97 - Keeping backers happy

[matt]

In this video, I discuss the importance of keeping backers happy when you run a kickstarter project.

[RightClickSaveAs]

I've backed a handful of things and you are by far the most involved out of them all, which is what helps to make this project even more special, and keeps me coming back every day to keep up with all the updates. This project has gone way above what I expected in terms of updates and getting a look at the development process. It's fascinating to me as someone who loves games but doesn't know much about how they get made.

The Double Fine Kickstarter was great and I read all their developer updates and watched the documentary episodes which were amazing, but it still felt like there was a big gap between backers and the game, and they were probably the most involved out of all the big Kickstarters. Granted it's a big company and the forums were huge and the people posting on it could get, let's just say as a nice way of putting it, "contentious", so it'd be basically impossible to have the kind of personal and friendly conversations that happen here, and they have to put up community relations shields out of necessity. But even in all the other small indie projects I've backed, it's mostly just radio silence with an update every couple months saying essentially "hey we're still working very hard on the game". And this is also fine as there's really no entitlement that you need to be privvy to every aspect of the game's development just because you gave them some money early on, but they feel more like preorders when they're handled that way. There really doesn't seem to be much of a template for how to handle keeping the backers in the loop, outside of (naturally) delivering the actual rewards that are promised on the kickstarter page, and I'd imagine a lot of backers just put down the money and forget about it until the game comes out. But a lot of them really are missing out on a chance to make the project special by doing something like what you're doing here, and reaching what may be a small but is probably a very dedicated crowd.

I'm always hesitant to give major feedback because it's easy to do, and I know for a fact that you know a lot more about this than I do I can speak for myself in saying I do trust that you'll make something great, no matter what needs to be changed.

[Harry Sunderland]

Shucks guys, Matt considers us friends.

I agree with all you've said rightclick. This project had such a great sense of community with it. I'm not very expert at kickstarter, but this is definitely the project I'm most excited about. Matt really goes above and beyond with addressing all our questions, and even my asinine comments.

And I think it's gonna pay off for him. I know I will promote the hell out this game when it launches, and I'm pretty much going to back any future project Matt will kickstart, should he choose to.

Anyone else find it funny how great our little e-community is? If anyone argues that violent video games make people evil, they need to play the alpha, and then read the forums and see how nice we all are.

[gagaplex]

People can be very short-sighted, so keeping them happy can be difficult when you think your long-term plans are better than their short-term wishes. I guess the best way to keep them happy yet stick with your plans (while hopefully also taking good ideas into account, of course) is to provide updates on how the project is coming along, what you plan and let people see for themselves whether they can be convinced that your idea is a good/better one than their momentary wishes. So, yes, communication is very important, but also updates on new versions and playable content to see which way the thing is going. Both of which you already do.

[Grabthehoopka]

Aaaawwww

[matt]

I think our community is really great! I think people would be dumb to not take advantage of their community. As well, projects that go silent are the worst. You aren't preordering the game. Who wants to preorder a game that might turn out to be a big mess? I've thought long and hard about kickstarter, and I think the appeal is to be part of something. That is what I hope to offer! You guys are all part of the development of Neverending Nightmares. I couldn't have done it without you!

There was an article on Rock, Paper, Shotgun recently about open development that seemed off base. While I love feedback and have incorporated plenty of ideas of the community, I'm still driving the ship. I have my idea for what the game is going to be, and I'm not going to put anything in the game or make changes that detract from that. I think that is the only way you can make a game. Design by committee doesn't really work because every person has their own idea, and if you explore them all, it'll take forever, and it'll be very difficult to figure out which is best.

[ranger_lennier]

I don't think it's strange to consider people you know on-line friends. Most people spend lots of time on-line now, and one advantage is making it easier to meet people with common interests, even unusual ones. I have a friend I've never met in person that I help provide content for ballyalley.com, a website devoted to the rather obscure Astrocade video game console.

The community here is definitely good, and it's also small enough to really get to know people. I wouldn't be able to get the same experience backing projects like Broken Age or Might No. 9, simply because the audience is too large.

Of course, the only bad thing is that, while I've seen communication technology massively improve in my lifetime, it's still nice to actually see people in the flesh, and physical transportation hasn't gotten easier at all. In fact, I'd say it's probably gotten worse when you factor in airline security. Maybe one day we'll have a high speed rail network across the USA, or actually implement some really advanced concepts like evacuated tube transport. But for now I only occasionally leave Kentucky.

[RightClickSaveAs]

Yeah I love forums, but when they get too big it gets harder to be involved.

There was an article on Rock, Paper, Shotgun recently about open development that seemed off base. While I love feedback and have incorporated plenty of ideas of the community, I'm still driving the ship. I have my idea for what the game is going to be, and I'm not going to put anything in the game or make changes that detract from that. I think that is the only way you can make a game. Design by committee doesn't really work because every person has their own idea, and if you explore them all, it'll take forever, and it'll be very difficult to figure out which is best.

That RPS article is harsh but makes some good points, especially about people not necessarily knowing what they like (Dead Space was a fun horror game where you can shoot monsters instead of always having to hide, why not add just a couple weapons to NN!)

Although I'd say he may be giving too much credit to community involvement being the problem. Granted I don't know the details about the development process of The Old Republic, which he specifically mentions, but plenty of recent AAA titles have proven themselves perfectly capable of failing on their own, and I don't think you can attribute all that to community feedback. The biggest problem seems to be when a game tries to copy another one (World of Warcraft) and/or appeal to everyone, and in general just try to be too many things at once. Well I guess that's basically what he's saying, but is that the fault of the community or a developer/publisher just trying to maximize profits and not having a very clear artistic vision in the first place? That's obviously not a problem in the case of this game, what you're making is very specific and personal.

I'm fine just being a wallet like the article suggests But the fact that you are actively involving backers in the process makes it so much more of a worthwhile experience than that. And you know what you want which is the important thing ultimately, so I know if I ever make any dumb suggestions I can trust that you will politely ignore them!

[matt]

I've been on enough AAA projects to know that developers/publishers are perfectly capable of ruining their own games. hahah In general, I don't think "The Old Republic" was really that open. They weren't really an agile team, so every decision probably went through a convoluted review/management process.

When I think of open development, I think of Overgrowth, which seems like everyone is very happy with.