Advice for gaining support for an upcoming game

Does anyone have any sage advice for gaining "traction" and pre-release funding for an upcoming game? In my case, the upcoming game is "Aeronautica", a Victorian-themed "steampunk" airship combat / exploration / trade / settlement / empire-building game. The game world includes thousands of miles of procedurally-generated terrain which can be freely explored and settled (if your airship can carry enough troops or settlers to build fortresses or towns). Players will be able to fly their ships in first-person perspective from the pilothouse and walk through the ship while fighting in realtime battles. Although it mostly focuses on airship exploration and combat, it's intended to be as open-ended as possible and may also eventually include surface ships, submarines, and (steampunk) 'tanks' if there is enough support. Here are a few screenshots if anyone is interested:

Combat screenshot:


The stern section of the large warship in the above screenshot:


A screenshot of a twin-hulled player ship:


Early screenshot of the pilothouse of the ship in the above screenshot:


Back section of the same pilothouse:


Several types of airships in the game:

 

What platforms does it run on?

 

PC standalone and WebGL, maybe some mobile platforms but probably not.

 

I'd suggest googling for KickStarter post-mortems, many developers have shared their experiences.

Not sure what other type of funding you are looking for. Also check out the Early access post-mortems.

 

I've looked at a number of Kickstarter post-mortems; but many of them give the impression that most Kickstarter donations come from people who are drawn in through social media rather than through Kickstarter itself, in which case I'd be better off doing the entire fundraising on my own via Paypal (and I'd also keep all the money). The only point of using a large crowdfunding site would be to again extra exposure, but apparently that doesn't actually work. So the question is, what is the best method of gaining exposure (and donations)? I've been trying to get the word out on various social media and websites, without much success.

 

I love the design of the black and gold ship. Its very fancy, although its to much to be considered a combat ship. It should be a luxury cruise liner or something.

I dont have any experience with fundraising though :/

 

I think you'd want to flesh out that idea some more, at least. All the really kickass fundraising things I've seen had compelling videos with music and the works and/or someone who could sell the crud out of it making the thing look like a million bucks.

 

Thank you. I added a lot of decoration to the Imperial warships because during many eras of history warships did have a lot of decoration (look at the Swedish warship "Vasa" to use one example of many). Not during the Victorian era, granted, but steampunk is fantasy rather than history.

 

I've been working on a three-minute video with music for an IGG campaign, which will hopefully be ready in a few days. What issues should I flesh out more?

 

Actually that's what I meant. More details, a bit about the story, show some combat.

 

A good video should focus almost entirely on gameplay. Too many videos waste time on everything else. For example, a good video won't spend the first 20 seconds showing logos of the developer and/or publisher. A good video won't build fake suspense with words on a blank screen. A good video won't waste time with a developer rambling about how much he/she loves to play various video games.

 

Meltdown's suggestion to review lots of Kickstarter postmortems is the best advice for videos. The postmortems report what actually worked and didn't work. A lot of portmortems remark that funders are interested in the developer's story, not the game's story. I suppose it gives them a sense of the developer's passion and ability to deliver.

You'll also want to make different videos for different audiences -- for example, focus on your team's personal story for the fundraising video, focus on exciting visuals for your YouTube buzz video, etc. But don't listen to me; listen to the postmortems from people who've actually done this successfully and shared what worked for them.

 

I feel the actual point of using a large crowdfunding site is that people are more likely to trust their payment service than that of someone they do not know providing them with a PayPal address. Yes, someone on Kickstarter could run with the money too but it gives them more confidence.

Additionally Kickstarter provides a place for them to communicate with you and each other in addition to keeping up to date with the progress of the project.

 

Great point! You've got to build a following before you can successfully raise funds.

 

I've never run a kickstarter. And yet, you asked for input. So, be REALLY clear about what you're building. In that write up, I hear phrases like, "as possible", "may eventually include", and "if there is enough support". These are HUGE red flags that hint that you don't really know what you're building. It says ideas, without focus. It screams amateur! You're also missing a story, which means 1) challenge/question, 2) emotional struggle, and 3) galvanizing conclusion.

