Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: Obsidian Entertainment

Recently, I have had the great pleasure of reading Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made, an excellent collection of real development stories written by former Kotaku editor Jason Schreier. Its first chapter, covering the story behind Obsidian Entertainment’s Pillars of Eternity, details how the studio failed to obtain proper funding for the project through traditional means. Without other options,they turned to crowdfunding, and managed to secure nearly six million dollars to fund the game, leading it to become a critical smash hit.

The crux of this success, the crowdfunding, is a topic that sparks a lot of interest in me. Its inception at Obsidian marked a significant shift in the studio’s philosophy regarding community engagement and, to a certain extent, their design philosophy. With a crowdfunded game, the fundamental relationship between developer and consumer changed; the black-tinted windows were rolled down due to a sort of moral obligation to the thousands of independent backers who had made their idea happen, and suddenly, a massive dialogue began between the two. Instead of only receiving feedback incrementally between trailers and demos, thediscussion was constant, and feedback was rolled in on a regular basis. Thanks to the constant stream of analytics, Obsidian was able to update and refine the design of Pillars of Eternity much more precisely than what would otherwise be possible, fine-tuning it to the audience’s wants and needs, to the point where it felt like an army of designers stood behind them to offer collective guidance. The constant feedback stream would also go the other way, to a certain extent. Obsidian would be consistently reaching back out to the crowdfunding community during that time, showcasing or describing changes, providing updates on progress, and the like. The engagement and greater transparency with the broader community would encourage further engagement with the studio, thus growing and strengthening the cycle of interaction that drovethe game’s design direction. Their openness to discussion kept the backers engaged and watching the development progress, much to the studio’s benefit.

I personally believe that is the biggest benefit of crowdfunding. Within a successful kickstarter, the direct community engagement not only provides the community with a direct communications pipeline to the developers they’re supporting, but the studio benefits greatly from this dialogue, as well. As stated before, the increased level of feedback and closeness withthe consumer allows for the creation of a more well-informed product, with real time feedback providing opportunity for quick and accurate revision of particular systems and designs. It also largely bolsters trust in the developer when handled properly, the constant contact and transparency with the community thinning the veil between the two parties.

However, despite its benefits, crowdfunding is still a crapshoot at the end of the day. A studio could strike it big and pull out a massive victory, as Obsidian did, but for every success,there may be a dozen failures, simply due to a lack of interest, poor advertisement, or a myriad other reasons that may affect a studio’s ability to attract backers. Relying solely uponcrowd funding is thus ill-advised. Regardless, it is still a viable alternative for studios unable to secure funding by other means, and for that, it has its niche in the industry at large.