Talk:List of video game crowdfunding projects

Inclusion criteria

What is the inclusion criteria for this list? --Mika1h (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe they have been defined yet. I think it should be more than a primary source link (essentially a WP:SPS at that point) to the Kickstarter project itself. It needs to be covered by third party sources to determine notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I placed these comments at the top of the list, maybe they're not prominent enough, because User:Salavat's most recent addition does not conform -

• BLUE LINKED projects are assumed notable.
• RED LINKED and UNLINKED projects MUST include a RELIABLE THIRD PARTY REFERENCE
• List is arranged in date order, MOST RECENT AT THE TOP

hahnchen 12:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Woops sorry, must of missed them. Feel free to remove the entry if needs be, it wont bother me. Salavat (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the inclusion needs to be somewhat high. The game doesn't need an article (at the state some of these start, an article wouldn't be appropriate) but their crowdsourcing existance needs to be noted by the standard RS's from the video game project. (eg even note from situational sources only would be a weak reason to include). Sourcing to Kickstarter or the crowdfunding project site alone is not sufficient (this would justify any video game inclusion that's crowdfunded). --MASEM (t) 14:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I feel the requirements for inclusion should be at least as high as notable canceled/development hell games, if not higher, since all crowdfunded games are a special class of unreleased games whose release is even less guaranteed than normal. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd at least require two reliable sources for cancelled or failed projects if they don't otherwise have an article on WP. Eg something like Code Hero. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think requirements "as high as notable canceled/development hell games" are too high. That would raise the bar so that all projects on the list are potential blue links. I think the list is made richer with entries like Balance of the Planet and others that I don't think would qualify as notable cancelled games. Balance of the Planet I included because it was a Chris Crawford project with an interesting post-mortem. There's no way this failed reboot would be notable enough for an article. (It's red-linked in the article, because we don't have an article on his original 1990 video game, which is notable.)

I'm also not convinced that we need two reliable sources instead of one - in the vast majority of cases, if there is one reliable source, you'll easily find a mirror. Armikrog for example, had two separate references which just reported the same thing. I could go through the list and add an extra source to each entry with only one independent source, but I think that would be a waste of time. - hahnchen 00:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If two separate sources report on the campaign, both referencing directly the campaign, that shows interest by two independent sources, which should be the sufficient level for inclusion. We don't need to have an article (I'd be hardpressed to say Armikrog needs an article at the current level of details we know now, even though we can cover it in the Neverhood article), but we need to show the project has interest out there. This prevents projects that just have a kickstarter and blog page from being include. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that two sources are much better than one. You'd be hard pressed to find a project with only one independent reliable source. - hahnchen 01:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen several pass, say, Destructoid or RPS, but not be mentioned elsewhere, depending on the whims of the editors there. Having two at least gets past website personal bias. Yes, it is rarely the case that only one such independent source appears that no other source will come about but that assures good sourcing for all inclusion. And we can always IAR for fringe cases. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we add a column for actual release date or "final result" (e.g. canceled or somesuch)? What about stuff like Shadow of the Eternals which is getting canceled tomorrow? Does the campaign have to finish to qualify for this list? Should there be some kind of oversight/follow-up where games that have been released turn out to not be notable at all and get removed? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If they are notable on this list, they shouldn't be removed, ever even if the game never gets published and we never have an article on it. And the colored column is the final result column, effectively, at least in terms of the crowdfunding part. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought about having a "released" column, to clearly show when a project fails its crowdfunding, but gets released; or succeeds its crowdfunding and fails. But I don't think there's the horizontal space, so I just left those details in the notes column. - hahnchen 13:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it'd be nice if the actual release info is clearly separated out for sorting purposes. I'll play around with the column widths to see what works but it's not critical until more games are actually released irl. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The other option to get space is to split the table between "ongoing", "succeeded" (in terms of the KS, not whether the project ends up getting released) and "failed/cancelled". Entries would move from the "ongoing" to one of the two, and as long as we're careful with columns, it should be a cut+paste move with addition extra rows. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea of having three separate tables. I definitely feel the page is now missing the entire succeed/fail aspect from after funding, which is part of why I created the page in the first place: to follow the projects after they were funded. Also, I think the notes column should be removed, or its content standardized. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I just made an edit to this article removing Frozen State, it did have a third party reference - but it was to RPS's weekly Kickstarter list article. I don't think items in list articles are sufficient to grant inclusion, the project should be the subject of the article. Does the edit notice need to be made more stringent/explicit? - hahnchen 21:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing article has to be more than a name drop or on a list like this. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Canard PC Online

Hello, I'm taking care of the French translation of the list. I'm not sure but you might want to add this Kickstarter for a French magazine: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/canardpc/canard-pc-online (you'll find the details on the French version of the list). Cheers, FR (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Splitting Article

At 370,291 bytes, this page is quite large and difficult to navigate. Under WP guidelines, it should be split to more manageable lists. I am quite willing to do so myself, but would appreciate some feedback from other editors on the following issues.

1. Lists should be connected through a template such as Template:Year nav topic5 which is used for video games. (See: 2018 in video gaming) Is there a preference for which template type?

2. The years 2009 - 2011 are sparse in terms of content. The years 2016 - 2018 are also somewhat bare, but I think this is simply because the article hasn't been updated with all notable entries. Digging through Indiegogo, Fig, and Kickstarter will likely yield more games. In contrast, early years didn't have the same crowdfunding push, so I doubt we'll see much for 2009 - 2011. In any case, the question becomes what to do with them. I would support making the first list cover 2009 - 2012, since 2012 has enough content to support a separate list but wouldn't be negatively impacted by having a few more entries.