With those things, it might sound like this:

What if you could pilot a steampunk airship? We dream of an open-world, exploration game with Steampunk air-to-air combat. Design your own airship, explore vast landscapes, and build your own empires. To bring our dream to life, we need your support!​

I would not ask anyone for money until I knew exactly what I wanted to build. Not 'may have', not 'open-ended as possible', or 'may include'. Be professional - take the time to figure out what you can actually accomplish. If tanks are expensive, then scrap them. If settlements should come later, then scrap them. If open-world is too much, then scrap it. Focus, focus, focus.

Gigi

 

But the extra exposure to a large group that is there for the sole purpose of spending money must be a big boost, although I suppose it's easy to get lost in the crowd at Kickstarter. The post-mortem for "Darkest Dungeon" (which netted over $300,000) indicated that their mailing list of about 1,500 people helped initial pledges in the first 24 hours, which kept them displayed readily on Kickstarter for the next couple days because Kickstarter's formula gives greater exposure to projects that are doing well. This in turn drove more donations, and it became a cycle.

 

I don't think any of the post-mortems I've read mentioned telling the developer's story; in fact some of them had videos that didn't even mention the developers at all. The most common denominator I've found is the need to develop a group of fans before the crowdfunding campaign.

 

That's a good point, although the reason I mentioned possible extended features is because it's common to have a list of "stretch goals" for crowdfunding campaigns, in fact almost all of them do. The information on the game's website is more precise than the summary above. http://starving-indie-developer.com/aeronautica.html
Although, maybe it still doesn't have a tight enough focus, I don't know. The thing is, though, the game was originally going to be a more general steampunk game with more than just airships, and I think it would have a better chance if it was a more general game because there'd be less overlap with the famous Guns of Icarus. If players think I'm just making an attempted Guns of Icarus clone, I don't stand much of a chance. Web game portals like to license clones of simple games, but players generally don't like clones, and it isn't a clone of Icarus anyway. The original focus was going to be mainly ground combat.

 

Does Kickstarter have an option to email you with other entries you might like? Because the only ones I've received emails concerning were those I helped fund. I can't imagine most people would sift through a list of new campaigns on the site.

 

I don't know. I was going to use IGG instead of Kickstarter anyway, since Kickstarter has a terrible rule that denies you the money you've gained if you fall short of your funding goal by even a penny. I can't afford that risk.

 

I happen to agree. Focus and give more details. You have to sell people on something here. People don't like "maybe" and "could be". People are giving you a chance to sell them on something if they watch your 3 minute video. What they're saying is, "Convince me." What is convincing? Confidence. Details. Guarantees. Real results they can see. Character. Personality, etc. What's not convincing? Open-ended outcomes, maybes, could-be's, uncertainty. Stretch goals can add optional content to the game, but you have to know what the core of the game is supposed to be and you basically have to guarantee that you can build it for a certain amount of money. And you have to convince people that you can do that, which is not necessarily as easy as it seems.

 

Can you likewise afford the risk that you won't receive enough and will fail to complete your project? If you can make do with less then you should ask for less and hope you get more. If you cannot make do with less then it is pointless to only receive part of the amount you need.

 

The last thing you want is to become known for taking money and not delivering. That's career suicide. Another good reason to read as many postmortems as you can. Many include writeups on the theme: boy, did we screw up our cost estimates, and here's how you can avoid the same mistake.

 

So if my campaign falls short by one dollar, it's fair to lose the whole amount because my project will be doomed without that one extra dollar? That may be an extreme example but the same principle holds true for any relatively small shortfall, because there are many ways to make up for that. It doesn't make any sense for Kickstarter to assume that 100% of the money has to come through Kickstarter. Even the most successful Kickstarter campaigns also raised funds outside of Kickstarter, and some of them made far more outside of it (even "Star Citizen" got most of its funding through its own website, as successful as its Kickstarter campaign was).

 

Don't agree with most of that, if it was just gameplay without showing most of the game to give some context, I'd be like what's this about besides it has RPG or FPS elements? Why do I care? A bit of context is never a bad thing so "words" are good.

Nothing wrong with Logo's as long as it doesn't drag on to the point of getting bored. You might want to research the game on the dev's website, find out a bit more about it.. Can't do that without at least some sort of reference.

