Here are updated graphs:
● July 31st had the unallocated funding jump up again.
● The growth at the $15 tier is really consistent. That is better than if it was declining, but the current rate of growth is not fast enough to contribute much before the campaign's deadline.
● Some backers upgraded their pledges.
● The $100 tier continues to be one of the better performing reward tiers.
● Since July 30th the $1 tier had been getting one new backer per day.
● The number of unallocated backers is still below 10.
● Tipping points were not reached even though the campaign came very close to the 30% one.
● It looks like most of the new backers are now coming from within Kickstarter. There hasn't been little surges linked with press coverage because there has been so little coverage.
760 backers have currently pledged $28,210. The average pledge amount has risen to $37.12 per backer.
' popularity ranked is 22nd. It now requires clicking the "Load more" button to find it in the discovery area for video games because it has fallen below the 20th spot.
I've been deeply thinking using a process of elimination to try to narrow down what would need to be changed about the campaign.
● The graphs aren't revealing any big problems with the rewards structure. The distribution of backers fits expectations. It looks simply like it has symptoms from a general lack of exposure.
● Too many early-bird slots does not look like a problem. The $10 early-bird closed with 433 backers. If all those backers had been $15 tier backers instead that would have been an additional $2,165. The time-limit kicked in as was intended so the early-bird didn't last into the trough period. When the early-bird ended the $15 tier didn't stall out, so there was the successful transition between those two tiers.
● There hasn't been a lack of project updates or information about what the game is. Project creator communication is high.
● The project doesn't appear to be having any problems with confusion about what the game is. It is presented very clearly. There is even the demo.
● The pitch video is long, but dense and serves its purpose. A more streamlined pitch might not have made any difference for this campaign.
● The project page is long, but not poorly executed. The images are good.
● Internal exposure within the category was very good at launch.
● There wasn't a lack of pre-launch build-up for the campaign. Followers knew when the campaign was launching.
● There shouldn't be much concern about Infinitap not having the skills to produce the game because Neverending Nightmares
● I don't think a lack of Ouya support was too big of a factor. There was even some exposure generated from the purchase of Ouya by Razer.
● The game isn't the type of first-person 3D indie horror game that has become popular in recent years.
● There is less of an underdog story about overcoming the setback of Retro/Grade and dealing with ones personal demons. This does give many bloggers much less reason to care about the campaign.
● There wasn't a boost from an event like having a PAX booth.
This leaves potential problem areas.
● Bad timing. This is easier to see in hindsight. The overall quality of active campaigns plummeted for July. Shenmue 3
ended. Red Ash
was still around generating bad press about crowdfunding. Five Night's at Freddy's 4
surprise launch took up horror Let's Players' schedules.
● There is additional difficult from the minimum funding goal not being small. Devastated Dreams
was not artificially slashing its minimum goal like many others do. A goal above $100,000 requires the Kickstarter trough to go well. Devastated Dreams
has raised over $28,000. That is something many small campaigns fail to do, but that amount is small compared to the goal.
● Many Neverending Nightmare
backers did not return. This surprised me the most. Much fewer than expected returned. Devastated Dreams
only needed to achieve about the same number of backers as the previous campaign.
● Much less press exposure than Neverending Nightmares
received in its run. This is one of the big problems. Before launch I was confident to see coverage from places that had featured Neverending Nightmares
in the past.
● Many potential backers do not pledge to campaigns that are not certain to reach their goals. Because of the large funding gap many simply won't bother pledging even though no money is transferred if the campaign fails.
● Lack of conversion of demo play-through watchers on YouTube into backers. The previous campaign received many backers thanks to YouTube.
● Reactions (or more specifically the lack of reactions) to game, art style or subject material. Even trying to be controversial didn't generate much of a response from people This feels like the root cause, but this is problematic because it is hard to identify what parts are the biggest problems. The game may look too much like Neverending Nightmares
, so it may be perceived as just the same game with a new skin. Some people described it to others like it was a direct sequel.
It feels like there is some disconnect somewhere making what exposure it does get much less effective. The resulting apathy from many gamers also means the amount of usable feedback is also low. If the main cause it the game itself then it might not be fixable in the time remaining. If the problem is the message used when trying to spread word about the game then fixing that could at least provide a little boost in the performance of the campaign. It may be that game is good, but not impressive enough. It can be a problem when success depends on not just being good at something, but being excellent at something. Sometimes just being good isn't able to generate attention.
There is now a fresh wave of August campaigns launching. They may bring in more traffic, but they are also more competition. While it is still possible to get funded, that would require a final surge, but the apathy problem can prevent that from happening. What is important is to avoid having regrets if the campaign fails and to try to find out what happened so there are less questions later.