Crowdfunding for Third Parties, Lessons from past campaigns

[Keyser]

Since I think that the bloated F-35 thread with its almost 2000 replies is not only a difficult place for this conversation, but also not quite on the same topic, here's a new thread.

 

I would ask that disparaging comments about any Third Party developer be kept out of it. What I am interested in making is a resource for Third Party developers in general, not only Kinney Interactive, who might be interested in crowdfunding a module in the future. Surely there is something to be learned from this most recent attempt for the F-35 and I would like to distill what that might be.

 

Just as a rough outline, I think it might be interesting to hear the ED forumgoers' opinion on a few questions like these:

 

1. Are you, in principle, willing to participate in crowdfunding a module for DCS? High-fidelity, low-fidelity or both?

If yes:

2. Did you participate in either of the two Third Party crowdfundings so far (those being Beczl's Indiegogo campaign and Kinney's Kickstarter campaign)?

If yes:

2a. Was there some item of information, some pledge reward or some interaction on the part of the developers that would have caused you to increase your pledge?

If no:

2b. What was the primary reason you did not pledge? Was it the module itself (e.g. not interested in the plane), the developer, the price point, did you simply not hear about it in time, wrong crowdfunding platform etc.

3. What level of existing assets do you require in order to take a crowdfunding campaign "seriously"? Is it enough to see a concept, renders of the model, the model in action, etc. How far should developers go before turning to the community?

4. Finally, what would be your realistic budget in order to help get a module of something that interests you made?

 

These are some questions that might be interesting, although I'm sure there's many relevant data points that I forgot about.

 

Let me start:

1. I would be willing to crowdfund a module for DCS. I would be interested only in funding high-fidelity modules.

2. I haven't participated in either of the two campaigns so far.

2b. For Beczl's campaign I just didn't hear about it in time, though I would likely have pledged if I had found it or been told about it.

For the F-35, 30% of the reason was the plane. The F-35 just doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy like an F-4, F-16, F-18 or Typhoon would. This alone would not have been enough to dissuade me from backing though. 70% of the reason was missing confidence about the modules future. I understand that ED was convinced by Kinney Interactive's pitch, but I must make my own evaluations on what I spend money on.

This is obviously my personal opinion, but something like a list of specific resources that you have access to would have gone a long way towards demonstrating the kind of module I could expect if I gave you money. Maybe contrasting it with something we already know and love: Make a table with things the A-10 has closely modeled and what it doesn't have closely modeled. Contrast it with what you expect your module to be like. Just saying that "There is far more public information than you may imagine..." was too vague for my personal taste. I was also not convinced by the avionics simulators that were presented because, honestly, I couldn't assess their "worth" in terms of fidelity at all. Once again, for me some more hard documentation would have been more convincing.

3. I do not require the module to be at an advanced stage in order to consider backing a crowdfunding campaign. The most highly weighed items in my decision-making process are "Trust in the developer" and "Interest in the module".

4. All other things being optimal, I would probably be willing and able to go as high as ~$100.

[311Gryphon]

I kind of like this topic and it may be helpful.

 

1. I'm okay with crowdfunding and considered it. It would have to be high-fidelity and something I'm already interested in before I would consider it in the future.

 

2. I did not.

 

2b. I did not know about Beczl's. I looked at Kinney because I really like the F-35 and I love what they have done thus far. I wasn't completely on board with how the kickstarter went. I personally think that there should have been a way to get involved in some kind of mild beta testing AFTER the op eval. I don't think I would be a very good person to have in the op eval (I don't have as much real world knowledge of flight modules or planes to do KI service and I don't have the time to devote to a good op eval AND I was not going to put $50 into a product before I know if it is going to make it or not). That's just my personal preference. Had I been able to put $25 to $35 into it and been left out of the op eval but been able to do some later beta testing I would have probably done it. That's there call, no worries, but I do believe there are more people like me who know they aren't a good fit for the op eval but would pay a little toward a project to get in early.

 

3. It's enough for me to see some models and textures that look like they are well developed. But that's because I already view it as a risk so I don't think I need a lot of evidence. I just need something to look at and get excited about.

