourself that the best thing to do with $1,000 in cash that somehow landed in your hands is to throw it at a video game Kickstarter instead of paying down your debts or covering essential needs, the problem is not with the crowdfunding project unless they actually coerced or tricked you into pledging. Also if you think you're "investing" in a Kickstarter you're already on the wrong track. That money isn't coming back unless you qualify for and obtain a refund on your pledge. Something like fig is an actual investment platform, and at least conceivably can deliver its investors a return. Your average Kickstarter has absolutely no pretenses about paying you back unless the project fails and there's still enough money left to issue refunds. There've definitely been scams/fishy business like Ant Simulator, but if someone with a very fragile financial situation thinks nothing of being fiscally irresponsible to the tune of four figures, that money was going to get worked out of them one way or another, it just happened to go to a Kickstarter this time instead of some other pointless frivolty. [QUOTE=Big Bang;51788528][B]This is made even worse by the idea that their "pledge" is more of a donation rather than a loan[/B] and thus the creator of the crowdfunded project has zero liability and can just disappear with all of the money whenever they want, whoever tells you that this is how any investment works is lying.[/QUOTE] Except it [I]is[/I] a donation and not a loan or an investment. That being said, Kickstarter's TOS also has verbiage intended to protect the backer and is [I]not[/I] supposed to allow the creator of the project to have "zero" liability. If they had zero liability [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/06/11/the-ftcs-first-crowdfunding-enforcement-is-over-a-failed-board-game-on-kickstarter/"]the FTC wouldn't ripped the fuck up out of the "The Doom That Came To Atlantic City" guy who did run away with the cash.[/URL] That isn't how investments work, but I still think you have a distorted idea of how crowdfunding works, because crowdfunding and investing are not automatically the same thing. Some crowdfunding efforts like Fig may be investments, but not all of them are.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51788528]The problem is of course, how easy it is for the common person (compared to an entrepreneur) to overcommit, putting $1k in a project would seem like a really low figure as far as investments go, but you gotta remember that the average person who is doing that is 20 something, working their first job, and probably several thousand dollars in debt already due to college, mortgage, loans, and so forth.[/QUOTE] If someone donates 1k to a Kickstarter that fails while they're in debt because of the aforementioned, what makes you think I should sympathize with this person?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51788549]Just gonna say that if you're young, working your first job, thousands of dollars in debt due to student loans/etc., and you somehow manage to convince yourself that the best thing to do with $1,000 in cash that somehow landed in your hands is to throw it at a video game Kickstarter instead of paying down your debts or covering essential needs, the problem is not with the crowdfunding project.[/QUOTE] That's the demographic that is putting money in these. It's very similar to the average "hardcore" gamer demographic, which has been consistently getting older through the years, and thus it is not really much of a coincidence that most projects involve videogames. [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;51788556]If someone donates 1k to a Kickstarter that fails while they're in debt because of the aforementioned, what makes you think I should sympathize with this person?[/QUOTE] Without them you likely won't have much of a platform. There's many, many reasons why someone would be motivated to overcommit financially, it doesn't have to do with them being bad with their money, paradoxically it can be caused by people wanting to [I]not[/I] lose their investment by throwing more money at them when the project creators say they're running through difficulties. I'd say the gamer demographic in general seems to be pretty bad with how they spend their money, but that would be a complete conjecture based just on what I perceive. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51788549]Also if you think you're "investing" in a Kickstarter you're already on the wrong track. That money isn't coming back unless you qualify for and obtain a refund on your pledge.[/QUOTE] This is a ridiculous perception that is expecting a project to [I]not[/I] fail. The reason why the money isn't coming back is not because it doesn't suit the idea of an investment, it's got to do with how Kickstarter deliberately washes their hands off that to avoid having any liability for when a project goes under. The end result is that, ultimately, nobody has any real liability, which is exactly what is driving people away.

