'Limit Theory' Game Cancelled Six Years After Its Kickstarter Raised $187K (rockpapershotgun.com) 141
AmiMoJo quotes Rock, Paper, Shotgun: Sandbox space sim Limit Theory has been cancelled, six years after a successful crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter, because main developer Josh Parnell is simply exhausted from working on it for so long. He's spent, he says: emotionally, mentally, physically, and financially. "Not in my darkest nightmares did I expect this day to ever come, but circumstances have reached a point that even my endless optimism can no longer rectify," Parnell said on Friday. He plans to release the source code for folks to poke around but makes clear "it's not a working game."
Though Limit Theory blew past its $50,000 goal, drawing $187,865 in pledges (and remember Kickstarter takes a cut), development has gone on years longer than anticipated. Costs have burned through that initial cash and started eating into Parnell's personal savings but, more than that, he's just exhausted.
Though Limit Theory blew past its $50,000 goal, drawing $187,865 in pledges (and remember Kickstarter takes a cut), development has gone on years longer than anticipated. Costs have burned through that initial cash and started eating into Parnell's personal savings but, more than that, he's just exhausted.
Not a problem (Score:2)
Kickstarter is a 50:50 thing. As you also only pay something like 50% and as the games funded that way would never see the light of day otherwise, failed projects are not much of a problem, as long as about half succeed.
There is still a lot of people for whom this pretty simple math and economics is too complicated to understand and they will cry "fraud" and complain loudly, when nothing like that is the case.
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not a problem (Score:1)
Exactly. While he couldn't make good on delivering a finished product, at least he can release all unfinished work that represents the fair labor of time and effort he put into it. Providing all source material to the public is one such way.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering if the code he will produce is just going to be like 600,000 lines of copy pasted code from random open source projects with a bunch of random junk thrown in to make it look like he did work?
My faith in humanity is that he probably did do a bunch of work and will release it but it's probably far from a finished product. So either way not much good will come of this?
I guess a 3rd possibility is that he did get a lot of it done and is close to being finished but just doesn't have the energy fo
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Releasing what you have is something a lot more failed game kickstarters should have done long ago. I suspect the fear of being sued for fraud (once people see how little they've achieved) is what keeps it from happening - along with good old fashioned denial.
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Kickstarters fall into one of 3 categories.
75% blatant rip-off, no chance/intention of delivering
20% not confident to ask for enough, or just funding a hobby
5% actual costed business plan
Re: (Score:2)
You should look at Kickstarter's own statistics [kickstarter.com] before making up your own.
Re: (Score:1)
Not seeing any data there on how many were successfully funded but turned out to be scams or didn't deliver. Strangely Kickstarter doesn't seem to collect that information, or maybe it was just a genuine oversight and they forgot to add it to their site.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, so? He got in over his head, he tried his best to deliver, he failed. It happens. Everyone funding anything on Kickstarter was warned this can happen and anyone funding this particular game should have known it was a long shot. It would probably have been better for everybody if this campaign had failed to fund. Bit there most certainly were no criminal acts, and this guy apparently went far beyond what could be expected from him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Creating graphics was one of Limit Theory's intended innovations:
Procedural graphics and asset design. What we have seen on the forums was a bit blocky and would have needed more refinement, but it showed that having your graphics created by an algorithm is not impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Unity or Unreal need $50K. Unity is a modest fee, $30-$100 ish per month depending on whether he's raised more than $200K. He'd be on the $30K tier with that kickstarter.
Unreal takes a 5% cut of take.
Assuming he's using one of these two, engine cost is unlikely to be a factor.
But your right $50K was hopelessly optimistic.
Re: (Score:1)
So if it is fraud, where is the deception?
All the relevant facts were available to investors upfront, including his own level of experience, the scope of the game, and the fact that they wouldn't get the money back if he didn't deliver.
Sometimes projects fail. That's a reality. Some forms of investment have layers of protection that kickstarter does not. It's not fraud when you know the risks, and nobody is deceiving you about any of the relevant details.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm curious what you call a platform where you give someone money in the expectation that they will give you a product in return, if not a store.
