Upcoming tactical shooter from Blackfoot Studios: Ground Branch

[sanctuary 19]

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 431]

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)' date=' 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 17]

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 12]

@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 :j:

[jsonedecker 10]

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.

Edited June 24, 2012 by jsonedecker

[Defunkt 431]

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 10]

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 290]

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.

Edited June 25, 2012 by metalcraze

[sic-disaster 311]

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 5]

What is "AMA"?

[-GR-Operative 10]

Ask me Anything, on Reddit.

BFS plans to include SP. Really, this question was asked and answered several times.

If the KS were to achieve 700k, they would include Kynapse AI and SP. If not, a solid MP experience, to fund the whole SP thing.

I don't know if the 700k remains true, after the KS page updates, but SP is still in the plans.

Also, the campaign is going far from great, but it's not already lost.

~~~~~~~

John, several people really think GB is MP-only. I think it became unclear in the whole text and spread words here and there. It would be nice if it was actually stamped in the KS campaign, visible and easy to find.

Also, all videos descriptions should make this clear, and, if possible, annotations in the start of each KS video.

Edited June 25, 2012 by [GR]Operative

[sanctuary 19]

Didn't knew that Takedown thing was to found something else than their game, i didn't cared enough to check i guess, but thanks Defunkt for the precision anyways.

For the GB MP-only release subject, on the RPS article own comments system it has been said, i think by their lead, that for their launch there will be the RS/GR-like skirmish option, while not the same kind of coop fun like in GR it's still something to play in cooperation instead of GB being only about adversarial tdm.

[zoog 18]

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.

Funding SP via Kickstarter would run into millions of dollars for development costs. They are forced to go the MP + basic COOP > full coop + SP route because MP is cheapest to make so the goal of Kickstarter will not be too high. They want to do SP, but financially it's not possible atm. I believe they want to do it from revenue generated by retail sales of the MP portion of Ground Branch. Maybe people think it's a long shot, but this is the closest you've been from a true sequel to GR and R6 with SP capabilities. Once the franchise is on it's feet you certainly can expect an SP portion for Ground Branch.

So if you really want to have this type of game, even only SP, I think you should try and support Ground Branch if you can. You will have a very good chance to end up with great SP eventually.

[Dead3yez 0]

Seems kinda stupid to me to make a kickstarter right after people have just forked out for that whatjoomicallit takedown thing.

I don't know if people would be willing to part with their money after funding a very "similar" product so recently.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Dead3yez

[metalcraze 290]

With Takedown though Serellan promises SP/COOP right away. Not "maybe my grandkids will add it to the game"

And then again - why Ground Branch over America's Army? Since basically with MP focus it will be in the same "niche"

[zoog 18]

Yes, that's a problem. Takedown really hit a spot at the right moment.

I don't know if people would be willing to part with their money after funding a very "similar" product.

With Takedown though Serellan promises SP/COOP right away. Not "maybe my grandkids will add it to the game"

Again: there is absolutely no guarantee that Takedown will become a reality. People funded the startup of a studio and the development of an INVESTOR DEMO to get investors interested in the future. Considering they promised to make a PC and console version we're talking about millions and millions of dollars. If Serellan doesn't find investors (just as BFS has tried a few years ago without succes) all those pledgers won't get anything. So it's still a very big question mark if Takedown will ever be made. But most people don't seem to care somehow or don't realize what they paid for when backing Takedown (for the record: I backed them as well).

People seriously think Serellan will develop a new game from scratch with SP and coop AND PS3 and XBOX versions for the $200,000 which he asked on Kickstarter? That amount probably barely covers the costs to buy enough development consoles :rolleyes:

From Kickstarter:

What will the $200,000 be used for?

$200,000 will bring TAKEDOWN to Alpha

With Alpha he means one demo level which showcases features and show SP/coop elements (explained in one of his Q&A videos). That's what people paid for by pledging for Takedown Kickstarter. Nothing more. And remarks around the internet like "Takedown did it for $225,000 less than Ground Branch". This is just inaccurate. You're funding completly different things, an alpha investor demo (Takedown) vs full MP & (basic) coop retail game (Ground Branch). Don't get me wrong, I really hope Takedown succeeds. It's just that people keep comparing these two Kickstarter campaigns, while they are fundamentally different in what you are actually funding.