[QUOTE=Chamango;51788073]Their announcement video is pretty funny in retrospect, wish they didn't disable comments. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIod3ZUBpys[/media][/QUOTE] In retrospect people shouldn't have been surprised that a pair of youtubers who couldn't even be bothered to finish the video series that made them famous might not be prepared to take on the burden of finishing a full game project.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51788564]That's the demographic that is putting money in these. It's very similar to the average "hardcore" gamer demographic, which has been consistently getting older through the years, and thus it is not really much of a coincidence that most projects involve videogames.[/QUOTE] Got any evidence for that? [QUOTE=Big Bang;51788564]This is a ridiculous perception that is expecting a project to [I]not[/I] fail. The reason why the money isn't coming back is not because it doesn't suit the idea of an investment[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kickstarter FAQ][B]Why do people back projects?[/B] Many backers are rallying around their friends' projects. Some are supporting a new effort from someone they've long admired. Some are just inspired by a new idea, while others are motivated to pledge by a project's rewards — a copy of what's being produced, a limited edition, or a custom experience related to the project. Backing a project is more than just pledging funds to a creator. It's pledging your support to a creative idea that you want to see exist in the world. [B]What do backers get in return?[/B] Backers that support a project on Kickstarter get an inside look at the creative process, and help that project come to life. They also get to choose from a variety of unique rewards offered by the project creator. Rewards vary from project to project, but often include a copy of what is being produced (CD, DVD, book, etc.) or an experience unique to the project. Project creators keep 100% ownership of their work, and Kickstarter cannot be used to offer equity, financial returns, or to solicit loans.[/QUOTE] No, I'm pretty sure Kickstarter is not intended to be an investment platform. Especially because that brings in a fuckton of laws. [QUOTE][B]Kickstarter Basics: Accountability[/B] [B]Who is responsible for completing a project as promised?[/B] It's the project creator's responsibility to complete their project. Kickstarter is not involved in the development of the projects themselves. Kickstarter does not guarantee projects or investigate a creator's ability to complete their project. On Kickstarter, backers (you!) ultimately decide the validity and worthiness of a project by whether they decide to fund it. [B]How do backers know if a project will follow through?[/B] Launching a Kickstarter is a very public act, and creators put their reputations at risk when they do. Backers should look for creators who share a clear plan for how their project will be completed, and who have a history of bringing their creative ventures and other projects to fruition. Creators are encouraged to share links and as much background information as possible so backers can make informed decisions about the projects they support. If a creator has no demonstrable experience in doing something like their project or doesn't share key information, backers should take that into consideration. Does the creator include links to any websites that show work related to the project, or past projects? Does the creator appear in the video? Have they connected via Facebook? Don't hesitate to request information from a creator. You can always reach out before pledging via the "Contact me" button on the project page.[/QUOTE] Now, I will agree with you on one factor, and that's that Kickstarter does not want to have any liability for projects that fail, but that's because Kickstarter isn't performing any detailed evaluation or endorsement of the projects. It's safe harbour for them, in the same way that Gmail does not want to be liable for someone's email containing hate speech or whatever. But at the same time, it's your money, if you threw it at something without researching anything, whose fault is it? [sp]not Kickstarter[/sp] I'm all for protecting the consumer from scams, but [I]caveat emptor[/I], at some point personal responsibility HAS to be engaged.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51788583]Got any evidence for that?[/QUOTE] Sure. [quote]Men make up a majority of the crowdfunding backers, representing 64% of the backer pool, while women represent 36%.[/quote] [quote]A majority of millennials are still in the entry-level stage of their careers, which is why it makes sense that 53% of crowdfunders make less than $50,000 a year[/quote] [url]http://artofthekickstart.com/crowdfunding-demographics-kickstarter-project-statistics/[/url] Consistent with the gamer demographic, which may have shifted a bit over the years but considering the current economic climate I doubt it's significant. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51788583]No, I'm pretty sure Kickstarter is not intended to be an investment platform. Especially because that brings in a fuckton of laws.[/QUOTE] At this point, I think we need legislation. It's become abundantly clear. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51788583]Now, I will agree with you on one factor, and that's that Kickstarter does not want to have any liability for projects that fail, but that's because Kickstarter isn't performing any detailed evaluation or endorsement of the projects. It's safe harbour for them, in the same way that Gmail does not want to be liable for someone's email containing hate speech or whatever. But at the same time, it's your money, if you threw it at something without researching anything, whose fault is it? [sp]not Kickstarter[/sp] I'm all for protecting the consumer from scams, but [I]caveat emptor[/I], at some point personal responsibility HAS to be engaged.[/QUOTE] Ah, the libertarian maxim. Sorry, I don't come from that school of thought, I don't think consumers are responsible for the mismanagement of money they've entrusted to a legitimate entity, and I believe the project owner should hold a degree of financial responsibility they currently don't have at all, except for the one or two cases of successful litigation or intervention by a government agency into a crowdfunded project. Gmail does collaborate with government agencies to provide information of delinquent activities, though. Service providers are ultimately not free of responsibility.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51788576]In retrospect people shouldn't have been surprised that a pair of youtubers who couldn't even be bothered to finish the video series that made them famous might not be prepared to take on the burden of finishing a full game project.[/QUOTE] They weren't even the ones developing the game, it was a studio made up of ambitious but new to the industry people. The Yogscast royally fucked up and promised way too much but the studio developing the game agreed to far more than they ever should have.