What it most certainly is not is an investment platform. You will never receive a return on investment from a Kickstarter project. You are not buying shares in any company. You have no expected return. You can not receive dividends nor can you sell your Kickstarter backing later for anything. At best, you can resell whatever PRODUCTS you get from a Kickstarters.
Thi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what you call a platform where you give someone money in the expectation that they will give you a product in return, if not a store.
In big business, perhaps a convention of startups and venture capitalists?
The startups want money but cannot give an absolute guarantee of delivering, as they may run into unforeseen problems with their unconventional products.
The venture capitalists are aware of that, but they have enough hope of getting something valuable that they accept something like a 50% failure rate (for example).
Re: (Score:1)
It's not a store.
The stuff you pay for there does not exist yet. Even if it is a fully developed and working prototype it is not yet in mass production.
There is an agreement that they take your money and try to productionize it.
It is understood that this scaling up may fail. You don't get the thing. You don't get your money back.
Every Kickstarter campaign I have seen includes a statement of potential risks that could cause the whole venture to fail.
None of this is what I expect from a "store".
By the way, wh
Re: (Score:3)
I call it a store if I know exactly what the product is and said product is already finished, ready to sell.
I call it an investment if I give money in the HOPE that I will get something out of it that I want - be that planting carrots in my back yard or financing the production of a game that sounds like it might turn out interesting. In the end I HOPE to have carrots or a game I'll like, but there is NO guarantee.
Re: (Score:3)
Kickstarter is a Donation platform, to support cool ideas.
I gave a small amount to both:
Carpool DeVille - The World's Fastest Hot Tub - https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... [kickstarter.com]
and
Potato Salad - https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... [kickstarter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
About half of all IT projects fail. This is a long-term observation. Making games is no exception and nobody guarantees any delivery with Kickstarter. So, no deception, no assurances, no fraud. Sure, if somebody just takes the money and runs, that may be actionable, bit if somebody (like this guy here) tries and fails, that is what Kickstarter is about: To try projects were conventional funding is not available or comes with unacceptable strings.
There is just too many people that are incapable to understand
Re: (Score:2)
...himself into the ground. How hard is it to understand that "take the money and run" means you take the money, after doing absolutely nothing to earn it except (perhaps) lie, and get as far away from the person who gave it to you so they can't make you give it back. People who "take the money and run" go into hiding. They don't sit there, identify exactly who and where they are, work their asses off, fail, and then apologize. They have zero intention of doing anything at all .
They bloody well run, and yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It matters "only" in the sense that the difference between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder matters.
Parnell seems to be able to make the argument that he put more than a fair amount of work in. So in the court of law this is a purely civil affair in which a KS participant might well be able to sue to get their money back. If it were actual fraud, there would be a juicy argument for punitive damages and lawyer fees.
As it is, assuming the facts put forth by Parnell are close enough to true,
Re: (Score:3)
You do not get it. Go to Kickstarter and read their explanation of what they offer and then come again. And no, it is not fraud in any way.
I am a backer... (and neither angry nor mad) (Score:5, Interesting)
Though I am sad that he didn't finish the game, I rather feel more sorry for Josh Parnell than for me or my money.
He gave everything he got and it was not enough. Things like this happen. As far as I can see it, he did not spend money for things outside the project. Rather the contrary: my impression is that he poured is own resources and health into it beyond any reasonable expectation.
Other projects (e.g. Clang from Neal Stephenson) spent less effort for more money and tried to sell the sorry result (the game was less finished than Limit Theory by several orders of magnitude) as success.
As a result I am neither angry nor mad and wish Josh Parnell all the best.
Re: (Score:3)
Though I am sad that he didn't finish the game, I rather feel more sorry for Josh Parnell than for me or my money.
He gave everything he got and it was not enough. Things like this happen. As far as I can see it, he did not spend money for things outside the project. Rather the contrary: my impression is that he poured is own resources and health into it beyond any reasonable expectation.
