You're forgetting the first step: gather investors to pay for your step 2: "make the product." That's what we're talking about here, the community will make the investment instead of a massive corporate publisher. Regardless of who they are, you don't have a product to sell without investors.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Valve in 2009: Let players fund videogame development
- Thread starter fanboi
- Start date
You're forgetting the first step: gather investors to pay for your step 2: "make the product." That's what we're talking about here, the community will make the investment instead of a massive corporate publisher. Regardless of who they are, you don't have a product to sell without investors.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
No, that's not what we're talking about here. If the community was making the investment, then they would also share in the profits. They do not. They merely get the product. This is a glorified pre-order.
Also, investors have some amount of control over the project they're investing in. With crowd-funded projects, the crowd has no control.
narcosis219
Member
Games would take far too long to come out because the publisher isn't breathing down their neck anymore.
Some good sounding "ideas" don't necessarily come out as a nice game; everyone loses in that situation. It happens sometimes on Kickstarter where a person does a great job selling their idea and the product turns out not so great.
This is basically a "pre-order", except that the release date will be even fuzzier and you expect a return in about 2+ years (not even guaranteed) instead of a couple of months. I guess you get a nice "bonus" with your preorder for being an "investor". I want to hear the "say no to preorders/preorder bonuses" crowd's opinion on this, though.
Some good sounding "ideas" don't necessarily come out as a nice game; everyone loses in that situation. It happens sometimes on Kickstarter where a person does a great job selling their idea and the product turns out not so great.
This is basically a "pre-order", except that the release date will be even fuzzier and you expect a return in about 2+ years (not even guaranteed) instead of a couple of months. I guess you get a nice "bonus" with your preorder for being an "investor". I want to hear the "say no to preorders/preorder bonuses" crowd's opinion on this, though.
The Emperor
Member
It sounds like a pretty interesting idea and come to think of it I would probably pay ÂŁ40 for a game I'm really hyped for in advance knowing that the money will be used to fund that game specifically.
schragnasher
Neo Member
Commissioned artwork has been around for centuries...not exactly old fashioned to pay for it only after its done and approved of.
I'm usually with Gabe on things but no. Not on this.
Yeah it sucks that you have to front a risk to make a product first before its sold. That's how it works though. You make the game, you release the game people buy the game. If I'm going to be investing in a game upfront then either
1. Include a copy of the game for my investment
or
2. I'd better get a dividend if the game sells well.
Otherwise what's the point? Yeah I'd like to see a ton of games get made but paying for them to be made and then buying them when they get released seems like a good way to go broke fast.
Now opening up investment to fans? That makes sense. But expecting them to pay for development and buying the game? No thanks.
Yeah it sucks that you have to front a risk to make a product first before its sold. That's how it works though. You make the game, you release the game people buy the game. If I'm going to be investing in a game upfront then either
1. Include a copy of the game for my investment
or
2. I'd better get a dividend if the game sells well.
Otherwise what's the point? Yeah I'd like to see a ton of games get made but paying for them to be made and then buying them when they get released seems like a good way to go broke fast.
Now opening up investment to fans? That makes sense. But expecting them to pay for development and buying the game? No thanks.
I believe sites like kick starter don't charge your card unless the goal is met. They'll put a time limit on it, say 3 months. After that time if they've met their goal everyone is charged whatever amount they pledged, but if the goal isn't met you're not charged. So no risk.
Also, usually part of your "pledge" would guarantee you a copy of the game - you're basically just preordering it. Some higher pledges would get bigger perks like posters, signed copies, whatever.
That's how it works with board games anyway. =)
Also, usually part of your "pledge" would guarantee you a copy of the game - you're basically just preordering it. Some higher pledges would get bigger perks like posters, signed copies, whatever.
That's how it works with board games anyway. =)
iceatcs
Junior Member
Well, they have to very careful to write the terms and conditions if only donation as charity.
Other while there might be some nasty lawsuits.
But why not a fair polity investment. I don't see what's wrong with it.
Everyone share investment (like share), even there is loss after what you donation.
Other while there might be some nasty lawsuits.
But why not a fair polity investment. I don't see what's wrong with it.
Everyone share investment (like share), even there is loss after what you donation.
They already do.
Came here to post this... developers should give the users the tools needed to make the game. Just look at what modders do with the bethesda games. Steam workshop is definitely a step in the right direction.
Maybe if users were to fund the development of end user creation tools. Something like the littlebigplanet games. Multiplayer content creation or something like that...
Sutton Dagger
Member
I posted this in the other thread, but this discussion is better suited here.
