Follow SpaceSector.com on G+ Follow SpaceSector.com on Twitter Subscribe the SpaceSector.com Facebook page Subscribe the SpaceSector.com RSS feed Receive notifications of new posts by email

Planetary Annihilation Gets Funded With $1.3M To Spare!

By on September 17th, 2012 12:52 pm

Planetary Annihilation

Total Annihilation inspired Planetary Annihilation succeeded on Kickstarter with more than 1.3 million dollars above the pledge goal (900K), and it got the title of the 5th most funded game project on Kickstarter so far.

The extra funding unlocked Uber Entertainment’s stretch goals for the game, which includes naval units on water planets, gas giants and orbital units, metal and lava planets and a full orchestral score.

What will be the game about?  It’s a sci-fi real-time strategy game about complete destruction, huge battles, massive scale, planet smashing, explosions and robots. You send your units to planets and asteroids, construct bases there and use asteroids as big kinetic bombardment weapons to smash your enemy’s planets.

Planetary Annihilation will feature single-player and co-op skirmish multiplayer against AIs. It will support modding, multiple cores and will be available for PC, Mac and Linux. For more info check the Planetary Annihilation kickstarter page and the official site. We’ll be following this one closely. It will be included in our Games Under Development page soon.

     Subscribe RSS

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


25 Comments


  1. caekdaemon says:

    I funded this game myself with £100.

    So looking forward to its release :D

  2. SteJ says:

    Oooh, that looks super fun!!!

  3. csebal says:

    It most certainly has some great ideas, will keep an eye on how it progresses.

    They got more than enough money to make what they wanted, so let’s hope for the best.

  4. Ashbery76 says:

    Looks like that awfull Spore game visually.Basebuilding RTS games are bad enough when on one planet why the hell and how the hell will you play several planets at once.Only robots fighting robots is so bland for a setting too.

    I am very skeptical about this game.Everything and the kitchen sink design docs never work when it comes to really making a good game.I think this will fail hard or the real design will be very different to the pitch given.

    • paswert says:

      that team worked on total annihilation & supreme commander, two games that are very similar to this & are two of the best RTS games ever made.

    • Alex Ryden says:

      It seems a little harsh to judge the game now, based on one trailer. Also, I take it from your post that you do not really like base building rts games. If so, why are you commenting? I get not liking a genre, but you shouldn’t shout out judgments based on your bias unless you have some sort of evidence or reasoning to back it up. Some people actually like the robot on robot setting, some people may be interested in the multiple planet thing, and the game is certainly no everything and the kitchen sink. It could certainly be a bad game on release, but don”t judge so early.

    • csebal says:

      “I think this will fail hard or the real design will be very different to the pitch given.”

      This is actually a valid concern for crowd funded projects this early in the development cycle and one, that makes me a little concerned of such projects.

      Putting money down to finish development or polish games based on good (and proven) ideas is one thing.

      Putting money down on totally new projects is a gamble in itself.

      Putting money down on projects that are this far fetched from the traditional however is nothing short of Russian roulette.

      I am a big fan of the whole crowd funding concept but I am seriously afraid, that one – or more – of these projects will kill the whole idea by failing badly enough so that people will never again want to put their money down on projects in advance.

      Most people are completely in the dark on how a design process works. Why do you think, that profit oriented companies are reluctant to give money out for new ideas? Because new ideas often prove to be unfeasible, but this only happens once you have tried to prove (spent money on) them.

      Paying for a project like this one is basically paying for a feasibility study. Nothing wrong with that if you do it willingly, but somehow I think that most people who paid money to them believe, that what they saw in that video is actually a proven, feasible idea, when in reality it was merely a pre-rendered video demonstrating a concept and nothing more.

      People set themselves up for a big disappointment and I would not care for that, if it would not jeopardize the whole future of crowd funding. Right now, it is the next internet bubble with no controls or brakes whatsoever to keep projects in check. We will all be around in a few years when it bursts and I can only hope that the crowd funding concept survives the face plant we are all heading for.

      • Alex Ryden says:

        I was not trying to deny the validity of his concern, I was just pointing out that it is way too early to judge the game play. Concern at this point is valid, but attacking the game based on a hatred for rts games is not.

      • Ashbery76 says:

        Indeed.All the big Kickstater money makers so far have had realistic design goals and did not promise the world.Shadowrun,Project Eternity,Wastelands.

