Depends on how you define success and failure, I suppose. By the standard, "a sustainable and profitable," they're successful. They used to average about $30mm

Depends on how you define success and failure, I suppose. By the standard, "a sustainable and profitable," they're successful. They used to average about $30mm per year and in the past few years, it's closer to $70mm per year. (See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrD... .) By the standard, "an enjoyable, polished game," they're not yet successful, but they're not a failure either, as the game is in active development with new releases every three months. By the standard, "an enjoyable diversion that's worth its base price ($45) today," they're a massive success to some and an utter failure to others. Depends on what you like, your tolerance for bugs, and your patience for waiting for new features. By the standard, "a game that released when they said it would," they're a complete failure. The fourth definition is the one detractors focus on, but to me it's the least interesting. (And I say that as someone with no vested interest or money in the project.) So when is it a failed experiment? I'd say, "When they stop making enough money to continue development." (Assuming that happens before the game is polished.) But there's no sign of that happening. The funding keeps going up.