Bleszinski hints at early access funding for next project

Cliff Bleszinski has given a few more details about his next project, saying he's working on procuring outside financing but would like to complement that with an early access model that lets players help shape the game.

18

Cliff Bleszinski has been spending his post-Epic time pursuing other interests, opening a restaurant, and teasing his next game project in extremely incremental ways. In a new interview primarily focused on his restaurant venture, he briefly chimes in about a timeframe for more details, and hints that he may go with a crowdfunding solution similar to studios with less name recognition.

Bleszinski told GamerHub to "expect some news hopefully in the next 4-6 weeks" regarding his attempts to procure funding for his next project. He says he'd ultimately like to use both financing and a crowdfunded model.

"I would like to go directly to the consumer if possible, although with the safety net of providing outside financing," he said. "I think Kickstarter is a beautiful, romantic thing. I think that for every success story there's ten failures, sadly, on Kickstarter. But I think it's possible with the success of Day Z, to have the concept of pay-for-alpha or pay-for-early-access, and help the community forge and shape your game. Build the company while you build the game while you build the community, at the same time."

Editor-In-Chief
Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    February 3, 2014 9:30 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Bleszinski hints at early access funding for next project.

    Cliff Bleszinski has given a few more details about his next project, saying he's working on procuring outside financing but would like to complement that with an early access model that lets players help shape the game.

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 9:33 AM

      Pick the $100 tier and get a gold chain necklace with his name on it! No thanks CliffyB.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 10:34 AM

        what does he think we are? 14 year old girls? gold chains w/ names go out around highschool.

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 9:38 AM

      I'll donate if it's a modern version of FPS Smartey Man Survivor Island.

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 9:46 AM

      CliffyB doesn't strike me as the kind of person who'd welcome the hoi polloi into his creative process.

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 9:59 AM

      Console game right? Because pc gaming is dead.

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 10:05 AM

      It's rumored it's a PC FPS tournament game (spiritual successor to Unreal Tournament), so if that's true, bring it on! I'll back the shit out of it.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 10:06 AM

        Link
        http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/11/5200922/cliff-bleszinski-next-game-first-person-arena-shooter-pc

        "I have a slide deck, I have a pitch, I have concept art, I know pretty much what I want to do," Bleszinski told Pereira. "It will be a PC experience that will hearken back to a certain type of game that we cut our teeth on, if you know what I'm saying."

        When asked about the genre, Bleszinski said the game is a first-person shooter, but not the type of first-person shooter that's popular these days — "a lot of these kids playing Call of Duty, I don't think they know what a proper arena shooter is," he explained.

        • reply
          February 3, 2014 10:08 AM

          Well, sounds promising at least. Here's hoping. . .

        • reply
          February 3, 2014 10:10 AM

          yeah thats not going to happen. he will say things like this because if he plans on crowdfunding he has to court the PC crowd somewhat, but he made his feelings clear about that market years ago and i just dont see PC gamers accepting his garbage. if people think he is going to make another UT or something in that vein, they deluding themselves.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 10:25 AM

        If this is true, i'll wear a plastic cowboy hat with a shirt that says I love CliffyB!

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 1:52 PM

        So awesome when designer legends quit their company to go do something new in their life and end up just making the same stuff.

        • reply
          February 3, 2014 1:55 PM

          If it's true what he's saying, he can keep making those games all day long. Fine by me.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 1:54 PM

        we've got quake 3, why would we need more?

        • reply
          February 3, 2014 1:57 PM

          I may have to self-flagellate for saying this but Quake 3 is pretty much played out.

          I love the game and it has eaten up days, months, probably full years of my life but it is time for something new.

          • reply
            February 3, 2014 1:59 PM

            Hell, its not even the definitive DM game in all eyes...just ask someone who loves QW more than Q3.

            • reply
              February 3, 2014 2:00 PM

              People are entitled to be wrong.

              • reply
                February 3, 2014 4:18 PM

                I know! I mean. DM, not TDM?

              • reply
                February 3, 2014 9:48 PM

                I have gripes about both. QW had the best air physics and movement...you could gain insane speed but you'd be completely fucked if you got too greedy and you kind of had to plan ahead in order to keep your speed in an interesting way. Q3's movement works well enough, but I think its more linear than QW's...you can nudge yourself along a path. Its a preference thing, but I like the more controlled system in QW where its a little harder to gain speed, but you can gain insane speed.

                Weapon-wise I think both games had their bad spots. Q3's weapons are weak and bland. Everything is sort of 'ok' but I never really get any joy out of the weapons. It feels like its been balanced to death and designed by committee. Not to mention the railgun that is the least interesting weapon in all the Quake games (its a fucking high-powered hitscan thing with near infinite range...I'm not knocking it as imbalanced or anything...I just think it makes the game more defensive). Q1/QW's shotguns are a bit too weak (and I'll never forgive it for that coming from a DOOM and DOOM2 background) but it has a rocket launcher that does more than 100 damage with its splash and has a better splash damage formula (but less "correct" mathematically if you'd ask some people I imagine). You end up with a minimum amount of damage with the QW and Q2 RLs and GLs that mean any splash you do is at least somewhat worthwhile (beyond locating an enemy's position...which didn't really work in QW and Q2 anyway). I think DOOM2 had one of the best weapon sets, but it had some random shit built into its damage calculations so it had big problems as well

                I don't think there's a perfect DM at all...its why I think its funny when someone says "oh Q3 is the perfect DM" or that its all you need...when Q3 came out it was met with people bitching about things (even Q1 was met with that to some degree...I remember gripes about weapon balance back during the Q1 vs Duke arguments). Some people prefer higher damage values over longer fights, and some people feel that faster is always better...and there are different preferences regarding how the players should gain that speed.

