Kickstarter funded game evolution (post-release)

There might be an opportunity with the kickstarter platform to implement a more complete and long-term version of the test and patch scenario.

After release, the public will have an opportunity to test the game far more thoroughly than the developers, and might have suggestions for large content or mechanical changes/upgrades. Modding and patching will of course account for a great deal, but any major improvements to game mechanics or content would probably require the developers' intervention.

If PA turns out to be as good as it claims, it seems like a shame (once all the avenues of play have been explored) to wait for someone else to decide to make a similar game. If the game continues to evolve however, it can maintain its fun for years. The beauty of the kickstarter platform is that no one would HAVE to throw down for DLC if they chose not to, but as long as the community has interest, the game can continue to improve for a long time.

It also bears mentioning that the community would have a much more direct influence on features to be added, thus there would be no way to make a "PA2" Just for the sake of cashing in on the reputation of its predecessor like (apologies to those who liked it) SupCom2.

PA will have some sort of micro-transaction/DLC system to support post release content. I will continue speculating this until Uber says absolutely not =P

That's FAIRLY close to what I was thinking of, but I was thinking more along the lines of something that doesn't exclude anyone. This may be aiming pretty high on the generosity scale, but if those who really want a game-altering update can fund it through kickstarter, do we care if a few more casual gamers get it for free in an update? I know I'd be willing to throw in some more, and I get the impression that PA is attracting a more close-knit, mature and friendly community than, say, Call of Duty. (Nothing against COD, but I just don't expect to be called an ***-tard in PA games. I think we're all above that.)

Kickstarter is used as a means of funding through direct market research. Its kind of like scouting with your whole army to make an analogy.

If PA is a success, you have an established market to cater to and therefore cut out Amazon's percentage on Kickstarter projects.

But this goes against the philosophy of a pay to play game, which PA is.

You don't need to monetize something that you pay $50/$60 for.

Philosophy? Who cares about how it's "suppose" to be. Micro-transactions are perfectly legitimate for things like cosmetics, and back in the day expansion packs were more than common. Why do people complain about something that doesn't effect them? By buying the game you are entitled to the initial contents of the game, you are not entitled to any additions to it.

That model died in 2004. It costs money to support a game post release. Feel free give me sh1t next year if I'm wrong, but I'm making a Michael Pachter guarantee Uber will use some sort of microtransaction/DLC model ala Guild Wars 2.

The only reason people funded as much as $2,229,344 towards this project is because it is seen as a return to the traditional model that the industry has been selfishly throwing away only minus the publisher funding; and the concept being pitched actually made sense to normal people; it wasn't advertised as something 'new' or 'crazy'. People threw as much money as they did towards it because they wanted to see the project made; it had little to do with the prospect of rewards.

If it wasn't for the type of concept being pitched and the resume of the men behind it, this project would likely not have been funded, and Kickstarter already has a bad reputation for being an infestation of crummy 'I had an idea!' projects.

No, the main reason people funded the project is that the concept pitch is awsome and we want a game simular to it.