I will agree on the dev bit, personally I don't care how much they enjoy it because generally they aren't going to say their own games rubbish now are they? Plus I'll decide if it's good or not ..

 

Star Citizen established itself as a company that could deliver...although I hear that point being debated among some of my friends at this time.

I have seen developers destroyed by failed Kickstarters and I have seen some use the money unwisely and destroyed by the gaming community, so be careful.

That said, IndieGoGo is a legitimate alternative and the people who pledge know the risks. I don't think it is quite as popular though and comes with a little more risk to the people pledging.

I pledged money once, a lot of money, on a website after a failed Kickstarter. Worst decision I ever made. The asset is still in development and it is nothing like what we were told it would be. We were deceived and out the money. A lesson learned. I won't do it again.

 

I think the big selling point was Wing Commander. Not every Kickstarter can say they're led by the creator of the award-winning, beloved AAA game franchise that dominated the space game market in the 1990s. Star Citizen wouldn't have gotten funding on their own website if it weren't for this pedigree.

Speaking of Kickstarter postmortems, the Outland 17 folks recently posted the results of a survey they ran after their Kickstarter failed: What our fans taught us about Kickstarters. The respondents had a lot to say about what motivates them to support projects.

And here's a "mid-mortem" on the active Kickstarter for Trial by Viking: Launching Steam Greenlight & Kickstarter.

And another postmortem: Kickstarter Problem?

All within the last day or two. Gamasutra is really a goldmine for data-driven (as well as anecdotal) advice for gaining funding.

 

How many of those campaigns were led by someone who was well-known? Off the top of my head I only know of two campaigns that continued to collect money after Kickstarter. Obduction by Cyan Worlds and Star Citizen by Chris Roberts.

 

I have a few that are collecting money before or instead of a Kickstarter campaign and without well known people. I am surprised that people are so willing to part with their money for houses or ships or buffs in a game that is very early in development. The pressure and stress it would put on a small team isn't worth it.

 

Some of the post-mortems mention that the campaign benefited greatly from having previously been greenlighted on Steam, which gained them some recognition and a fan base. So would that be a good strategy? It's difficult to build up a fanbase just from forums and the like.

 

But the degree of fame is a matter of scale : sure, Chris Roberts brought in millions due to his fame as the creator of Wing Commander, but nonetheless most of those millions were gained outside of Kickstarter and a similar pattern could presumably hold true (on a smaller scale of course) for someone who isn't famous, the latter will just get fewer dollars across the board. In other words, if a previously unknown dev posts a campaign on Kickstarter, he is still just as unknown as if he puts up a website. Kickstarter would gain him more views, but isn't going to change anything else. If people don't trust him enough to donate via his website they probably won't trust him enough to donate via Kickstarter either. The main difference between the two venues is the number of people making that decision.

 

I think there have been quite a few like that, and there were also many unknown developers who gained a large amount on Kickstarter who attributed their success partly to the base they had previously built up outside of Kickstarter (e.g. the team behind "Darkest Dungeon"). In that case, they could have also made a decent (but smaller amount) without Kickstarter, the difference being the extra exposure that Kickstarter brings.

 

Kickstarter could bring exposure but how much would it bring to an unknown indie? As you said, communities built elsewhere can determine success. On the other hand, maybe even if your Kickstarter fails, the exposure might be worth it.

 

If you have something playable then show that, market it mercilessly on your funding page then give supporters that version saying the money raised will be used to fund further development. Almost all supporters should get a copy so they play it & can help create buzz. I hear more talk about what people are playing, even early access, than I ever hear about what they are supporting & hoping will eventually be released.

 

Absolutely. Greenlight is far from perfect, but it gives potential backers some comfort that other people already think the game has merit. Don't neglect YouTube, though. A well-produced set of videos can really help to build a following because YouTube gets so many eyes.