"I'm really excited about the implications of this for the industry at large, some games (even larger ones) could potentially be funded entirely by the community without the need for publishers (and their interference).
Who would be interested in funding Shenmue 3, etc?"
"I'm really excited about the implications of this for the industry at large, some games (even larger ones) could potentially be funded entirely by the community without the need for publishers (and their interference).
Who would be interested in funding Shenmue 3, etc?"
Kotetsu534
Member
I know that there are plenty of people out there willing to hand money over to companies to get them to pursue the projects they want them to (the example given earlier of Mother 3's localisation costs is a good one - I bet Nintendo could raise the necessary in a few hours if it tried), but I think it'd be very dangerous for this model to become widespread. Apart from the probable effect it would have on creativity - surely developers would feel pressure to kow-tow to perceived wants - it takes the risk out of the business' hands and places it in their consumers'. That strikes me as hugely undesirable. The investors - because that's the role the people are playing - should at least be guaranteed a portion of any profits.
There is also the fact that Double Fine has recently been churning out games like nobody's business, which instills faith that the product will actually get completed within a reasonable time frame.
I'm supportive of the idea of crowdfunding, I invested in project CARS, but I'm not a huge supporter of just paying for a game in advance.
If you as a developer transfer the risk of publishing to the hoard, then offer comparable rates of return to the investment to if a publisher fronted the money for development.
I'm not a fan of projects being funded thanks to goodwill and then the money being used to fund games that frankly have no commercial viability, as "awesome" as the games may be to the developers. Sure some games just don't have the sex appeal to publishers (See Minecraft) and spawned out of sheer customer interest but if this generates a plethora of "pet projects" that developers expect us to fund with the only reward as a pat on the back and the game at the end of it then consumer goodwill will only last so long.
So, Gabe is right, but the people shouldn't be used to circumvent the rules of investment.
If you as a developer transfer the risk of publishing to the hoard, then offer comparable rates of return to the investment to if a publisher fronted the money for development.
I'm not a fan of projects being funded thanks to goodwill and then the money being used to fund games that frankly have no commercial viability, as "awesome" as the games may be to the developers. Sure some games just don't have the sex appeal to publishers (See Minecraft) and spawned out of sheer customer interest but if this generates a plethora of "pet projects" that developers expect us to fund with the only reward as a pat on the back and the game at the end of it then consumer goodwill will only last so long.
So, Gabe is right, but the people shouldn't be used to circumvent the rules of investment.
Deified Data
Banned
Would. I'd put up money to A) support a game a publisher would never take a risk on, and B) to not have to deal with publishers' bullshit.
outunderthestars
Banned
It also works for them because they are promising a game in six to eight months. Major games have much longer dev cycles. I'm not giving a developer my money for three years out of the hope that they make something great.
I consistently see people making the assumption that the general 'pitch' of a game would suddenly vanish, and people would be investing in completely unknown quantities. This is complete fallacy, just because Double Fine got away with simply pitching their idea as "an old school point and click adventure game, made by Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert!".
You could easily see a rather unknown dev getting the money on their own (through private investors, or possibly a smaller public fundraising campaign) to produce a demo that would be used to get people interested in an idea.
Would this be possible for all games as they exist today? No, but I'm almost willing to guarantee that ultimately more games would be made, and these games would also be made under greater creative control of the actual developers, minimizing their need to 'dumb down'/'mainstream' the game play, because their publisher wants to sell more copies so their shareholders can earn more money.
TL;DR: What this could be used for is making the actual fans financially responsible for a game's development, thus eliminating a huge deal of general business aspects, that the consumer ultimately only ever experience the negative effects of.
You could easily see a rather unknown dev getting the money on their own (through private investors, or possibly a smaller public fundraising campaign) to produce a demo that would be used to get people interested in an idea.
Would this be possible for all games as they exist today? No, but I'm almost willing to guarantee that ultimately more games would be made, and these games would also be made under greater creative control of the actual developers, minimizing their need to 'dumb down'/'mainstream' the game play, because their publisher wants to sell more copies so their shareholders can earn more money.
TL;DR: What this could be used for is making the actual fans financially responsible for a game's development, thus eliminating a huge deal of general business aspects, that the consumer ultimately only ever experience the negative effects of.
Yep. Although this is old it takes it a step further, allowing you a potential share of the profits as well. So you are vested not just in the result for yourself, but for others.
I would certainly participate in a scheme of this sort, particularly if it allows input and feedback at multiple stages of development. I imagine well known gamemakers would be able to raise a lot more than small ones, but small ones can start off with small projects and grow and grow as people's faith in them increases.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
how would you decide which games you would want to finance?
also, there would be no telling how much scamming there would be going on.