[QUOTE=Anderan;51788625]They weren't even the ones developing the game, it was a studio made up of ambitious but new to the industry people. The Yogscast royally fucked up and promised way too much but the studio developing the game agreed to far more than they ever should have.[/QUOTE] It's amazing how both the Yogscast and Winterkewl Games managed to completely absolve themselves of any responsibility. Winterkewl Games managed to avoid having to declare insolvency, and the Yogscast themselves said "we're under no obligation to do anything" and meant it.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51788619]Sure. [url]http://artofthekickstart.com/crowdfunding-demographics-kickstarter-project-statistics/[/url] Consistent with the gamer demographic, which may have shifted a bit over the years but considering the current economic climate I doubt it's significant.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Now do you have evidence that they're very commonly chucking in a grand they can't afford? And why should their fiscal recklessness be coddled? [QUOTE=Big Bang;51788619]Ah, the libertarian maxim. Sorry, I don't come from that school of thought, I don't think consumers are responsible for the mismanagement of money they've entrusted to a legitimate entity, and I believe the project owner should hold a degree of financial responsibility they currently don't have at all, except for the one or two cases of successful litigation or intervention by a government agency into a crowdfunded project.[/QUOTE] Okay, now hold up. There are two different arguments in play here. One is that crowdfunding projects should be held to more rigid rules of accountability. I don't agree with your position but I accept that there is an argument to be made here. The second argument is the fiscally-reckless backer who overcommits. I'm still waiting for you to give a solid and rational explanation of why I deserve pity and coddling and increased consumer protections if I'm dumb enough to take a thousand dollars I can't afford to spend on non-essentials and I spend it on a video game Kickstarter. Unless there's criminal coercion or demonstrable misrepresentation by the project (and that [I]should[/I] be punished), why do I need special protections against being dumb with my money? I can't just go to a casino, blow a grand, and then ask for it back because I was foolish. This is what I'm talking about when I say that personal responsibility needs to be a factor in crowdfunding. If I can't afford to spend money on vidya, but I spend money on vidya, is vidya at fault, or am I just stupid with money?

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51788528]I'm scared to even touch this topic, but this is something I've been talking about for years, how the lack of liability and oversight in most crowdfunded projects was going to kill the whole system. Don't blame the fans for it, they're the ones who take all the risk. The problem is of course, how easy it is for the common person (compared to an entrepreneur) to overcommit, putting $1k in a project would seem like a really low figure as far as investments go, but you gotta remember that the average person who is doing that is 20 something, working their first job, and probably several thousand dollars in debt already due to college, mortgage, loans, and so forth. Losing that investment, even if it's low, can be devastating to that demographic, and the sometimes predatory practices these projects use, leads to huge disappointments and outrage whenever a Kickstarter goes under. This is made even worse by the idea that their "pledge" is more of a donation rather than a loan and thus the creator of the crowdfunded project has zero liability and can just disappear with all of the money whenever they want, whoever tells you that this is how any investment works is lying. To fix the system, you need better oversight, you need some form of regulation, you need more transparency. You need to provide people with more financial information so that they're able to make more informed decisions, it's not going to make Kickstarter foolproof, but at the very least it'll make funds stop suddenly evaporating like they often do.[/QUOTE] I think we're at least a year or two past the threshold for crowdfunding as a system for breaking and dying off. Because people have been saying this for ages and we're still going. If there was going to be a massive failure that permanently sours people on crowdfunding it would have happened by now, and we've weathered many high-profile bombs.

This news doesn't surprise me too much for pretty much all the aformentioned reasons. I've been almost exclusively using Kickstarter for board games over the past couple of years, video games just take so much longer to develop that by the time they deliver I tend to have lost interest in them altogether. Meanwhile, the board games I back tend to arrive in a few months, they're generally ready for manufacturing at the time of the campaign and the funding is just being used to pay for that. I'm still waiting for video game projects I backed in 2014 and 2015 whereas the longest ago I backed an unfulfilled board game was September 2016 (shipping happening as we speak on that one). I dunno, backing digital games just feels like its less likely to pay off for me. I'm still waiting on 4-5 video game projects that, while still in active development, I've completely lost interest in owning over the years.

Next thing we need is for people to learn to stop spending money on Patreon of people that don't produce content.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;51788718]Next thing we need is for people to learn to stop spending money on Patreon of people that don't produce content.[/QUOTE] That's why Patreon has a mode where you charge per video uploaded.

I don't think it helps that there are people like me who don't particularly have anything against crowdfunding itself, but still refuse to spend money on it. Money is hard enough to get these days that a lot of people like me don't wanna spend money on a maybe and would rather wait for the actual product to be released. It's similar to the 'don't preorder games' mindset; why preorder when I can wait for it to come out and THEN see if it's for me?