        I think this Kickstarter has got carried away with all the money signs and are promising the second coming with a much smaller budget that Supreme commander was given to make that design.I think this could be the massive flop of the bunch so far.

        • Alex Ryden says:

          I don’t think they are promising the second coming. They are promising some interesting new things, but they don’t seem to be promising anything completely unrealistic. What specific feature that the devs have announced makes you think it will flop?

    • Adam Solo says:

      @Ashbery76
      If I didn’t know you a little bit by now I would have thought you were being harsh. What I mean is that I think you have no problem in expressing your opinion no matter how harsh it may seem to others.

      It’s clear by your comment that you hate “basebuilding” RTS games, so, your view on what this game may be one day is already biased from the start. And, at least 44,162 people thought otherwise. They think and hope this game will be a hit, at least for them. Mass delusion?

      I respect all ideas and opinions but what lead you think “this will fail hard or the real design will be very different to the pitch given”. People funded the pitch given. Are you saying these >40K people don’t know what they want? And, if you’re not fond of “basebuilding” RTS games how can you know the game will not be up to the expectations of people who love these kind of games?

      In the end the game is not for you but for them, they were the people who invested the money. I fail to see the reasoning of your “I don’t like these type of games and this in particular will fail hard” comment without saying why.

      It would be interesting to know how you reached such definite conclusion just by the pitch alone where >40K people failed to see that, and even more, they were not indifferent to it, they were sold to the idea. Are you suggesting that people would back anything on sight those guys would put on the table without reading what they’re backing?

      • csebal says:

        “Are you saying these >40K people don’t know what they want?”
        Nah.. billions of people on the world have no clue what they want. 40000 is not even the tip of the ice berg.. It is the nose of the polar bear sitting on the tip of the iceberg.

        Yes.. people pledging on projects not already near completion are – including me – generally nuts.

  5. SQW says:

    Has there been any good games released through Kickstarter yet? I’m talking about those game that got started purely on Kickstarter funds so FTL for example doesn’t count.

    • csebal says:

      Not to my knowledge.. the whole boom only started a few months ago if I remember correctly, so it is still a bit early for that.

      We are still in free fall and too far away to see if there it is a huge pile of comfy pillows or solid rock awaiting us at the end of that fall.

    • Gary says:

      I don’t think any games that “got started purely on Kickstarter funds” could possibly be finished yet.

  6. DaWilko says:

    I funded this game with $50 AU, I’m a huge Supreme Commander fan, and continue to play it weekly with friends. Looking forward to Planetary Annihilation.

  7. Unforgiven says:

    I also funded the game for $40. Can’t wait. though csebal has a point…We do not know what this game will look like on release, for only we know what they showed us in the trailer. Which looks finger-licking, friggin awesome in my opinion. But, agreed, it IS a gamble. But I have good hopes for this one. Let’s see what the future brings !

  8. Adam Solo says:

    We can never know how kickstarter games will look like on release, and I agree with people who say that it is ALWAYS a gamble. As discussed in another place this is a similar gamble like when you pre-order games. No matter how many trailers you see, or interviews you make there’s always gamble on acquiring or investing in a game before its release. Unless you can get your hands on a preview copy, judge it for yourself and tell others there’s always significant risk that a game will not meet the expectations.

    The best is always to wait for a couple of reviews and then decide if it’s worth it to buy or not. When bad surprises happen there’s fault on the publisher side as there is in the buyers side. Of course there’s more guilt in the producers side, no doubt about that. But, nobody forced you to pre-order the game either.

    Kickstarter is on its infancy. The boom days only started this year. So, there aren’t many games available yet that went through Kickstarter for us to judge the system. And if it’s not optimal in the end then it needs tweaking. Not shutdown, tweaking. The concept is brilliant, I think everybody can agree with that. The StarDrive case for example was funded in a time Kickstarter was not yet fashionable and it’s not out yet. So, I agree with others that say that it’s too soon to tell.

    In my opinion there’s gamble in Kickstarter as there’s gamble in pre-ordering games. The difference for me is that they serve different purposes.

    Kickstarter is there for devs and consumers who want to make stuff happen without depending on publishers and other 3rd party agents. Is there risk involved for the consumer? Sure. You may not get exactly what you paid for and not exactly according to the original planning. But there’s a Kickstarter policy for that. However, there’s always risk involved. People need to understand this. THERE’S ALWAYS RISK.