The question for me (not that I have money in this project), is given that he brought in 3 1/2 times the original goal, did he try to stick with the original scope and just flat out failed, or did the scope suddenly grow now that he had all of that extra money? Because hopefully going into the project he had a reasonable idea and plan on how to execute it.
He should have changed the scope or the game (Score:2)
No Man's Space came out meanwhile anyway (and failed). Maybe something where your action caused the world/planets/section of the universe to be regenerated based on what you did. Maybe you find a box on the planet and you regenerate it using the code you type on the console in JavaScript. No need to be slave to the original idea to the letter, it's enough to use it as a guidance but adapt as the world changes, as you change. I feel sorry for him too though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It sold a lot in the early days because of all the hype and the fact you can only refund on Steam within two hours - and it usually took more than two hours to realize the game had no actual content and didn't have the promised multiplayer.
Translation (Score:1)
He was right and you cheapen yourself with excuses instead of just saying you were wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
How was I wrong when that was my first comment in this thread?
Re: (Score:2)
I meant failed to live to the promise of the concept which is similar to this game's. That said I do respect that NMS makers put an effort to clean up some of the mess when they could have just taken the money and gone.
Not sure that the concept can ever be successful though. There's something uninspiring about autogenerated worlds, like autogenerated art.
Backer comment... (Score:5, Informative)
I was a backer on the game, from me perspective, it was small money on a long shot cool idea. The guy didn't steal the money and run, he spent 6+ years of his life and got burned out. He's open-sourcing the project to see if the community will help continue it on, so at worst I just help bootstrap an open source game engine. It was a couple bucks, big deal. This isn't like these scam projects where the people disappear a few months after the project closes - this guy posted regular updates with screenshots and progress, etc.
Obligatory Dorkly Video... (Score:2)
Years later, this Dorkly video [youtube.com] continues to get it right.
What about Star Citizen (Score:1)
Millions in crowdfunding and years later yet still no release :)
Re: (Score:2)
More money does not make software creation faster. Has been known since around 1975.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It is not. Get the basics before you claim nonsense, will you?
Re: (Score:2)
Millions in crowdfunding and years later yet still no release :)
I played it today. Last week I played it with a big group of friends. That's not exactly no release.
Hundreds of hours of fun just larking around so far. Can't wait for the actual release though so I guess you're right about that.
No shame (Score:2)
The real problem: (Score:1)
Nobody is willing to donate money blindly to any of my completely mediocre and utterly attainable business plans.
A shame. Maybe he shouldn't have ... (Score:2)
... redone the entire engine?
He definitely bit off more than he could chew. For a Kickstarter you also should have some sort of team and not be just a one man show. Also: Waaaaaay underfunded.
It's a really cool looking game, I hope it gains critical mass as FOSS.
Stupid tax (Score:2)
Kickstarter is essentially a way to get funding without having to give away anything much to the funder.
Re:A particular skill of Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not perfect—we're just less likely to season your beverage with polonium than some folks are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no need to swat a fly that isn't actually buzzing around your head.
And, by the way, have you stopped beating your wife?
It's the project management, stupid! (Score:5, Interesting)
Another AC diversion, eh? Let me make some attempt to intrude in a more constructive direction. Or has "constructive" become a dirty word on today's Slashdot? (Only your AC troll knows for sure?)
Project management is hard, but Kickstarter doesn't care. They just take their cut without regard to results. From the Kickstarter perspective it's great if the project blows past its goal.
In terms of a constructive solution, I wish there were a crowdfunding website that EARNED its cut by providing project management support. Please let me know if such exists, but I've visited LOTS of them and haven't detected such an approach.
Let me try to make that more concrete: The imaginary website would vet the proposals before seeking funding. The proposals would have to be complete in terms of schedule, budget, resources (including people), such oft-forgotten factors as adequate testing, and success criteria. I actually think the success criteria are the most important part of project management. In exchange for doing that work, the website would EARN a percentage for providing the project management support, which should include evaluating the finished projects against their success criteria and reporting the results to all of the donors and to the public.
