Kingdom Come: Deliverance has recently reached the end of its raking in of £1,106,371. In comparison, that is about 1.8 million USD. The game, in development by Warhorse Studios, is a first-person medieval RPG that prides itself upon the motto “Dungeons and No Dragons”. Kingdom Come promises “the freedom and mechanics of Skyrim, the setting of Mount and Blade, the storytelling styles of The Witcher and Red Dead Redemption, and the tough combat dynamics of Dark Souls into a single, gorgeous package.”
Kingdom Come lists castle sieges as one of the game’s chief selling points.
For a game that promises the best of several prominent titles, one would think that Warhorse Studios must have had one hell of a pitch and proof to back up their comparisons to the previously mentioned games. Instead, the viewer is treated to a two minute trailer, then six minutes of the game’s creative director explaining his vision and the plight of Warhorse Studios. The video is intriguing, and the creative director is sympathetic, but there is little proof of the promised aspects of their inspirations, save Mount and Blade‘s setting of Medieval Europe. What the video does show, however, is a very pretty game that seems very clunky, a focus near-solely on the battles and castle sieges and an emphasis on realistic swordplay, the controls of which the viewer is never treated to.
What makes Kingdom Come‘s pitch turn sour is the actual purpose of Warhorse Studios’ fundraising campaign, and the incentives offered to continue funneling money. On their Kickstarter, Warhorse claims “Our investor is strong and capable of funding the complete development of our project. But he does not follow the game industry very closely, and needs proof that publishers and marketers are wrong about our game.” and states “The sum we are asking for is about ten percent of our total budget; for our investor, however, it is proof that there is real demand for the game, and that there is a point to keeping it funded.” This is after their private investor, Czech billionaire Zdenek Bakala, had shelled out nearly 1.5 million dollars for the prototype featured in their trailer. So, when Warhorse Studios met their goal, they began to add more incentives to donate, growing more ridiculous as investors funneled them money.
Warhorse began to offer great improvements as they surpassed their goal. In-game period music, a staple if they sought to actually include the option to play a bard, a symphonic orchestra to perform the soundtrack, and a secondary female protagonist for an extra series of quests. Then they began to focus open more open ended goals; performance motion capture; the inclusion of in-game fencing and swordsmanship lessons from consulting experts, and a multiplayer tournament mode. But their auspicious goals suddenly halted when they reached 900,000, and announced their goal for one million pounds.
A dog. That is it. At one million pounds, more than three times their goal, they offer a dog companion, and a reassuring “We will also probably include dog related quests.” Their final goal, a lofty 1.2 million pounds, was to hire better voice actors, something desperately needed. At the end of the campaign, Warhorse Studios could have had enough money to hire better voice actors, but instead they are offering no reward for the additional 100,000 pounds that investors paid, and are spending an additional 100,000 pounds on a dog.
But, the fault cannot lay on Warhorse solely. The consumers voted with their wallets, and Warhorse seems intent to deliver on their goals. But where does this lead the gaming industry? It negates risk, and negates innovation. Publishers, for all their might and money, must put millions of dollars into their developers’ projects. In turn, it is the duty of the developers to make a game of quality that will sell well, making a profit. Of course, there are still flaws to that equation, namely the penchant some publishers have for pushing out unfinished games, knowing they will sell. But for small, independent developers, there is no longer any risk. Indie developers are no longer putting their money into the game, but rather opening up their games as investments to others in exchange for perks like early access or special gear.
Crowd-funding at its finest.
Kickstarter has had previous issues with no-risk development before, the most infamous being Tim Schafer’s studio Double Fine. Schafer went to Kickstarter to fund his studio’s next big game, but did not state anything about the product. Consumers quite literally paid 3.3 million USD out of a 400,000 USD goal simply because of the developer’s name. Double Fine has used that money to create Act One of Broken Age, splitting the game in half in order to fund Act Two.
Perhaps I am just jaded, and by condemning the no-risk development approach that Kickstarter encourages, I am indeed stifling the innovation of future games. I do hope that Kingdom Come will be a successful and enjoyable game upon its release on December 2015, but I will not fund its development, or the development of future Kickstarter projects. Instead I will wait, and if their product is good, I will buy.
Have you ever seen a successful Kickstarter project? Have an opinion on the merits of big publishers, self-risk projects, and crowd-funding? Go ahead and drop a line, I would love to see what you have to say!