                • reply
                  February 3, 2014 9:56 PM

                  I will say that I think QL changed things for the worse coming from Q3 for the most part. I like that they raised the RL's speed to 1000ups...but they also reduced the splash to 84 (from 100, which was already lower than the other Quake games). QL seems to have a pattern of balancing by weakening and I think too much of that manages to make a game less interesting and dynamic. It wouldn't be so bad, but we've also got the 125 health respawns from Q3 (that were a bad idea to begin with IMHO...they helped make Q3's weapons feel a little too weak IMO) and we've got health pickups from Q3 that give way more health than their predecessors did (DOOM and Q1 health picks-ups gave you a maximum of 25 for the larger types, Q3 and QL give you 50 health)...I think these all tend to make the game a little too defensive...its easier to try and get away. You could do that in QW, but you saw more games where that didn't happen. Watching QL demos its seems to happen a LOT...it always feels like its two guys pecking at each other in the demos I've watched until somebody really gets cornered or makes a mistake.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 9:53 PM

        I listened to both podcasts... It sounds like hes pc gamer at heart, but when he was behooven to his company he had to go with the flow of the whole console market. Im hoping thats true.

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 10:09 AM

      This trend needs to die.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 10:16 AM

        Why? Investors controlling development is a lot worse. Super stressful to developers, diminished control over their own creative project.

          • reply
            February 3, 2014 10:25 AM

            I mean if you're just going to look at it as about products then I can see avoiding it. But if you understand the ridiculous risks of game development lifestyle and what people put on the line to make their games (so many millions of less grueling jobs out there) I think it's worth supporting pretty much all forms of crowdfunding.

        • reply
          February 3, 2014 10:19 AM

          Players controlling development is better?

          • reply
            February 3, 2014 10:32 AM

            Players aren't asking for full control ever.

          • reply
            February 3, 2014 4:33 PM

            Show me where players have control over development. As far as I can tell, players are only providing the cash. Control of the development when it's crowd funded is solely in the hands of the developers.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 10:23 AM

        No it doesn't. While I personally haven't bought an Early Access game yet (and probably won't because I don't want to deal with buggy builds as a consumer), this is a great way to fund development and allow developers full creative control while getting actual, useful feedback from the community.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 1:50 PM

        No.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 2:13 PM

        the ability to be creative and innovative is a bad thing? Publishers and stockholders are terrible for game design... I'd go as far to say that all middle men are meddling retarded Bobby Kotick's that don't give a shit about what people want, they over saturate the market with the same product over and over and over and innovation goes out the window.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 2:31 PM

        Cliff making games? I agree.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 4:20 PM

        To which trend are you referring? The early access trend or the independent funding trend?

        Or the CliffyB trend?

        • reply
          February 3, 2014 5:03 PM

          I take no issue with independent funding. Used responsibly I think it can be a great thing.

          However I do not believe offering early-access benefits qualifies as being used responsibly.

          Insofar as CliffyB is concerned I don't really care either way. UT was fun for its time, Gears was fun, Bulletstorm is a ton of fun, so I'm not ready to count him out just yet.

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 2:10 PM

      As much as I'd love for this to take off, I think the boat sailed 10 years ago.

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 2:33 PM

      I look forward to DM-Deck18

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 4:02 PM

      nice scarf

    • reply
      February 3, 2014 4:14 PM

      It's weird to me that CliffyB even needs to "work on" procuring outside financing. I would have thought any publisher would give him any amount of money to do another project.

      My guess is he doesn't wanna give up the IP to a publisher... so is looking to crowdsource?

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 4:32 PM

        I'd guess he wants full control of whatever he's making, yeah.
        But he also knows that it's not going to be a AAA blockbuster that publishers would be interested in anyway, having been in that space before.

        If it is in fact a small scale arena shooter like the old UT games, it's going to be a niche title. There's no way around that, tastes aren't going to change so dramatically in a few years. And not bowing to publisher demands and doing what he wants instead, he could potentially make a better game and keep all the profits for his team. If he goes the crowdfunding / early access route and gets any decent feedback from the players actually interested in it, then it will be a better game for the small group of gamers actually interested in it. Or it could all bomb, but he's probably not worried about that if he was set enough financially to leave Epic a while back.

      • reply
        February 3, 2014 5:14 PM

        One individual does not make a AAA game. Publishers want to make sound investments no matter who is involved.

        IP control would be on factor certainly, but as, or more, important would be factors like: how compelling is the idea/prototype; how big is the potential audience; how big is the team that will make the game and who will it consist of; how long will the production take; what sort of publishing deal will this be (ie publisher funds 100% of development/marketing/distribution/live budget, owns IP, and pays 15% royalties after being made whole; or publisher offers QA services, funds 50% of development and agrees to comarket, but does not assume control of IP; etc); what is the projected return on investment; how well does the title coexist with the publisher's existing internal/external slate; what is the potential for a franchise; what is the core tech the game is being built on; and many, many more.

      • reply
        February 9, 2014 12:55 AM

        CliffyB is dead.

Hello, Meet Lola