This approach would actually relate to MEPR, in that proposals involving people who have earned high reputations should be more attractive for funding. However I've already spent too much time on this topic for now, so I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of a constructive solution, I wish there were a crowdfunding website that EARNED its cut by providing project management support. Please let me know if such exists, but I've visited LOTS of them and haven't detected such an approach.
No offense, but I seriously doubt that could catch anything with a dishonest or unrealistic degree of completion. I mean you could offer that support and a whole lot of project might need it, but they rarely have the knowledge or capacity to dispute that you're 90% done.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, you can manage the 90% done problem pretty easily with various PM techniques and detailed plans. Both waterfall and Agile software methodologies tackle this problem in multiple ways. The real issue IMO is that the poster above wants cheap PM services. For a company like Kickstarter to take on project management duties for every project run on the site it would need a massive staff of PMs all with a standard skillset and tools. The costs would be significant and the cost passed on to the projec
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of a constructive solution, I wish there were a crowdfunding website that EARNED its cut by providing project management support. Please let me know if such exists
That sounds a lot like the better venture capitalists: You make your pitch, and, if it's sane, they'll buy an equity stake, giving you their money in exchange for a share of any profit. Advice and mentorship is part of the deal; they've done this all before, so they can save you from having to learn project management and supply chains the hard way. Most will sit on your board to help keep Elon Musk types productive; some will also supply expert personnel to help you successfully negotiate manufacture of
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm an idealist, not an executive, Jim."
I mostly agree with your description and most of your points, but the VCs are only interested in the money. My suggestion is targeted at people who want to do projects at a much lower level without worrying about whether everyone can get rich in the IPO or by selling out to a gigantic TLC or whatever. The donors would mostly be getting recognition on a list of donors and access to the products in the case of software. I actually think the programmers would generally
Re: (Score:2)
Money is a powerful motivator. Absent that, you're left trying to find a large group of businessmen savvy enough to help other people make money, but that don't want any themselves. Or, better yet, software developers that want to work on other people's projects rather than their own, at below-market rates, for the pleasure of seeing someone else make money from the delivery of their closed-source video game. I don't think you're going to find enough of either personality to build a business on their gen
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Which would you rather have? (1) A high salary as long as you work all your waking hours or (2) Half the work and half the pay while you're young enough to create nice memories for the rest of your life. If you would sincerely prefer Option (1), then mostly I just feel sorry for you. I think the economists have bamboozled you.
My view is that economists have bamboozled themselves, too. They count the money as a kind of joke. It's relatively easy to count money in the same way as it's easier to look under the
Re: (Score:2)
Which would you rather have? (1) A high salary as long as you work all your waking hours or (2) Half the work and half the pay while you're young enough to create nice memories for the rest of your life. If you would sincerely prefer Option (1), then mostly I just feel sorry for you. I think the economists have bamboozled you.
Your business plan is #1, except you don't plan on paying people. That makes you either innumerate or a sociopath, depending on whether you realize that.
My theory of ekronomics is still at the level of ontology, but I don't have time just now for another round of Ekronomics 101.
Of course you don't; your time is simply too valuable to waste pontificating about some shit you made up for the express purpose of pontificating. The same doesn't apply to those economist types, who are supposed to spend their time pontificating about actually useful things so that your website works.
You're a bit of a dunce, and condescending to boot. D
Public masturbation of 925136 (Score:3)
Z^-1
Re: (Score:2)
Crowd Supply [crowdsupply.com] takes this approach of vetting and assisting. 100% of funded projects have been delivered or are on track, 70% of projects are successfully funded.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that sounds like a highly promising lead and I'm pretty sure that I've never looked at it before. The name certainly doesn't ring a bell.