"i just made a million dollars saying something about a game i want to make but never made it." sorta thing.
i dont think you could do this successfully without having some sort of intermediary with basic contracts between the gaming companies and the users. which would pretty much essentially still have that "middle-man" concept you are originally trying to eliminate...
also, getting a copy of the game for free is just going to cut into the game's profit if a ton of people put like 5 dollars into the game and then get a 60 dollar game for free.
also, there would be no telling how much scamming there would be going on.
"i just made a million dollars saying something about a game i want to make but never made it." sorta thing.
i dont think you could do this successfully without having some sort of intermediary with basic contracts between the gaming companies and the users. which would pretty much essentially still have that "middle-man" concept you are originally trying to eliminate...
also, getting a copy of the game for free is just going to cut into the game's profit if a ton of people put like 5 dollars into the game and then get a 60 dollar game for free.
TheMan
Member
can't believe no one quoted this, because it is the truth.
Well the way it works is you would list your employees and your reputation would be staked on the result, both as a company and an individual.
And if you have a transparent method like Double Fine with regular updates and forums and access to the process, it could work quite well. Not perfect, but nothing ever is.
And you can make the free game come at a minimum tier of investment, like Double Fine's $15 minimum limit.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
Ah, 2009. So this is why we still don't have HL3 huh. Exactly how much does Gabe want from us to get it made?!?
Seriously though it's an interesting idea, however, nothing would suck more than plopping a couple hundred down on a game and the developer not having enough people do the same to fund it. Then am I just out that money? Lots of questions and kinks to be ironed out but it is an interesting concept.
Seriously though it's an interesting idea, however, nothing would suck more than plopping a couple hundred down on a game and the developer not having enough people do the same to fund it. Then am I just out that money? Lots of questions and kinks to be ironed out but it is an interesting concept.
That's the problem isn't it? Investors have the ability to cripple some of the more innovative ideas of the developer because of fear of sales. With crowd funding, devs can easily, and almost always will, go the extra mile for the funders. Whether it's a glorified pre-order that includes soundtracks, artwork or posters. It can go even further by including the funder by putting his name in the credits or even have something significant by having the guy design something to be put into the game. Or even create a special portal for funders by giving them access to alpha/beta builds for feedback and input.
ehh yeah no, only a small % gets in the developers hands. You pay publishers to sit on their asses and empower them to tie strings to the games and pull at them whenever they feel like it, and you pay gamestop or whatever store you get the game from to sell it to you.
Rookje
Member
Problem is players don't like innovation and can't tell if a game is going to be good or not, so they would pay for sequels and stuff that has a dedicated fan base, but not for any new IP (unless it was behind some kind of well established dev house).
And then a lot of the project would have to be public, making it victim to copycats.
And then a lot of the project would have to be public, making it victim to copycats.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
ok, reputation means nothing when it is an outright scam.
but lets assume it is legitimate. there is such a thing as vaporware. what happens if the studio absolves or it goes bankrupt? they would ask for more money, right? there is basically no assurances that this game will even release. maybe that's accounted for in the risk of trying to finance a game in the first place, but there's too many ifs involved.
You don't know the working conditions at said developer. What if they're new? How would they survive in this crowdfunding platform? If they have a reputation for making great games that no one likes to play/buy like Double Fine, then why would you think that they will be able to turn a profit and actually even make your investment in the game even out with what they are trying to profit share?
i don't understand what this means. I don't work there, no one does except the people that do. Just because they make games doesn't mean anything towards gaining my "trust." Trust is built through a relationship. I do not have a relationship with Square Enix but I absolutely love their games. Doesn't mean I "trust" them.
well, obviously. there are pitfalls to any system. i would think that trying to discuss the brevity of the inclination of this system is warranted considering it could tarnish the industry's reputation if expansive enough.
And probably die of old age before it was ever released. On the plus side you would get to play it in heaven with a thousand other virgins.
You're forgetting that the middleman isn't in any way financially involved in the game's success or failure, and the middleman wouldn't have any creative control. Our current middlemen are affected by these things, and essentially exist to make people who aren't creatively involved money.
How is a business model where 2/3rds of the participating parties get screwed up the ass a better alternative?
The Albatross
Member
I think that gamers would have a rude awakening to investing, let's say, $1000 into a gaming project. Then the game gets made 4-years later and it's nothing like what they wanted to invest the $1000 into, or it's something like it, but they get mad because they spent $1000 and it's not exactly what they wanted... and then the game bombs and they're completely out that $1000 investment.