3. To split up the page a little bit on individual list articles, I would propose having a section for "video game production" campaigns and campaigns for "related projects." The latter would contain projects related to video games but not involved in the actual production of a game. For example, campaigns for books, events, translations, technology, and new releases of existing games. Right now, these are scattered throughout. A third section could be exclusively for failed, notable campaigns.

4. One benefit of splitting this list by year is that we can add all games that received third-party acknowledgment without worrying about excess cluttering. With that in mind, one of the major reasons why this article is so large is due to the abundance of references. I think we need to solidify how exactly we are using references. I suggest the following:

• For video game productions with blue links, we assume notability. Only a link to the crowdfunding campaign is required.
• For video game productions with red links, we require two links: one to the campaign, another to a third party source.
• For failed video game productions with blue links, we assume notability. For failed productions with red links, there should be a third party source commenting on the failure itself, with the exception of games that were able to be released despite the failure. (Ex; the team pushed it out with minimal funding or secured funding from a larger company.)
• For related projects, inclusion is automatic if it is related to existing games or franchises as long as the campaign is done in an official capacity, such as by the company/people who own the IP or were involved in its production. Outside of that, third-party sources are needed.
• Sources should be limited to what is necessary to show notability, particularly with blue link games. As such, it would be best to stick to 2 or 3 sources max for games. Some games have ~5 sources, which adds unnecessary bytes.

5. Of course, this all leaves a question about what to do with this base page. Link it directly to the first crowdfunding year we use? Link it to the Crowdfunding in video games?

I look forward to hearing from others. Please comment on anything I've written and feel free to add your own concerns and ideas. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Might I suggest that before splitting the article, the concept of an inclusion criteria be addressed first? Most articles dealing with lists of best-selling or "most funded" or similar have inclusion criteria to limit the amount of cruft. Most specifically, I would recommend removing non-notable projects. Sure, they raised some money. That doesn't make it notable in and of itself, this is run of the mill now. Second, perhaps a minimum amount raised. We range from 1000 raised to several million raised, not even trying to address the shakiness of Star Citizen being listed (At what point is it simply commercial operation?). This was brought up before in 2013 (Still on the talk page) but was not ultimately actioned. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's a good thing to cement. Inclusion criteria seems to be one of the biggest issues with the list currently. I agree that non-notable games should be removed. So, with the question being "what makes something notable?", that's... a bit more difficult to figure out. I outlined some of my notability beliefs in the #4, but to add to that: I think assuming notability for blue linked games isn't too much of a risk. If they aren't notable, they should (in theory) be nominated for deletion eventually. However, those games will tend to fill most notability criteria we would have hypothetically used--relation to existing games, companies and creators involved, third-party press, etc. For red-linked games, it will likely come down to third-party coverage. I would say if a game has no third-party coverage by at least a somewhat-legitimate site, then it's a no-go. Just existing on a crowdfunding website and/or being funded is also not enough. However, if the game later receives coverage or reviews upon its release, then it can be added.

The minimum funding issue is also interesting. I'm a bit conflicted there. Most projects seeking lower amounts are already mostly-completed or the funding is going to a very specific aspect, such as hiring a composer or a voice actor. (Or, in my Original Research, people vastly underestimating the costs of producing a video game.) As such, they aren't necessarily what people are looking for here. On the other hand, sometimes these projects do wind up being notable. And, as you alluded to, the other problem is that several of the larger games already have funding or the success of a campaign leads to securing greater funding--like with Shenmue III and Star Citizen. If we were going to add a minimum amount, I think we should keep in on the low end, perhaps around 5K - 10K raised. This at least weeds out the very small projects. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria - again

Given this just went through AFD as being perceieved as too broad but otherwise being kept, let's talk inclusion criteria again.

First, and most obvious: the game must have an article. This will probably be something that comes after the crowdsourcing is complete, but not always - however, we are not here to advertize crowd funding efforts so that should work.

Second, the sourcing about the crowd funding should be from good secondary sources, not from the crowd funding page itself or from social media. If the game is notable, this probably will be met but not always. I've seen some small indie games go through that the coverage never really touches on the crowdfunding source (since it is an accepted, and not unusual, way)

At this point, I'm not sure what obvious limits we can put on this to avoid further issues. --Masem (t) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm on board with rule 1, must meet WP:GNG and have an article. #2 about sourcing is fine for me but may be unnecessary once we get the non-notables out. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I maintained this list for a few years. My criteria for inclusion was coverage in reliable secondary sources which were NOT news posts. This meant that had an article been created for an entry, it could withstand AFD. This does not mean there was an article. I would sometimes use redlinks here as a good way of working on interesting articles, such as The Aquatic Adventure of the Last Human. On article creation, I'd remove the references from the crowdfunding list, because the subject article alone would be strong enough to maintain the game's presence on the list. - hahnchen 22:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

New entry?

A Kickstarter for the full version of Friday Night Funkin' has raised almost $2 million. The base game is already out, but the full game is not completed yet. Is it too early to put it on the list, since the fully crowdfunded version is still in development? FNF is notable, and it has a Wikipedia article (which also mentions the kickstarter). Wubbox (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)