Re: (Score:1)
You compensate by attacking your own soil and blaming others ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
But no, I am not Russian. I do have some distant Russian ancestry though, so here you go, there's the direct Russian link -"Aye, comrade Putin" ;)
To be fair though, I am not even sure where you got "Russia" from. The OP referred to failed Kickstarter campaigns coming mostly from the US, which might be true or not. Russia on the other hand was the
Re: (Score:2)
Operation Northwoods never happened. You apparently missed the word proposed, so let me help [google.com]. (One wonders whether such a scheme would be rejected by the current inhabitant of the White House as it was by JFK, but that's neither here nor there.)
"9-11 was an inside job!"? Pffft.
ExecSummary: You got nothin'.
Re: (Score:3)
The Ruskies are EVIL turns up at least once a generation.
Every government needs a boogeyman.
Re: (Score:3)
Just that this is not what happened here. At all.
Re: (Score:3)
Not fraud, but idiocy (or perhaps youthful naivete). You can make a retro indy game for $50k, with 3 people in an extended "game jam", but a game with physics and modern graphics? Not reasonable, even at 180k.
What you could do, and what guys like this should do, is spend 6 months with a small team (usually dev, art, and sound) making a very limited game with a fun basic gameplay loop. Set aside your grand visions at first, and make something tiny but actually fun to play. Get that right, and people will
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no clue what "fraud" is. You are not buying a product on Kickstarter. You are buying the potential of a product. Apparently that simple thing is too difficult for you to understand. Makes you the "fucker" here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Misrepresenting his ability to deliver a game is fraud.
No. It is at worst a non-actionable lie. But the reality here is that nobody can assure success in any kind of non-trivial project, hence no fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
Does track record matter? (Score:2)
So would you prefer to donate your money to (1) a project that has several programmers who have succeeded in prior projects, (2) a project whose programmers have a consistent record of failure, or (3) a project where the programmers have no reputation at all?
I say (2), subject to the condition that they can convince me that they have learned important lessons from their mistakes. Just too unlikely that projects in the (1) group would need or seek funding from any crowdfunding website. Nor do I like the gamb
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have ignored the condition I specified in the second paragraph, but in the #3 case that you prefer, the project-management support of the website should include helping less experienced people deliver the project. Remember that the website would be in an ideal position to accumulate lots of experience in supporting projects.
Still better if I were just mistaken and that there already is such a website that doesn't take their cut of the money and run away, which is my perception of Kickstarter and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about limiting it to talk. I'd consider all of the evidence, and talk would weigh rather low on the list of evidence. Actually the most important factor would be the trend line of of the failure. For example, what if the early projects were huge failures while the more recent projects came close to succeeding?
The "talk is cheap" is a perfect description of how most crowdfunding websites seem to work these days. Writing up an appealing pitch is really important, though I think lucky tim
Re: A particular skill of Americans (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm American. Do not trust us. Ever. About anything. We are either actively attempting to fuck you over or being so self-centered it happens anyway. It is our national character.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
running off with the money. The number of times this has happened on Kickstarter is ridiculous, and overwhelmingly it's carried out by Americans with grand ideas and pretentious pitches.
Serious question, why is it ALWAYS the Americans who steal and pull stunts like these? It's getting mighty difficult to trust you, and any time you deal with Americans you have to use extra caution.
We are good at it. What's your excuse for falling for it ?
Re: (Score:2)
USA, Russia, Pakistan, India, China, Nigeria, pretty much where there exists people and money... My theory is that some people are greedy lazy assholes... regardless of race country or religion. But he some people would rather point at country X and say "Those people are scum!" As if by extension suddenly the country they live in is the epitome of purity.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question, why is it ALWAYS the Americans who steal and pull stunts like these?
I like to shit on Americans as much as anyone. But the "stunt like theses" appears to be successfully funding a kickstarter, working hard to make it a reality, and when it didn't pan out for reasons nothing to do with "running off" open sourcing all the work put in to date, then I think your insult isn't as insulting as you may think.
As for your serious question of why: Your Selection Bias [catalogofbias.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same sort of childish nonsense as equating being wrong about something with lying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
By passing chowderhead regulations, Europeans run off with everybody else’s money.