Someone sent me this yesterday. Aside from the fact that the whole thing reads like a jealousy article (specifically when they cite their own game) I actually think they've ignored a major factor in why big name kickstarters do better.
Kickstarter, much like Steam Early Access, has earned a reputation for having pretty bad projects on it. There are so many projects that under deliver, or simply don't deliver. When you're asking for people's money to help fund development of a game you're asking them to trust you with their money. When a big name comes and says they're making a game and they're using kickstarter to fund it people are going to trust them over the newcomer who might not have a clue what they're doing.
But there's also plenty of examples of unknown indies getting a great success out of kickstarter. It all comes back to the trust thing. If an unknown indie appears trustworthy from the presentation of their kickstarter, people are more likely to back. Now obviously there's other factors, like if the game even looks worth playing, but I think trust is one of the major reasons for people backing or not.
I do think it's unfair for them to lump Yooka-Laylee into this category because Playtonic have been really open about the fact that they already have the funds to make the game & that the Kickstarter is to help with extra content/features. Also, someone mentioned to me that the Bloodstained devs had also been honest about having access to large funds (from publishers I assume?) should the kickstarter be successful but I've not looked into that myself.
The short version: No I don't think the big names "hiding" the true costs is the problem. I think the large amount of bad indie games on Steam Early Access and Kickstater has caused people to be wary & more cautious of where they put their money & the 'celebrity' names in gaming are by default going to provoke more trust.
Last edited by Moonray
on Thu May 21, 2015 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.