I don't think that it would do much good. If there was any good in it, it would reveal to many gamers that publishers aren't the nefarious evil-doers as they always seem to be. Killed your favorite feature? Maybe it's because the're investing millions of dollars up-front in a project and have a serious, life-altering need for that project to succeed financially.
I don't think that it would do much good. If there was any good in it, it would reveal to many gamers that publishers aren't the nefarious evil-doers as they always seem to be. Killed your favorite feature? Maybe it's because the're investing millions of dollars up-front in a project and have a serious, life-altering need for that project to succeed financially.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
if that's where the money is, then that's what they have to do, isn't it? let me play devil's advocate and say that megapublisher's are the main reason why gaming is so popular today and getting more popular. The business model might be shitty for the people actually involved in the business creatively but it doesn't mean anything when no one plays the game. Who are they making the game for? Themselves? That's actually why I am inclined to like the current business model because it weeds out a lot of the crap or unappealing aspects of games that might have made its way through otherwise.
Not to say there isn't already a deluge of said content already.
Besides, there is a big distribution system called the Internet right now, and as long as you've got time and programming knowledge, you can make any game you want and sell it. Mobile phone gaming isn't exploding because publishers are pumping money into it, its because people are making their games in their spare time, attaching advertising in it, and then raking in the dough or selling it at 0.99 cents.
That's not an investment, that's a purchase.
I'll address the bolded:
1. The risk is inherent in the system just like there is risk in buying shares of say Activision. This just lets you have a direct investment in the developer, rather than the publisher. And it lets you decide which individual game to sponsor and for how much, rather than trusting the middleman publisher. You do the research because you are responsible for your own investments.
2. You do have a relationship with a developer through the games they put out, and support they give them. Like any other product. Industry reputation for good products that are reliable, quality and supported is not easy to come by. Your relationship with Square Enix is that you like their product so you may be more willing to invest in a future game from them as opposed to an unknown developer in his garage.
3. The industry has a mixed reputation as it is. Some studios are already known to churn crap, to produce excellent games, or to treat their employees like slaves. Those things are already known, now you can make a direct investment decision based on those things.
Lastly, this would be an alternative to the traditional method, not the replacement, much like being able to invest directly in a stock or putting your money in a company that will invest for you. Or buying an album from the band's website directly versus buying a CD from walmart where a dozen corporations will make some money in the food chain.
Im_Special
Member
Way to many unknowns on my end for me to ever do this kind of thing, if I were to invest money to something I'd expect a return (profit) like all investors do, maybe something like pay 30$ now and when its released full price at 60$ I get it free or aka 50% off. I'd also expect to have some decision making with how the game is made or know exactly every detail about it before hand, if funding the next Devil May Cry game it better be made from a team I trust like Mikami and not lol Ninja Theory. They would also need to be transparent a fuck.
Feel the Swift
Member
Read: 2009. Double Fine just did it.
And I can't see Valve or any other big name doing this.
I know. Double Fine just did it. Valve had the idea 3 years ago and has done nothing. Double Fine > Valve.
I wouldn't mind living in a world without a Call of Duty/Madden/Fifa/etc. every year. Big budget mainstream games just don't interest me at all. I don't mean to sound like a snob/elitist, I won't think anything less of somebody who are content with buying their 3-4 mega budget AAA games a year.
You mention the current system getting rid of "unappealing aspects" with games. Are you really content with publisher driven bullshit like online passes, 17 different pre-order bonuses, each from a unique vendor, almost all of which are LESS convenient/bigger overhead for the consumer to use (Gamestop and other brick and mortar stores). Why can't I buy a new game day fucking 1 on my console through digital means? Why the fuck are publishers still attempting to make me jump through hoops to get to the actual content of the games that I want to play? Why in God's name is money being spent on making content that I can't see unless I participate in 8 million different fucking marketing campaigns, all of which almost exclusively exist to reward me for spamming people on my facebook page with shit that they're not in any capacity to give a fuck about? Tell you what, if I like your game I'll fucking tell my friends, don't try and trick me into having a robot telling them that I'm into a game, fuck that.
No. What you're doing is paying the publisher back the money it invested (with added interest - i.e. profit) into making the game/producing actual copies of the game to be sold in shops. Some of that money might then be used to fund another game, but you still have to pay for that game when it's released. In the end, a large amount of money is potentially lost in the step between consumer and the game's developer.
Feel the Swift
Member
Ah I see what you were getting at.