Wasteland 3 now on Fig ready to be funded, nearly hit the goal already

Quoting: killyouThey've released ~14 games so far and they need money for the development of another one? Really?

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Making ~14 games cost ~14 times much money.

Brian and Co. delivered on Wasteland 2, they are real close to delivering on Torment, and Bard's Tale is well underway on development. As a company they have done well with communicating their progress with their community, so I have no issues backing this endevour as well. I know this goes against the grain on some people's opinion on the matter, but I like Wasteland 2 a lot so they have my backing again.

Quoting: killyouThey've released ~14 games so far and they need money for the development of another one? Really? I bet they would easily fund the next game but getting money from idiots that are investors without any benefits is easy.

I was thinking the same thing. They should have more than enough profit in the bank to self-fund.

Quoting: rkfg

QuoteAs of writing it has 10,621 Backers giving over $2,185,770 against the $2,750,000 goal.

This is not exactly true. Backers have only given $483k as of now and $1700k come from Fig itself. This is an unusual scheme for crowdfunding.

Does Fig funding means those who bought stakes in the game (i.e. they became shareholders)? It's an method they devised, when certain major chunk of funding (something like $1,000 or more) allows you to later share percentage of profits from the sales.

See https://www.fig.co/campaigns/wasteland-3/invest


Last edited by Shmerl on 6 October 2016 at 8:02 pm UTC

Quoting: killyouThey've released ~14 games so far and they need money for the development of another one? Really?

Yes, really. Looks like you aren't familiar with how game studios function. Money made by one game barely can cover costs of the next one, they usually need additional money. Things get even more complicated, when they are working on multiple games at the same time like inXile do.

Quoting: Salvatos

Quote$2,750M

They're asking for two point seven thousand million dollars!?

Nah, that's the "M" of "mille," thousand. Think of mille-feuille, "thousand layers."

Anyway, Fig still uses Stripe, which doesn't work for me, so I'm gonna shoot inxile a message to 'fig'-ure out if I can back them some alternate way.

Quoting: tmtvl

Quoting: Salvatos

Quote$2,750M

They're asking for two point seven thousand million dollars!?

Nah, that's the "M" of "mille," thousand. Think of mille-feuille, "thousand layers."

Acceptable answer, but then it should be the same for $487K.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: killyouThey've released ~14 games so far and they need money for the development of another one? Really?

Yes, really. Looks like you aren't familiar with how game studios function. Money made by one game barely can cover costs of the next one, they usually need additional money. Things get even more complicated, when they are working on multiple games at the same time like inXile do.

They crowdfounded all of their latest titles. They should be able to finish Torment as it was crowdfounded and it raised more than they were asking. They got more than they were asking for Wasteland 2 as well. So these games cost them nothing and were safe bets. Asking for money to make another game means that they haven't sell any copies of Wasteland 2 outside of the kickstarter campain (which is not true) or they HAVE the money but are asking people to chip in anyway to minimize the risk. This is a brilliant business model but unfair to their customers. Imagine this is an enterprise market and Microsoft or Oracle is asking someone for money in advance so they can fund their software which then they can sell for years. That would've cause an outrage and entire industry would ridicule them. Gaming industry is greedy and spoiled nowadays. It's so easy to ship a game in comparison to what was years ago, computers are powerful, engines are cheap, you can even buy assets! You don't have to be John Carmack anymore to be successful. And now you don't even own your games and it's a burden to resell them. My point is asking for crowdfunding money was OK at first when they were shifting to this model but now they should fund themselves for the money they got from the sales after the release of the game.

Quoting: killyouThey crowdfounded all of their latest titles. They should be able to finish Torment as it was crowdfounded and it raised more than they were asking. They got more than they were asking for Wasteland 2 as well. So these games cost them nothing and were safe bets.

Sorry, what you are saying is totally unrealistic. Doing business - and even more so creating software - very often exceeds the planned funds. Furthermore they might go for content more if they have more funds than expected. And the planning might (and should!) involve the money you expect from sells in the first place. It's not like funding covers all expenses and sells make you rich. If you think it would be that way, please start developing great games (don't forget to support Linux!) and become rich that way. Good luck.

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: killyouThey crowdfounded all of their latest titles. They should be able to finish Torment as it was crowdfounded and it raised more than they were asking. They got more than they were asking for Wasteland 2 as well. So these games cost them nothing and were safe bets.

Sorry, what you are saying is totally unrealistic. Doing business - and even more so creating software - very often exceeds the planned funds. Furthermore they might go for content more if they have more funds than expected. And the planning might (and should!) involve the money you expect from sells in the first place. It's not like funding covers all expenses and sells make you rich. If you think it would be that way, please start developing great games (don't forget to support Linux!) and become rich that way. Good luck.

I have other sources of wealth but thanks for the suggestion. I don't agree with the planning thing. They raise money to complete the game. It helps them to buy stuff and feed their families for the time they don't have any other sources of revenue. But after the game is released they have another source of money so what the hell? I think crowdfunding is GREAT but for the little companies so they can focus on a product instead of worrying if they will have anything to eat or if their parents basement is big enough to fit all the university buddies that they are working with. Money from the released games should be spent on the new products. If there are no money either the product is bad or the management. I work in IT so I know that big projects might be tricky if it comes to time and resource management but they think they might go away with it because their customers are people, not businesses. I won't crowdfund any of their projects or any other companies that were successfully funded before because they should have the money from the sales. That's only my opinion. I'll buy the game though, same as F1, F2, and W2. I want them to have my money but in a way that's fair to me.