    Pre-orders are there to … quite frankly I don’t know why pre-orders exist these days unless you’re talking about box copies (stock rupture issues, where pre-orders came from) or as a mechanism to support indie developers during game development. My position is that pre-orders for games that are already developed and are going to be sold digitally in a month or so don’t make any sense whatsoever. It’s just a lure mechanism to get your money through the hype. A few publishers may see this as an opportunity to make cash grabs. They may promise that they will fix their game and “compensate” people with other digital products of their portfolio which they don’t get a penalty for giving out (offering digital products is not a gain but it’s not a loss either). See the result of this equation? See what may happen in the future if we insist in pre-ordering games in these conditions?

    Want to pledge on Kickstarter? Help the devs through alpha or beta? Sure, but there’s risk! However, we have a brain, so it may be worthwhile to throw $10 or $20 on a good bet. Because that’s what it is, a bet. Well, not exactly betting on horses, but you’re betting in a team of people to make you the game you want. YOU are the publisher. YOU are the investor. There’s no financial return but there’s emotional return and the pleasure of playing the game you dream of.

    Want to pre-order a finished game that will be sold digitally in 1 month or so? I don’t get you. Unless there’s a ton of hands-on info on that game available AND significant perks involved it’s too much to risk in my opinion, and quite frankly it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to pre-order games in those conditions in any case.

    • SQW says:

      Considering most games takes 1.5-2 years to develop from ground up and plenty of things other than money can side track development or event cancel it during that time, I wonder just how many games funded at the height of this Kickstarter craze will come to fruition.

      If I’m an unscrupulous person, I’d just start a successful proj, use the money to put into my personal investment and drag the game development cycle to match that of DNF’s – perfectly legal and in two years, most of the ‘investors’ wouldn’t even remember me anyway. =/

      • Adam Solo says:

        Ok, so you’re a skeptic. I don’t see any problem with that. Good luck on “star a successful proj” though ;) Not that it’s impossible of course.

        There’s always risk anytime you pay for something in advance. Happens with games and in other areas (houses, whatever). My point is, the mechanisms are there, now it’s up to you to judge if that’s for you or not. Kickstarter is new and serves a different purpose than traditional pre-orders. Time will tell how robust the system is. I’m moderately optimistic.

    • csebal says:

      @Adam:
      Personally I preorder games out of convenience. I prefer not having to keep track of what might interest me, so if I find something I like that can be preordered, I just do so and be done with it.

      Obviously I’m a lot more wary of what I pay for in advance since SOTS2 and the likes, but other than that, I do not really care whether they get my money today, or one month down the road. If I’m certain I will buy something, then I might as well preorder it.

      I find it interesting how you find preordering to be too much risk, but at the same time “defend” the kickstarter idea with tooth and claw. Not that the idea itself is bad.. but it is the very definition of risk.

      Contrary to a preorder, where you enter a legal contract that ensures you either get a product (quality be as it may) or your money back if it does not get released, a crowd funding pledge offers no such assurances. The only thing that is legally expected of the teams is that they should be able to tell you where your money went and why. If they blow it all on some stupidly expensive and completely unfeasible feature, well.. welcome to the publishing business..

      As much as the publishers are demonized these days, there is a reason – besides their greed – why they hold developers with such a firm grip. That reason is that the publishers expect to see results for their money and to that end, they hold the team to deadlines, milestones and generally make sure things are a) progressing b) are on the right track.

      There will be no such thing here as even if they are very open towards the community, the pledgers are not a single entity with a single vision, but thousands of people with very different ideas of how things should work, so their input is mostly just statistical.

      Even if they were a single entity with a single vision, the legal contract usually present between publisher and developer is completely missing here, so even if we unanimously think the project is headed in the wrong direction, there is no way for us to change that direction or to “cancel” it to cut our losses.

      It is already paid up front, and all we can do is pray to God that those in charge will be responsible enough not to blow all that cash on stupid stuff.

      • Adam Solo says:

        You got me wrong. That or I didn’t express myself correctly. I don’t defend Kickstarter with “tooth and claw”. Guess that was your interpretation but it’s not what I feel about it. The concept is great, but from that point forward it’s up to the project creator and the backers to deal with it, Kickstarter itself washes their hands. There’s risk, no question about it. If someone thinks otherwise they’re not seeing the all picture. Again, this Kickstarter link may be useful for skeptics and all people interested in Kickstarter.