 

I have no idea how popular this site is, so everyone may have already heard of it, but http://cliqist.com/ covers crowdfunded video games exclusively. Every week, they list all of the new kickstarter video game campaigns. They'll pick a select few for a paragraph or so in the article, and give a line or so about the rest. Reading what they have to say gives some good insight as to what does and doesn't work on Kickstarter. They also feature some campaigns in their own articles and do articles on what projects were successful and which ones failed with some analysis as to why. I have no idea if the writers know as much about crowdfunding as they seem to, because I don't have the knowledge to judge that. But I do find myself checking in there at least once a week to read what they have to say. If you are planning a kickstarter it can't hurt to learn from the successes and failures of others.

 

@HemiMG - Nice share! Hadn't heard of that.
Gigi

 

I was thinking that Greenlight would generate a lot of exposure. I don't know how many people would view any given game, however.

 

I don't think Greenlight gives much exposure these days, but it's like a credential that tells people elsewhere (such as Kickstarter) that others think your game has merit. It probably can't hurt to be everywhere -- Greenlight, IndieDB, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, your own blog, etc. I'm not sure developer-oriented sites like TIGsource and the Unity forums are very helpful for building a following, but I suppose every little bit contributes. If you can get a YouTube gaming personality to endorse or preview your game, that'll help a lot.

 

Can anyone recommend a "Top Ten" list of places to showcase the game? Sure, every little bit helps, but every little bit also takes some time.

 

You seem to be missing the point of crowd funding sites like kick starter. They are all about providing consumer confidence to the backers. Confident people are more willing to spend money. I might be persuaded to put down money on a kick starter campaign. There are some protections in place to prevent you from just running with the money. You won't see me depositing money into your personal pay pal account.

The funding shortfall is also about backer confidence. Backers will often back multiple projects, expecting some to fail and not cost them anything. Again this increases the total amount of money backers can throw at kick starter.

Remember, kick starter is not about keeping the content creators happy. Kick starter primarily exists to convince the backers to donate. Its always going to be biased in favour of the backers, and that's the way it should be.

 

If you're making a game based on another game (i.e. Order of Ancients on Footmen Frenzy), make it look better than the original - especially if the original is more than 10 years old.

Having a community to build your church on is nice but it's moot if they'd rather play the original game instead of yours.

 

Since Kickstarter has no means of ensuring that developers will actually finish their funded projects months or years down the road (and some of them haven't been completed), I don't see how you can say that Kickstarter provides any meaningful protection to prevent someone from "taking the money and running".

 

There are some protections -- for example, if the project doesn't meet its funding goal (meaning it likely doesn't have the interest base or funds necessary to sustain its development) , the developer can't simply run with whatever they received.

Mostly it's a perception thing -- but perception is everything when you're asking people to put up their hard-earned money.

 

The project is allowed to fail. That's part of the risk. The project still has to happen though. It's far harder to make a fake kick starter and just drain money then it is to make a fake PayPal account. Kick starter does take projects down that abuse the system.

That's the backer perception anyway. And backers are the primary kick starter customers. They are the ones with the money.

 

One of the Kickstarter post-mortems (Darkest Dungeon) mentioned that they got a lot of pre-campaign attention and backers by posting a trailer on gametrailers.com, but I can't find a way to upload a video to the trailers section (it allows users to upload videos in other categories, but these aren't likely to be seen by many people). Have they changed their policy, or am I looking in the wrong place? Anyone know?

 

I was able to get mine on their website by sending them an email. I dont think users have the privilege to post trailers. If you can, try to get them to post the trailer on their youtube channel also.

 

Thank you. I found the contact address where it mentions that policy (I was looking for a "Contact" link but it's in the "About Us" link instead for some reason). How long did they take to approve and post your trailer? I assume it was the epic, famous one that has almost a million views on YouTube?

 

After the email, It only took them a few days to post it. It did not receive a ton of views though, only around 3000, and alot of thumbs down for some reason :/

This is the official trailer for Air Guardians that I asked them to post.

 

And the sad thing about thumbs down is that they tell you nothing. Feedback is so important.

Edit:
Checked it out on Steam and really, you get some very good feedback. I would die for that kind of feedback on our game.

My son and I like the trailer although it is not my kind of game. If I were you, and maybe you have done this, I would use that feedback to make the game better...if you think it needs to be better. Of course, there is never game that can't use some changes.