Edited June 25, 2012 by zoog

[-GR-Operative 10]

I really don't think AA is that similar to GB, but I see your point here metalcraze.

Well, I expect GB to be a improved GR and Infiltraion mashup, and, imho, it's what it appears to be heading to.

[metalcraze 290]

Nothing is certain on Kickstarter. The only difference is promises.

[zoog 18]

Nothing is certain on Kickstarter. The only difference is promises.

But you do see how there is a fundamental difference between what Takedown is doing and what Ground Branch is doing, right? One is about funding the development of an alpha demo while the other is about funding the development of retail (MP) game. The biggest difference lies in the "What will the money be used for?" section.

Serellan can promise anything, but as long as he doesn't have any investors Takedown won't see the light of day, that's a simple fact. Ground Branch uses the money to build their alpha version into a full retail MP game. The expansion of the game (possible SP etc.) will come down to amount of retail sales, sure, that uncertain as well. But at least you're funding the actual development of the game to get it ready for retail release.

But I don't want to make this about Takedown vs Ground Branch. But people really have to realize there is a fundamental difference between the two campaigns and what you are paying for.

Edited June 25, 2012 by zoog

[Flogger23m 2]

Ground Branch will be DRM free, though you will also get a Steam copy. More reasons to support BFS.

Ground Branch has a DRM-Free version, and supports Offline play!

Some of our community has expressed interest in being able to play the game, independent of Steam. We are pleased to announce that, every backer of Ground Branch, will now have the choice!

We will be providing two executables:

1. A Steam Release (which uses Steamworks for online features such as matchmaking, VOIP and Mod Distribution through the SteamWorkshop) and...

2. A DRM-Free version of the game, which can be played without an internet connection, and used for gamers with LAN-only setups or that want to play the solo portions of Ground Branch without connecting to the internet.

Both versions are free of install limits, and we are not using services like SecuROM. The Steam version can be used for offline LAN as well, but must use Valve's "Offline Mode" if you plan to be without a connection. Either way, all current and future backers have access to both, in the event that they need to be away from the internet! This is great news, if you're deployed, or just want to more easily host a LAN party and play our game!

Gamespy is no longer being considered.

With Takedown though Serellan promises SP/COOP right away. Not "maybe my grandkids will add it to the game"

And then again - why Ground Branch over America's Army? Since basically with MP focus it will be in the same "niche"

America's Army is a poorly done game with little content. Ground Branch will offer much more in terms of weapon and movement realism. It will push the standards of the genre further ahead in such aspects.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

With Alpha he means one demo level which showcases features and show SP/coop elements (explained in one of his Q&A videos). That's what people paid for by pledging for Takedown Kickstarter. Nothing more. And remarks around the internet like "Takedown did it for $225,000 less than Ground Branch". This is just inaccurate. You're funding completly different things, an alpha investor demo (Takedown) vs full MP & (basic) coop retail game (Ground Branch). Don't get me wrong, I really hope Takedown succeeds. It's just that people keep comparing these two Kickstarter campaigns, while they are fundamentally different in what you are actually funding.

You're simplifying it a bit too much. For one, multiple maps are already being designed. I can't go into many more details as they are for Kickstarters only. But this is the overall case. Serellan is looking for investors who will fund the rest of the game. The $225,000 bought things such as a UE3 license, was used to hire developers, and other game studio equipment including computers. Save for the investor part, this has been the deal with all Kickstarters, including Ground Branch ($200,000 needed to buy software for advanced AI).

Ground Branch is putting money purely into developing the game, related software licenses and developers to hire. This is the main difference. They are not getting investors to partake, nor are they setting up a studio.

There is a much larger risk with Takedown, no doubt. Many people did not feel comfortable Kickstarting it and rightfully so. Ground Branch is much more defined. Unlike other projects, this has defined goals, and is more than a concept. They have the basic game done. Now.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Flogger23m

[MBot 0]