 

4. $50 tops. I know that is cheap for some people and I have no problem with other people getting more for their money. But if I can wait and get the game for $40 or less then I will unless I'm really stoked about it. If (big if) I knew more about flying or about a particular aircraft in real life I would go higher just to be involved more...but I don't so it doesn't make sense for me to throw too much money at something like that.

[Kegetys]

I am willing to do it and I did it for the MiG-21Bis but not the F-35.

 

The MiG-21Bis is among my favourite planes and when the Indiegogo funding for it opened Beczl already had a lot to show. From the screenshots/videos and other material I could already see the project is going well and I felt I could be reasonably confident its going to be finished, and likely to meet the standards I expect.

 

The F-35 I dont really find that interesting as a platform. That doesnt mean I wouldn't buy one as a DCS module but I just dont find it sufficiently interesting to warrant the risk of "investing". Also I felt the F-35 kickstarter really had almost nothing to show - some renders of the exterior model and thats about it. They most definately should have first had something already in-game, including some form of cockpit with maybe a demonstration of some basic avionics stuff working and some kind of flight model before opening the Kickstarter campaign.

[tintifaxl]

1) Yes I do. Both.

 

2) Yes I did. Haven't met any incentive in all ks campaigns I backed, that made me raise my pledge.

 

3) Mainly the background of the developer. If no reputation in flight sim, the module has to be pretty much finished.

 

4) 100 USD is kind of a hard limit. I would spent more on DCS: Korea or DCS: 'Nam with map, at least 2-3 flyable planes for each side and a well done single player campaign for each plane.

[159th_Falcon]

1. Are you, in principle, willing to participate in crowdfunding a module for DCS? High-fidelity, low-fidelity or both?

ABSOLUTELY!!!

 

If yes:

2. Did you participate in either of the two Third Party crowdfundings so far (those being Beczl's Indiegogo campaign and Kinney's Kickstarter campaign)?

 

Yep, (Beczl's MIG-21BiS)

 

If yes:

2a. Was there some item of information, some pledge reward or some interaction on the part of the developers that would have caused you to increase your pledge?

 

Can't remember really, but the goals at the time seemed reasonable and very possible.

Beczl was already a (well?) known character on these forums from his mod for FC2 a long whit other mods.

 

If no:

2b. What was the primary reason you did not pledge? Was it the module itself (e.g. not interested in the plane), the developer, the price point, did you simply not hear about it in time, wrong crowdfunding platform etc.

 

Applies to F35A, Unkown (to me) guy, comming out of the blue, promising the very best of the impossible. WITHIN A YEAR.

 

Should have been marketed as an module for DCS World somewhere between FC and DCS fidelity, but whit the goal to be the very best possible at this time.

 

If that would have been done i might have pledged.

(just not that interested in most US planes)

 

3. What level of existing assets do you require in order to take a crowdfunding campaign "seriously"? Is it enough to see a concept, renders of the model, the model in action, etc. How far should developers go before turning to the community?

 

Tough question, but at the least be realistic. So whit the F35A an 70.000 dollar goal is not.

DCS fidelity isn't either. And he was relatively unknown to people here.

 

The MIG21 had an far lower, and hence more realistic goal.

DCS fidelity for the plane seems very possible whit regards to availeble data, test pilots, aircraft in service etc etc.

Well known "team" behind it.

 

4. Finally, what would be your realistic budget in order to help get a module of something that interests you made?

 

Depends on what you get exactly for money being paid.

But any DCS fidelity aircraft that inerests me i'd pay between 50 and 100 dollars.

[Rotorhead]

Thumbs up for this thread! Yeah, it may be helpful. So here we go:

 

1. Yes, I have no problem to take part in crowdfunding as long as it is a high fidelity module.

 

2. Yes for Beczl's Mig-21, no for F-35.

 

2a. For Beczl, I donated the lowest amount ($10 IIRC) and I'm a bit ashamed of it. I'd donate more, but I was in process of buying a new computer and had not much money to spare. Only reward I really want is a digital copy when it comes out. All the T-shirts, DVD's and printed manuals are nice, but nothing for me.