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51788768]I don't think it helps that there are people like me who don't particularly have anything against crowdfunding itself, but still refuse to spend money on it. Money is hard enough to get these days that a lot of people like me don't wanna spend money on a maybe and would rather wait for the actual product to be released. It's similar to the 'don't preorder games' mindset; why preorder when I can wait for it to come out and THEN see if it's for me?[/QUOTE] Ultimately that's what crowdfunding projects have to overcome with their sales pitch. Until they at least meet their funding goal, they [I]need[/I] to convince you to part with your money to allow them to survive and (at least try to) happen. [t]http://www.spacesector.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/star_citizen_screenshot4_large.jpg[/t] Sometimes it works. [t]http://woventhegame.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/WebsiteBanner_logos2.jpg[/t] Sometimes it doesn't.

I was under the impression the bubble burst in 2014 for investments?

well, because KS isn't the only one nor first one nor the best one ... quite some developers realized they can do it self w/o any KS by going directly EA / crowdfund others decided for mix system like e.g. FIG which has several successful major titles like Wasteland 3 [url]https://www.fig.co/campaigns/wasteland-3[/url] now also Pillars of Ethernity 2 [url]https://www.fig.co/campaigns/deadfire[/url] and some smaller titles including Psychonauts 2 and Consortium: The Tower ... so it's not that tragic, it just shows that KS has stagnated and failing to attract new developers

This may get a whole lot worse. IGN recently released 13 minutes of footage of Yooka Laylee, and it's not looking great [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc6tV3b2GEo[/media] The general consensus in the comments is it just seems empty. [quote] Graphics look nice but there is something off about them. I think it might be the top-heavy design of Yooka. The music is a bit weak and the sound effects are really annoying (more than in Banjo) The levels look far too big as well. Looks like they might not have learned their lesson from Tooie or DK64...•[/quote] [quote] God I hope this is a beta, it looks so empty and unfinished.•[/quote] [quote]Banjo-Kazooie is one of my favorite games of all-time, but this footage does not look good. Gregg Mayles' lack of involvement is starting to show, thanks to the bland, barren level design. I don't understand why everything is so dark. The casino level should be the most colorful area in the entire game, yet this looks like a Call of Duty map. There is almost nothing organic or cohesive about this level design. Slot machines are haphazardly placed around the casino for seemingly no reason. Compare this to a level like Grunty Industries from Banjo-Tooie—where every room is intricately designed and has a sense of purpose and place.•[/quote] [quote] This level seems a bit uninspired honestly. Looks really bare and bit boring, but I really hope the overall game kills it.•[/quote] Seems like people are hopeful, but are realizing it may not be that great. If Yooka Laylee comes out and the entire game is like this, it'll be another nail in the coffin for Kickstarted video games. I think it might be even worse if it comes out as mediocre rather than a complete disaster as complete disasters usually turn into circlejerks and memes and people don't actually think about them later.

[QUOTE=Pw0nageXD;51789790]This may get a whole lot worse. IGN recently released 13 minutes of footage of Yooka Laylee, and it's not looking great [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc6tV3b2GEo[/media] The general consensus in the comments is it just seems empty. Seems like people are hopeful, but are realizing it may not be that great. If Yooka Laylee comes out and the entire game is like this, it'll be another nail in the coffin for Kickstarted video games. I think it might be even worse if it comes out as mediocre rather than a complete disaster as complete disasters usually turn into circlejerks and memes and people don't actually think about them later.[/QUOTE] i saw that the other day and it certainly stood out to me as concerning. why even include a level like that if it serves nothing but to drag down the overall look and style of the rest of the game? Level is way too open and barren, reminds me of a badly done custom map in tf2 with random props strewn all over. yooka laylee while i wasnt fanboying over it from early on like many were did seem reasonably promising. Honestly though i think a lot of this has been caused by the pent up desire to cash out on nostalgia from the 90s, and we've seen a number of good iso games come out (pillars of eternity etc if you're into that). Yooka laylee was pitched on the idea of rebottling rare magic from many people's childhood. Yes its a lot of people who were highly involved in the original BK games, but im not entirely sold that its always possible to put smoke back into the bottle. Sometimes games end up existing as a product of the time, and i dont think going out of your way to explicitly recreate a certain game is the best approach to take. It could just be that this project didnt really have the funding it needed, or that the concept was really oversold from the beginning and stuck a bit too close to being a banjo clone, and not addressing some of the pitfalls of the games. I'll catiously await reviews before buying on gog, but i hope once we see the whole picture things brighten up a bit because yooka laylee is one of the last big in progress kickstarters from the prev years that is wrapping up.

How close to release is it? That doesn't look bad for a heavy work in progress, it's missing a lot of stuff but it's all stuff that's easy to add. Level design might be more problematic... it looks far too spacious, which might be harder to solve.