Upcoming tactical shooter from Blackfoot Studios: Ground Branch

[Sanctuary]

The point is obviously that you don't need gigantic amount of money to build a serious tactical game, not that tactical shooters should all be free.

By example "Takedown", that other tactical shooter project managed to reach its target Kickstarter founding, but "Takedown" was asking "only" (as it's still a lot for showing nothing) half the money Ground Branch is requesting.

Maybe they should have revised down their projected budget on this.

[Defunkt]

Here you go:

Honestly batto I think you might be missing the style of game they're after.

I've no doubt the particular mix proposed by Ground Branch would attract a devoted following who don't have too many options right now but it would appear there aren't enough PC (only) gamers prepared to gift this team the $425K they would require to make it. Again I would question whether this is the right team to invest so much money in. Having a family is very rewarding but there's no denying it's going to make a lot of the adventures you might otherwise have undertaken a great deal more difficult - something touched on in THIS interview with one of the Iron Front developers about getting their indie game up and running:

I am not married. You have only one choice - make games or get married.

I also think it's akin to madness to attempt such an endeavour without a programmer amongst the principals (and ideally an animator as well), no wonder they need so much money if they're going to pay top dollar to compete for coding talent with the big studios. By comparison, I'd like to know what THESE GUYS have been up to in the past three months, based on what they put together in just one month they could have a killer proof of concept in place and ready to launch on KS right now for all we know. That's the sort of team I could really get behind if they worked hard on presenting their goal and I reckon they could complete it with a fraction of the funding.

By example "Takedown", that other tactical shooter project managed to reach its target Kickstarter founding, but "Takedown" was asking "only" (as it's still a lot for showing nothing) half the money Ground Branch is requesting.

The Takedown model is quite different, they were only looking to fund a proof of concept and prove a market existed but their ultimate goal is more ambitious in that they want to include consoles so they needed less money initially and could appeal for it to a much larger potential audience. Mr. Allen is certainly a chancer and benefits from being something of a raconteur but I think the model's pragmatic and realistic and if he gets there his IP is still going to be mostly owned by other investors. In the case of GB they'd pay themselves to make the game *and* wholly own the IP at the end of it. I might be more charitable about their campaign if they were offering shares in the company but as it is they can't lose.

Directed at you? Not necessarily. But after reading your others posts on this topic, I guess I can see how it would look like that.

Pretend much? Here's a LINK to you quoting my earlier post in full a week ago (along with an uncharitable opinion on all ArmA players I might add).

[batto]

Honestly batto I think you might be missing the style of game they're after.

I'm not =). I've just replied to BOTA request.

[Icarus]

@Sanctuary

Takedown only asked money to get hardware for their studio...
They hoped to find some investors for funding the actual game. So Takedown will never be created either...

Blackfootstudios (creators of Ground Branch) on the other hand have a studio and had already unsuccessfully tried to find investors, so they are asking money for funding the creation of actual game.

Icarus

[jsonedecker]

I have tried to stay out of this but I always find id frustrating that people try to compare mod teams to what we are doing. For some reason they think using UE3 includes some sort of gamemaking magic bullet that requires less work or something. Mod teams that make full games are great and I love seeing them, but in all honesty they are far and few between. They are building a "game" on top of another game and have at least 50% of the work done and usable already. Making "realistic" weapons usually consists of a new model, animations and tweaking the built in weapon system. And how many have a fully working full body awareness system?

For Ground Branch, we have have a working game engine but the entire character/movement and weapons systems are designed and built from scratch. Getting that full body awareness system built so that is actually works is no small trivial task. Our weapon system is 100% new and does not use anything that you find in UT. So there is a LOT of foundational work that has been done that mods don't need to worry about.

The other thing that bothers me is that we asked for a very reasonable $425k. You people must have no idea what so ever what it costs to make a game that people would pay for. Mods are great. Free games are great. But very very few carry the level of quality and features that most people would actually pay money for. They are super as mods or freebies, but once you slap a $30 price tag on them people bitch and moan about how buggy or "dated" the graphics are. It happens all the time.

Also, why is it that no one seems to complain that more well known developers ask for the same amount of money. Why is it not 'absurd' and 'ridiculous' that Harebrained Schemes asked for $400k to do Shadowrun? Or that InXile asked for the ungodly amount of $900k for Wasteland 2? I mean really..... professionals have to make a living.

And for the love of all that is holy... why do people not understand that Serellan asked for $200k to get an office and make a demo to show investors? They promised a full retail PC version PLUS 360/PS3 console versions! That money will barely cover the making of the demo when hiring of actual professionals is involved. If there is no, or not enough, investor money then that is going to be one huge !@#$% sandwich. How is that approach any more logical or "trustworthy" than my upfront 'tell you exactly what our plan and budget calls for to deliver exactly what we are offering' approach? It dumbfounds me.

[Defunkt]

Also, why is it that no one seems to complain that more well known developers ask for the same amount of money. Why is it not 'absurd' and 'ridiculous' that Harebrained Schemes asked for $400k to do Shadowrun? Or that InXile asked for the ungodly amount of $900k for Wasteland 2?

Personally my gaming rarely strays from first-person-shooters so those other campaigns aren't really on my radar. I guess they've hit on something identifiably different for which there is a large untapped audience while Ground Branch hasn't demonstrated a sufficient difference from everything else in the crowded shooter space. I'm sure we all understand how it's different but I guess for most people it looks like just another military shooter. And of course, Takedown got there first.

For the rest I don't know how much more I can say that I haven't already. I don't think something like Ground Branch is impossible but its fine points of difference make it fairly niche and getting it done is going to require something other than the pay-all-the-people approach a less niche title can employ.

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

Actually what I will add regarding the comparison with mod teams is that most endeavours in gaming are either done for love (by amateurs) or for money (by professionals). You're trying to reach a place where you can do what you love for money (and score ownership of a potentially valuable new IP in the process). I certainly can't fault you for trying but I guess (not surprisingly) it's infinitely more difficult than just doing one or the other.

[jsonedecker]

Yeah Defunkt, you more or less hit the nail on the head so to speak as to why things aren't going better for the KS. Though, my "rant" above was aimed more at why we specifically get attacked or questioned for doing either the same things as others or for trying to justify why we do certain things by providing concrete examples and legitimate answers.

I'm not not necessarily trying to argue the "why isn't Ground Branch being received better" point.

[metalcraze]

I wonder why don't they take loan...

Because loan has to be paid back and kickstarter donation - isn't. For better or worse.

For some reason they think using UE3 includes some sort of gamemaking magic bullet that requires less work or something.

Well considering how most of UE3 shooters are I wouldn't be surprised if it had "Generate generic cover shooter" button.


It's a pity though that this is going to be MP-only PvP shooter unless I'm missing something.
My friends and dudes I play with who love early GR and R6 too also were like "it's mp-only pvp? meh". I'm not saying that's any indication, but I guess there are people out there who want a tactical SP-coop game like GR/R6 from a game that is claimed to be their follower and not just another America's Army and that's why GB doesn't get more support.

I guess they've hit on something identifiably different for which there is a large untapped audience while Ground Branch hasn't demonstrated a sufficient difference from everything else in the crowded shooter space.

Well Ground Branch indeed does not look much different from a free America's Army.

[SiC-Disaster]

There will be co-op present in the first release of GB, but with simple AI in a regular terrorist-hunt mode. Read through the AMA, it's in there

[Nicholas]

What is "AMA"?