• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Valve in 2009: Let players fund videogame development

F

fanboi

Banned
From Destructoid:

Some would say that the games industry would be better for everybody if publishers weren't around. Similar to how record labels helped kill music and become an unnecessary middle-man between musicians and music fans, so too can publishers feel like they get in the way. Valve's Gabe Newell, may have found a way around it, but you'll need to dig deep into your own pocket if you agree.

"One of the areas that I am super interested in right now is how we can do financing from the community," explains Gabe Newell. "So right now, what typically happens is you have this budget -- it needs to be huge, it has to be $10m - $30m, and it has to be all available at the beginning of the project. There's a huge amount of risk associated with those dollars and decisions have to be incredibly conservative.

"What I think would be much better would be if the community could finance the games. In other words, 'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game.'

"So move financing from something that occurs between a publisher and a developer … Instead have it be something where funding is coming out of community for games and game concepts they really like."

That's actually a really interesting idea, and could be useful for smaller projects (I can't imagine something like BioShock 2 being entirely fan-funded). Of course, it's getting gamers, who aren't always flushed with cash, to invest in the first place. Still, if any studio has the loyalty and community to pull it off, it'd be Valve. Anything that reduces publisher influence is worth pursuing.
Click to expand...

What say you GAF? Good bad or ugly?

EDIT: 2009... But intresting... and has something come out of this?
 
This could be really REALLY awesome, could get some very unique games financed...BUT....no way in hell should a developer do this unless they have already released X titles....what happens when a developer doesn't deliver?
 
He's talked about it at length before, and he's right of course, but there are like twenty studios in the world with a loyal enough fanbase to make this viable I think.
 
Interesting idea for sure... but then everyone would feel entitled to be a developer and may lash out if a product their invested in turns out nothing like they wanted it to.

Self-entitlement in our hobby's industry is already pretty funny, imagine if someone dropped cash on a product before it was made?
 
Customers are already designing and modeling the things you sell for microtransactions. Might as well let them fund the development of your games too
 
Really old article? It's still a relevant topic of course, and it's not a bad idea.

I'm thinking about doing that DoubleFine Kickstarter thing.
 
if people could invest in a specific game and get a return on that investment I would put my life savings into Half Life 3.

don't actually have a life savings because I spend everything I make
 
Tim Schafer says hello. He got my $15. I don't want to think about how much money people would shell out to Valve if they were asking for donations to make HL3...
 
Mojang/Minecraft is perhaps the best known example of this so far. Project CARS is also doing it, and I can't remember if Terraria did it. Doublefine is doing it as was already referenced. It can be really neat to see a game in progress as long as the developers are reasonable and treat their fans well.
 
Yeah, so basically instead of pre-ordering a game you're pre-ordering the development. I would put $50 down early for a game I want.
 
I think a major stumbling block with this model was the fact that distribution (physical disks/boxes/shipping to stores) was extremely expensive and really only within the realm of the publisher. Now with the advent of more digital distribution, content providers like Steam potentionally allow this to happen. In a way, Gabe himself is trying to bring this model to the masses.

I personally want to see this tried with a larger budgeted game. Games like minecraft thrives because it did not require the amount of funds needed to produce a multi-million dollar project. The problem is that you will need a audience that will invest, thereby limiting your options to a few well-known developers.
 
I'm not sure you could raise that amount from normal fans...I mean just look at the similar amounts raised when presidential candidates are running and need campaign financing. Those often involve very generous donors. Not to mention, let's say someone invests $60. They're essentially paying for the game anyway, but I guess not having to worry about publisher influence is the plus side. But then there needs to be some rules on how long the dev cycle will take to and other things to make sure players don't get ripped off if some dev pulls a Duke Nuken Forever
 
Terrible idea for all kinds of reasons.

First of all, it would be not much different from the current state of affairs. But perhaps with even more maudlin, crowd-pleasing content.

Second, it wouldn't favor investment risks. Without financial risk, there's no creative risk.

