Came across this on Reddit and thought I'd share...

[slacker2114]

First off, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROJECT!!! I'm just helping spread the word.

Anyway, it seems someone is making an indie game that involves tickling that can be played on Xbox and Playstations and they're doing a fundraiser for the project. As I said, I'm just helping spread the word for the guy and the idea for the game seems cool. So here's the link...

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/actions-speak-an-interactive-film-based-indie-game

 

[Soviet Potato]

We should all totally pitch in to making this a reality. We should support any forays into any things resembling main stream with good tickling.

 

[dentrag1231]

To quote my own comment on reddit:

That seems like a lot of money/human resources for what sounds like a really simple game combined with amateur tickle porn.

This guy also seems to have a pretty inflated opinion of himself.

 

[Critical Kai]

This looks incredibly silly and full of ham.

Also $1500 is a bit steep to satisfy a tickling urge, no?

 

[TickleWiazard]

Yeah..... that ain't happening

 

[YDalfgan]

That seems like a lot of money/human resources for what sounds like a really simple game combined with amateur tickle porn.

Hm... I'm not sure if I can agree with that statement.

"A lot of human ressources", well, if you want to do an interactive movie, lots of actors is good, isn't it? Sure, you could do a movie with only two people, but I don't see the drawback to use more.

"A lot of money", hm. Actually 8.500$ isn't that much if you want to produce a video game or a movie. Sure, you can do lots of things with no money at all and the more volunteers the more you can do. But I guess this money is mostly used for equipment (cameras, lights, assets to use in the scenes), make up, costumes, maybe also advertisement, renting a room, gas costs to get to locations, maybe some software licenses for video editing / programming, pay someone external to do sound effects, stuff like that.
As soon as you try to do things professionally and want to make money out of it, lots of hidden costs start to jump at you.

But yeah, the game concept seems to be pretty straight forward, just an interactive movie with several choices. I guess you can produce sth similiar at home with two people, a camera and really basic programming knowledge. Still I would like to see the end product, to see if all that effort in creating a "professional" game is worth it.

Actually I admire this guy a bit, not many people have the guts to start such a project.

 

[dentrag1231]

Hm... I'm not sure if I can agree with that statement.

"A lot of human ressources", well, if you want to do an interactive movie, lots of actors is good, isn't it? Sure, you could do a movie with only two people, but I don't see the drawback to use more.

"A lot of money", hm. Actually 8.500$ isn't that much if you want to produce a video game or a movie.

This is normally true, however, the game he's describing is a very simple concept that could easily be done by a single programmer, without need of a "programming crew". From the sounds of things, it would consist of nothing but taking a sinple piece of input, running an if/then statement or case , statement, playing a video, and repeating.

 

[LurkLurkLurk]

The complexity of a programming project isn't solely constrained by the control structures it uses. If you wanted to be a reductionist, you could say that every program boils down to a bunch of assignment and jump instructions.

Getting it to work nicely on a bunch of systems, having to take the time to create the content, hire the models, code those assets into the game, and then test the game all come at a cost. $8500 for a software project like that is cheap, recording and everything else aside.