Here are some words from SideStrafe about Ground Branch:

He has 33'000 subscribers. Hope this will cause a boost :)

[Defunkt 431]

They have the basic game done. Now.

Well they need to have more of it on show and I suspect the reason they don't is because it's not all that 'done' and I expect the reason for that is that they don't have a programmer amongst the partnership. First order of business (years ago) should have been to find a programmer who wants to get in on a startup developing a tactical shooter, I can assure you they exist.

[BOTA:16 0]

Well they need to have more of it on show and I suspect the reason they don't is because it's not all that 'done' and I expect the reason for that is that they don't have a programmer amongst the partnership. First order of business (years ago) should have been to find a programmer who wants to get in on a startup developing a tactical shooter, I can assure you they exist.

Yea I wouldn't say they have a basic game "done" either. They had the lead programmer from the Infiltration mod (Beppo) helping in the beginning, life happened, they were without a programmer and they've used other means to get some of the programming done to this point. Hence the reason for the Kickstarter, so they can have full time employees to do the things that are necessary to finish what has already be started. But it also what separates a mod from a full game. A lot of the basics and infustructure are already done for you in a mod. In a full game, you must do this yourself and that is where Ground Branch is currently at. They have the foundation in place and is trying the Kickstarter route so they can get resources to finish the game in a reasonable amount of time instead of at a snails pace as it has been so far.

[zoog 18]

Well they need to have more of it on show and I suspect the reason they don't is because it's not all that 'done' and I expect the reason for that is that they don't have a programmer amongst the partnership. First order of business (years ago) should have been to find a programmer who wants to get in on a startup developing a tactical shooter, I can assure you they exist.

They found a programmer to get the bare basics done (basics of the true first person system, basic of the reloading/inventory system, etc. This all had to be build from the ground up with lots of stuff under the hood). Finding an experienced programmer who basically must work for free for a few years? I don't think that's very easy to find actually :)

If Kickstarter succeeds, as you can read on the Kickstarter page, they will hire this programmers team:

We have contracted the 3 person team at Digital Confectioners as our main programming 'go to' partners to add to our small but experienced team. DC is headed by veteran programmer James Tan. James has many years of experience with Unreal Engine 3 on both the C++ engine side as well as extensive knowledge of getting the most out of Unrealscript. He has also been tapped by EPIC Games,Inc. to write official documentation on Unreal Engine 3, for their Unreal Developer Network. These are some of the most knowledgeable and gifted Unreal developers out there. We are confident in their skills and believe the game can be finished in an extremely reasonable amount of time with their help.

Still the logic of the argument that they should have more to show, I simply cannot understand. I've never seen any other kickstarter project who already had so much working footage. Most Kickstarter projects are just concept art or walls of text without any tanglible stuff. It seems you either just don't like Kickstarter or are expecting to place a pre-order for a game that is basically finished already (or you just have some kind of grudge against BlackFoot Studios). That's really not what Kickstarter is about. Kickstarter is about supporting ideas and supporting change. It's about what their ideas represent. If you believe in their ideas, their vision, what BFS wants to do in the gaming industry you could support them, regardless of how far along their game currently is. If you don't like their ideas, their vision or philosophy you don't support them, simple as that. But not supporting them because you think they haven't progressed enough or aren't showing enough..... I'm really at a loss for words if that's the case, and it seems that you're completely missing the point of Kickstarter in general. On top of that you really seem to be looking at the past and telling what they should have done instead of looking at the future and see the possibilities. I'm really not trying to attack you, I hope it does not come across like that! I you want me to I'll let it rest. I just think we have a very different view of what Kickstarter is about and what kind of perspectives you can take.

What is Kickstarter? (Kickstarter.com)

Kickstarter is a new way to fund creative projects.

We believe that:

• A good idea, communicated well, can spread fast and wide.

• A large group of people can be a tremendous source of money and encouragement.

Edited June 26, 2012 by zoog

[Defunkt 431]

Well I'm not going to carry on wasting my (virtual) breath. Keep repeating that party line and let us know how it worked out in 10 days time.