Third, the same inevitable appearance of middle management (publishers and PR) would appear as ways to gain consumer investment. And you're back where you started.

I could go on. The better solution is self-publishing.
 
bethesda.jpg


They already do.
 
See Project C.A.R.S. by Slightly Mad Studios. Working great so far.
Weekly build releases, investor voting on content included like tracks. Hope it works out in the end.
 
AbsoluteZero said:
What happens if you put up your money and the game becomes vaporware of Duke Nukem proportions? I assume you get a refund?
Click to expand...

The cost goes into the Labor, so the workers have been getting paid with that money. Once its all gone, your prize is an unfinished games.
 
StuBurns said:
Not really, many of the 'very, very popular' games have considerably higher budgets than that.
Click to expand...

I think he was saying that only the very popular projects would be able to raise $20M-$30M the way that Gabe is describing it. Meaning it wouldn't be feasible to funds these big budget games through this method
 
Terrible idea for consumers, as it passes risk to the buyer. If you pay up front then there is no accounting for quality on your part. A good example of this is minecraft--it hasn't improved in any meaningful way since I bought it, even though that was the idea behind purchasing it a year in advance, and why would it? They already have my money.

It's the opposite of "I'll pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today."

Another side effect of this is that big budget non-blockbuster titles (the ones funded by the profitable blockbusters) disappear.
 
I'm not ever going to pay for incomplete games (not bethesda games you trolls, I mean episodic stuff) and now they're toying with the idea of getting us to pay before the game's even out.

Call me old fashioned but put something out first and I'll decide if it's worth my money.
 
I'd rather game development get changed than the way they're financed. Not every game needs a large team that necessitates a $60 price tag.

No need for constant AAA contenders or small team indie devs. Need a middle class game studio.
 
A model like this would only really work for a very small number of developers. Ones with proven track records and extremely loyal fan bases such as Valve, Bungie, Bethesda, Blizzard, etc.

I couldn't imagine Insomniac raising 30 million from fans to fund Overstrike for example.
 
I wouldn't mind funding some smaller projects (think Natural Selection 2 or a Visual Novel). Seeing games get financial support that might not otherwise make it to the market would be a huge deal for
megaman
fans
 
I 100% support this. I'm not rich, but I'm not poor either. I'm okay with spending another $60 on a game if it's being made by a dev I trust, and not being restricted by the guidelines and strings attached by the publishers.

Another thought: Localizations. I'm sure the gaming community would raise 5x the amount necessary to bring over Mother 3, even if the game is 6+ years old. Release it on 3DS.
 
Cru Jones said:
I think he was saying that only the very popular projects would be able to raise $20M-$30M the way that Gabe is describing it. Meaning it wouldn't be feasible to funds these big budget games through this method
Click to expand...
Oh, that's probably true yeah, but it's not like the fans have to invest it all. If the developer was getting more of the profit from releases, they'd have more to put towards their own games.

Marketing would be the real issue. Development is just one chunk of releasing a game, if it's going to make any money for returns on the investments, you'd need a whole lot more cash really.
 
What happened to the old method of sales? You make the product, if we like it we buy it. I think that's worked well for the past few thousand years. Let's stick with that.

My major problem with these crowd-funded projects is accountability. If you give them your money ahead of time, how can you make them accountable for making a good product? Sure, we probably don't have anything to worry about when funding Double Fine, but how would this theory work for other devs? I've heard of problem with crowd-funded novels, with authors missing deadlines and delaying the product. I can't imagine the video game industry would be protected from these problems (in fact, it would probably be worse).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Valve reportedly developing 'SteamGPT' for support and anti-cheating
Rumor 
32
450
mitch1971 replied
Possible inFAMOUS Remakes in PlayStation Development
2
72
181
Vick replied
I'm becoming an agentic videogame player
2
61
975
ReasonBeing replied
M1PST: Injustice 3 in Development
Rumor 
0
97
Draugoth replied
Yet Another Valve Lawsuit
41
786
Mr Moose replied
Top Bottom