How is “Crowd Funding” Affecting the Relationship Between Institutions and Audiences at the Publishing, Design, Marketing and Distribution Level? Answer with Specific Reference to Assassin’s Creed III and Double Fine Productions.

No doubt that the relationship between each company and their audiences will be different for these two fields of game funding. Assassin’s Creed 3 (AC3) was funded and created by a company called Ubisoft who adopt the classic game funding design. On the other hand we have Double Fine Adventure (DFA); this is a game that has gathered its money from the crowd funding site “Kickstarter”. Both techniques of funding can create a game however when it comes to Publishing, Design, Marketing and Distribution the two techniques differ.    

On the publishing level crowd funding has made the bond between audience and producer more interactive. Ubisoft control every detail in AC3, but for DFA the publishers are the audience who funded the game via websites like Kickstarter. A difference as to how the two games receive funding is via the people who supply the money. In AC3, Ubisoft fund the whole business and control all the processes up to distribution, after which the audience is left with no input into the game. Unlike crowd funding and DFA, where the audience is the funder who supply Tim Schafer (the designer and publisher) with the money he needs to work. This also allows the audience to have a say into what the finished game will be like as they are active in the game making process. However another place where the two games differ is the amount of money put into the game. Ubisoft put in a huge amount of money for Assassin’s Creed 3 whereas Tim Schafer is making his game from $3,336,371.  For both games the profit cannot be accounted for as it has either not been made yet or is in the process of being sold.

Another way that these two funding techniques have related to their audience is via the game design. This comes down to the aesthetical appeal and gameplay of the game. For this area alone Ubisoft used a whole new game engine, Anvil Next. This was a whole new dimension on the AC franchise. It allowed for more fluent movement, natural weather simulations and world occurrences. Therefore the audience who played the game felt as if they were in the world of AC3. Also with the boon in graphics the audience is enveloped in the game. This differs to DFA on numerous levels. This is mostly due to DFA’s less sophisticated game engine “Moai”. For one, Eurogamer.net said that “Double Fine's forthcoming crowd-funded adventure title will likely be a traditional 2D affair, according to the game's co-creators.” Although this sticks to the “point and click” genre this leaves the audience less involved and less likely to lose themselves in the game. However this is not the case for all crowd funded games, the game Maia is a 3D adventure game which has also been funded by Kickstarter. However in the end the game design of AC3 will most likely be more involved and feel closer to that game.   
  
For a game to be bought these days the audience need to be captivated and interested with the game before it comes out. For AC3, Ubisoft used various techniques and in the end cost them $4,000,000 for marketing alone. One of these techniques was the use of YouTube advertisement. When the audience see this advert they see the highlights of the game and feel involved with the game already. Another method that involves the audience is that of different editions. The different editions of the game make the audience feel special and privileged to have it. This contrasts with DFA which only used a video on Kickstarter and YouTube. However, said video involved the creator of DFA Tim Schafer talking to the audience and speaking to them informally. Other companies on Kickstarter use this way of marketing as a form of relating to the audience and thus making the audience feel like they have a relationship to the creators. Also DFA uses a technique where for whatever amount of money one donates, they are given an award as to the amount they give. This makes them feel almost a part of the company as they have been awarded for their contribution.

Without the game itself, the audience would not relate to the Institutions that create the games, therefore the area of distribution is a key one. AC3 the game was distributed to Xbox, Ps3, PSVita and PC. This resulted in many people being able to buy the games across the globe. This however does not mean that it relates to the audience just that many more people can buy the game. It also requires either a person to go to a shop and buy the game or a download of it from online. The first way slightly relates the audience to the Institutions as the person has made a physical effort to buy the game. On the other hand, DFA is only downloadable from the internet. This limits some game players as they don’t have internet connection. However, this isn’t such a problem as DFA is only going to be distributed on PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android and Steam. All of which require an internet connection. This makes the audience feel closer to the creators as they can be a fan of Tim Schafer’s other games and thus receiving them in the same way makes them feel closer to him.

I think it’s safe to say that DFA has a far better relationship with its audience. Although AC3 had the more immersive game and game design, when applied to the two Institutions themselves a crowd funded game will have a closer relationship to the audience. This is because of how the audience can actually have a say into what is going on in the game. Also Ubisoft deal with huge amounts of money and so don’t need the audience’s funding. This differs to crowd funding, they need audiences to fund the game. This is why they have a greater relationship to the gamers than a normal funding system.