 

2b. As for F-35, I didn't donate because there were no assurances from the devs except unsupported promises and few renders outside of DCS. The plane itself was pretty interesting to me and I'd pledge it under other circumstances. (Although I'd not pledge any plane I'm not interested in at least a bit.)

 

3. The least I want to see is a 3D model with at least raw, basic AFM flying inside DCSW. If there are already some working bits of avionics, even better. It's also good idea to post some development change log, to show the progress.

 

This way, people can see that the developer knows how to make things work, and already invested some of his money and effort into his / her module, and therefore is likely to finish it. It's also good when the developer has already some previous experience with DCSW to base upon.

 

Generally, the developers may get in touch with the community in the very beginning if they want, but not ask for money unless they have shown some serious work and gained some support over the forums.

 

4. Well, hard to say. It depends on the plane, my level of trust towards the developer, my current financial situation etc. But let's say something roughly around $50 would be my ceiling.

 

 

Let's hope that F-35 haters and fanboys won't turn this thread in another of their battlefields. :D

[Ich666]

1. Are you, in principle, willing to participate in crowdfunding a module for DCS? High-fidelity, low-fidelity or both? Yes.

If yes:

2. Did you participate in either of the two Third Party crowdfundings so far (those being Beczl's Indiegogo campaign and Kinney's Kickstarter campaign)? Only the Mig-21bis.

 

If yes:

2a. Was there some item of information, some pledge reward or some interaction on the part of the developers that would have caused you to increase your pledge? No, I already pledged 10$ more for a Bonus DVD, because the project seemed promising enough.

3. What level of existing assets do you require in order to take a crowdfunding campaign "seriously"? Is it enough to see a concept, renders of the model, the model in action, etc. How far should developers go before turning to the community? They should at least have something ingame and flying. The external model is one of the things thats needed first when you start a project and I expect the developer to demonstrate at least some knowledge with the engine (getting something ingame). Also I need to know about some past work of the developers. That might sound picky, but Kickstarter is a risk for the consumers and I expect to see the same risk taken by the developers (developing a prototype, creating a 3d model). If they believe in their project, they need to show it.

 

4. Finally, what would be your realistic budget in order to help get a module of something that interests you made? 40€is my ceiling. Im not in the situation to shell out hundreds of euros, so 40€ is as far as I want to go when I could possibly lose all of it. That goes for something that really interests me, of course.

[galevsky06]

1.

Both, Hi-fi for aircrafts, even lo-fi for CA-like modules if interesting

 

2.

No

 

2.b

F-35 is out of interest: no place into DCS world. I prefer Hi-Fi F-14/15/16/18 or Su-25/27/30/33/39 or Mig-29/29K/27K or Tu-22 modules

 

3.

"Interest in the module" first, then "Trust in the developer" is a plus (previous XP in FSX module or whatever) :thumbup:

 

4.

$30

[Risk]

I did not participate in any pre-funding and I am concerned that what ever is proposed will not get built. If ED can't do it, why should I believe some third party developer would be able to build a module as sophisticated as the A-10C. Most of the squads I used to fly with have all disbanded while waiting for ED to release another jet sim like the F/A-18c. Since this never happen, most of the virtual pilots that I use to fly with have been force to sit on the sidelines while they wait to see if some thirty party developer can deliver a jet sim as hardcore A-10C. I understand that this takes a lot of money, but a lot of us spent years helping ED with the A-10C to get it to where it is today in the hope that someday we would see another aircraft like the F/A-18c with carrier operations.

 

I think for the community to take crowdfunding seriously were going to first have to wait and see if a third party developer is capable of modeling complex avionics and other systems like what was put into the A-10C.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Risk

[Yellonet]

1. Yes, but likely only for high fidelity projects

2. No.

2b. For MiG-21 it seemed like it would be made anyway so I didn't feel like I needed to pledge. For the F-35 I just have no interest in that aircraft, I want used and proven aircraft that could realistically (and somewhat fairly) be pitted against each other in historical or hypothetical scenarios.

3. Renders, model inside game, working systems. Seeing is believing.

4. It really would depend on the modelled aircraft and how much I believed in it being properly made, but my max pledge would probably be around $50.