In February 2026, Zero Creation Games, the developer behind the million-selling title "Hunger: A Thousand Miles in the Late Ming," found itself in a public relations storm after launching a crowdfunding campaign for its sequel, "Lament: Ten Days After the Fall." The strategy of pursuing crowdfunding for the sequel while the previous title generated substantial revenue has raised player concerns about "zero-cost development." Previous controversies regarding the use of funds for charitable purposes have further intensified this crisis of trust.

The success of "Hunger: A Thousand Miles in the Late Ming" should have provided Zero Creation Games with a solid capital foundation. Released in April 2024, the game sold over one million copies by early 2025, generating revenue in the tens of millions of yuan and becoming a breakout hit among domestic independent games. However, on February 13, 2026, Zero Creation Games initiated a crowdfunding campaign for the sequel, "Lament: Ten Days After the Fall," with a top pledge tier set at 18,888 yuan. The perceived value of the associated physical rewards has been questioned by players, with some estimating it "may not even be worth a few hundred yuan."

Further confusing players, producer Ji Ling revealed during a livestream that the company is concurrently developing four projects and preparing for games with larger scopes and budgets. He stated that the "vast majority" of the profits from the previous title would be allocated to funding these future developments. This explanation, suggesting that funds raised for the sequel might support more distant projects, intensified player concerns about risk transfer. The core question remains: why is a profitable team still asking players to pre-pay development costs?

In 2025, Zero Creation Games faced a separate trust crisis related to a donation. In a crowdfunding campaign for a physical art book produced in collaboration with a publishing company, a portion of the funds was allocated to donate to underprivileged children. Players criticized this move as "using players' money to make donations in the development team's name." Although the company clarified that the donation was made with backers' knowledge and that all promised physical rewards were delivered, the controversy highlighted a fundamental debate: is crowdfunding essentially a transaction where players purchase a product/service, or is it a form of one-way donation?

This incident reflects deeper conflicts within the game crowdfunding ecosystem. When developers allocate funds to purposes outside of core development, do backers possess oversight rights? Some supporters argue that philanthropic actions are commendable, while opponents contend that the core of a crowdfunding agreement is "development for reward," and unilaterally altering fund usage violates its spirit.

The case of Zero Creation Games is not isolated. The current landscape of game crowdfunding is increasingly shifting from "supporting innovation" into a gray area of "risk transfer." Some teams exploit information asymmetry, using AI-generated concept art and templated promotional videos to attract funding, while actual development progress remains highly uncertain. A more concerning tactic involves "segmented production," where game content is locked behind successive crowdfunding goals, effectively pressuring players into continuous investment.

This model inflicts a dual blow on the industry. On one hand, genuinely underfunded small teams struggle to gain support amidst widespread trust issues. On the other hand, player tolerance for crowdfunding risks is diminishing, leading many to prefer waiting for a finished product rather than participating early.

Crowdfunding was once viewed as a "mutual journey" between players and developers. Backers hoped their early financial support would help bring envisioned games to life, while receiving exclusive rewards in return. However, following high-profile failures, delays, and even cases of developers abandoning projects after successful campaigns, player sentiment has grown increasingly cautious.

The controversy surrounding Zero Creation Games highlights the ambiguous rules of engagement during the gaming industry's rapid growth phase. When a project achieves commercial success, should the relationship and responsibilities between developers and their initial backers be redefined? Ideally, crowdfunding should focus on validating market demand and uniting a core fanbase, not serving as an "interest-free loan" for established teams.

For players, rational participation in crowdfunding should adhere to two key principles: first, demand development transparency and prioritize supporting teams that provide verifiable demos; second, clearly understand the nature of the campaign, distinguishing between a "product pre-order" and an "unconditional sponsorship." The industry itself must also reflect: as "selling emotion" increasingly overshadows "selling a product" as the primary narrative in crowdfunding, how sustainable is this model in the long term?

The crowdfunding turmoil for "Lament: Ten Days After the Fall" is a microcosm of the growing pains within the game industry. Whether Zero Creation Games can restore trust through the quality of its future work will determine if it is perceived as a "conscientious team" or merely a "crowdfunding merchant." Meanwhile, the choices made by players have the potential to reshape the funding landscape for the entire independent game sector. In the ongoing tension between emotion and commerce, one thing is certain: crowdfunding should not be a gamble that exhausts goodwill, but rather a starting point for creating shared value.