Comments on: Gambitious

By: QuintLyn Bowers

QuintLyn Bowers — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:20:00 +0000

EXACTLY! Personally. I’m more comfortable with Kickstarter. I don’t want to be a publisher and have no desire to look at this as an investment where the developers “owe me” anything other than the game and a few trinkets if/when the work is finished. I just want to see the games made that I’d like to play.

But I’ve also become a bigger fan of indie games than mainstream the last few years… With a few exceptions. There are still some beautiful mainstream games being made.

But yeah… If I start thinking of the money I give to these as an investment, then I’ll spend time worrying about whether I made the right decision, if I should have invested in a different game that would make more money. Etc.

With Kickstarter, I have the option on giving what I feel like. Even just a buck. Which means I can spread the love around and not fret about it

By: Ryan Brown

Ryan Brown — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:22:00 +0000

The biggest difference between Kickstarter and Gambitious from a gamer’s perspective is the kinds of games that would be successful on each platform. One of the best things about Kickstarter is that it allows developers to simply ask for 16 months of salary upfront to make a game that ought to be made on the basis of its artistic merits. If it doesn’t sell a single unit after launch, and the only money the project generated went into salary and overhead, well, who cares? It constitutes a complete departure from the traditional model of publisher and developer, and allows developers to create projects that are guaranteed to generate enough money to keep them fed for another year without being forced to make artistic compromises for the sake of marketability. This makes Kickstarter the perfect place for pure artistic projects, rather than the Hollywood blockbuster style of game that has been flooding the market for the last forever and a half years.
Gambitious, however, does not completely depart from the publisher and developer model. It creates a publisher from a large group of unrelated individuals. One hopes that this would make for a better kind of publisher, since it would more closely resemble the consumers of the product. However, it is still a publisher. Unlike Kickstarter, the money will not be given to the publisher for the sake if paying their salaries while they make a game. It will be given for the sake of generating maximum sales after launch. If a Gambitious developer makes a decision that sacrifices marketability for the sake of artistic integrity, it is betraying the shareholders. The only appropriate kind of game for the Gambitious platform, therefore, is the Hollywood blockbuster style of game that has been flooding the market for the last forever and a half years.

By: QuintLyn Bowers

QuintLyn Bowers — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:22:00 +0000

Well.. I’m not sure which would be better for the devs. I read an update someone did regarding their game and OMG, the amount of money that went into the donation perks alone. Apparently posters and stuff aren’t cheap.

By: Sharuko

Sharuko — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 00:16:00 +0000

QuintLyn what have you done, you are going to make me spend more of my money. I actually like this idea way better than Kickstarter since investors can benefit if the game does well. But I am going to assume developers would prefer using Kickstarter.

But it seems like for Kickstarter the developer would have motivation to want the game to succeed because they get to keep the profits if the game does well. But with Gambitious the developers won’t have as much motivation because they won’t keep all the profits.

By: Tom Miller

Tom Miller — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 00:08:00 +0000

This is an AWESOME idea.

Something like this is done by Daniel Gilbert in Detroit called “Bizdom”.
Very good idea.