        What I said was that I think Kickstarter and traditional pre-orders (and there are many types of pre-orders) serve different purposes.

        “Contrary to a preorder, where you enter a legal contract that ensures you either get a product (quality be as it may) or your money back if it does not get released, a crowd funding pledge offers no such assurances. ”

        This may be true in theory but it’s not what happens in real life, or at least publishers and digital platforms do their best to give buyers a hard life when it comes to refunds. And, the problem is not having or not a product. Oh yea, they have a product for you, but you risk getting a beta or alpha version at some point.

        We can’t generalize things. There are many types of Kickstarter projects and even many more pre-order types (pre-alpha, alpha, beta, finished, …). I made my point about each case. Ultimately my point was that people need to be more careful with pre-orders these days because there may be opportunists in every corner seeking to get your money. And with the advent of digital download games it’s getting harder and harder to get refunds when problems happen. And Kickstarter is not immune to that either. It all comes down to people choices, and understanding that there is always risk involved in paying for something in advance.

        Again, there’s RISK with Kickstarter as there is risk in traditional pre-orders. Risk being not getting what you hopped for in the time you expected. But, Kickstarter and traditional pre-orders serve different purposes, so, I don’t think it’s fair to put everything in the same bag. Even with pre-orders there are cases where it makes all the sense to pre-order and frankly other cases where it doesn’t make any sense at all. Be watchful people.

        Example:

        Betting on a dream game on kickstarter may make sense. You have a chance (even if small) to get it while having little chance (if any) of getting it if you only rely on publishers and other 3rd party agents to eventually pick it up. Not saying publishers aren’t useful, of course they are. But for niche genres this is a very useful tool to have.

        Pre-ordering a digital download dream game that is already finished, or about finished, doesn’t make sense in my opinion. Better wait 1 month and then buy it after reading a couple of reviews. Unless there is plenty of info and perks involved or we’re talking about a free-DRM box copy game. Those are easier to get a refund for and you don’t risk getting stuck with a digital platform like Steam. Which is becoming rare these days, even with some AAA games (Civ, XCOM, Sins, …).

        • csebal says:

          Well, we obviously agree on that it is risky. Nonetheless, in certain cases the risk is worth it.

          For this project, I also think that it is a little far fetched and not necessarily feasible, but if it were something I would be more passionate about (which in case of an RTS i’m rarely), I would still “bet” on it myself.. as did those 40k people you mentioned earlier.

          In fact.. It it weren’t for the recent failures shaking up my views a little, I probably would have supported this game as it is, just to give them a chance. Thing is, they got the chance without my support anyway.. so I’m quite happy to pick it up once – if – it is finished.

          As for the link you mentioned, if you read that carefully, you will see that all they do is give you, the backer a legal lifeline to go after your money by suing whoever you backed (without those few lines, you would not even make it to court), but there will be no guarantees. There are no trade laws in play here – to my knowledge at least -, so you would have to prove in a civil case that the company / developer did not do a good enough effort of delivering on their promises and that their negligence or malicious intent has led to the project failing.

          So all together, the “accountability on kickstarter” phrase is a myth that – IMO – we will see busted eventually. Kickstarter obviously tries to preserve the illusion of it, as – guess what -, they are not doing this out of the good will of their hearts, but because they take a cut off every project, so they are highly motivated to keep people “investing” through them, even if those investments are not safe.

          As for arguing against preorders or more accurately: uninformed day 0 purchases, it is a pointless thing really. Just as I’m sure that my arguments will not kill kickstarter – nor is it my intention to do so.

          When desire meets means, things happen. If someone wants a game, that is available and affordable you can almost be certain that a big majority of people will buy that game.

          Preorders are often just a forward extension of that process. In my case, it is a convenience thing.. meaning that I do not check the calendar for when preorders open. For others it is a matter of “owning” said game as soon as possible.

          Last, but not least, certain publishers realized that the best way to promote preorders is by limiting availability of deluxe / collectors editions of the game forcing people to preorder as soon as possible or risk not getting the “enhanced” version. So even in the digital age, there are cases where preorders – although artificially engineered to do so – actually have a point.

  9. Gary says:

    I haven’t played an RTS since Warcraft, but Planetary Annihilation looks so good, I pledged $50 :)


Related Articles:

Post category: Kickstart, News & Announcements