surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Why would a potential developer want to enter into a profit sharing agreement with backers when it could use Kickstarter instead? This doesn't make sense.
This will sound like a great idea till the first project fails and investors start suing for whatever reason.Stay with kickstarter.
I get the idea that it would probably be better for everyone if independent devs had their own site for game donations, but won't this just end up causing the same problem with investor interference that happens in creative projects? Isn't this why Kickstarter was made, to open a direct channel between gamer and developer without the investing third-party getting involved? Why wouldn't EA or Activision or ZeniMax or Ubisoft just look up the site, find a game their interested in, and just buy up all the shares? Seems too problematic.
@Tristrix
My thoughts exactly.
It seems to be shooting themselves in the foot :/
I mean, I cannot see many developers jumping ship to this when they can use Kickstarter. Plus, most backers have already clung to Kickstarter, meaning getting them to adopt another site may prove difficult, even with the potential money that could be made.
My thoughts exactly.
It seems to be shooting themselves in the foot :/
I mean, I cannot see many developers jumping ship to this when they can use Kickstarter. Plus, most backers have already clung to Kickstarter, meaning getting them to adopt another site may prove difficult, even with the potential money that could be made.
I love this idea. Finally a more direct way to influence the gaming industry. Also, this will get these game industry guys out of Kickstarter. I'm all for this.
This will not end well. It sounds good on paper...until you consider how terribly demanding and risky this would be for the devs.
Either the minimum investments are going to have to be massive or the dividends are going to be pennies on the dollar. No one is going to win out on this concept.
Either the minimum investments are going to have to be massive or the dividends are going to be pennies on the dollar. No one is going to win out on this concept.
@Tristrix
I can't imagine the percent allocated to "investors" being particularly high. There are sites that have this kind of thing going, and have for years, and it works out decently well.
What this setup has over the "take preorders and hand out prizes at donation intervals" method is increased incentive. Just this morning, after reading Jim's article on that KS project, I was thinking about how I'd like to invest in these things rather than just preorder. Why? Because I could invest in things without actually wanting the product, and spread my investments out across a range of ideas.
I think Gambitious is a great idea. Where Kickstarter's appeal will likely lessen as the thrill of funding some long lost product wears off, a crowd funding site that pays dividends will appeal to wallets as much as hearts. Well, it has as much to do with how the site is run than anything else, but I feel if crowd funding is going to ever compete with traditional publishers, you're going to have to give them a tangible stake in the product.
I can't imagine the percent allocated to "investors" being particularly high. There are sites that have this kind of thing going, and have for years, and it works out decently well.
What this setup has over the "take preorders and hand out prizes at donation intervals" method is increased incentive. Just this morning, after reading Jim's article on that KS project, I was thinking about how I'd like to invest in these things rather than just preorder. Why? Because I could invest in things without actually wanting the product, and spread my investments out across a range of ideas.
I think Gambitious is a great idea. Where Kickstarter's appeal will likely lessen as the thrill of funding some long lost product wears off, a crowd funding site that pays dividends will appeal to wallets as much as hearts. Well, it has as much to do with how the site is run than anything else, but I feel if crowd funding is going to ever compete with traditional publishers, you're going to have to give them a tangible stake in the product.
@Tristrix
I'm thinking it would bring more people willing to donate knowing that they could make some extra scratch off it.
I'm thinking it would bring more people willing to donate knowing that they could make some extra scratch off it.
"I can't imagine the percent allocated to "investors" being particularly high"
Oh yeah, totally, but if it's anything above 0.00%, it's higher than Kickstarter and my point remains... why would they bother? I just don't see why any developer would put themselves in that position when they have an already well-established alternative that lets them keep all their money. There's just no point in it.
Oh yeah, totally, but if it's anything above 0.00%, it's higher than Kickstarter and my point remains... why would they bother? I just don't see why any developer would put themselves in that position when they have an already well-established alternative that lets them keep all their money. There's just no point in it.
@Tristrix
There's nothing keeping a dev from going both routes. It's a matter of exposure and incentive, and the incentive to make cash as opposed to funding something you personally want to play has the potential to bring in more backers, and in theory, backers with much deeper pockets. Devs looking for a few thousand to put an iOS game together probably wouldn't benefit. A dev team looking for several million to make an Unreal based Battle Monopoly game, though? That could very well be worth it. It'll depend on how the percentages work, but having paid investors push your big time debut through development could very well be worth it. Who knows, maybe the cut we'd take would be so much less than what a typical publisher would take that a somewhat large dev looks to us to fund a game rather than EA or Activision.
@Drakengard
Yeah, you would likely not make a ton of money on any one game. Imagine making a years worth of smart investments, though. Those pennies add up in a hurry, trust me when I say it. There's risk involved, but the rewards could very well be a fucking ton of money over the span of 2 or 3 years.
There's nothing keeping a dev from going both routes. It's a matter of exposure and incentive, and the incentive to make cash as opposed to funding something you personally want to play has the potential to bring in more backers, and in theory, backers with much deeper pockets. Devs looking for a few thousand to put an iOS game together probably wouldn't benefit. A dev team looking for several million to make an Unreal based Battle Monopoly game, though? That could very well be worth it. It'll depend on how the percentages work, but having paid investors push your big time debut through development could very well be worth it. Who knows, maybe the cut we'd take would be so much less than what a typical publisher would take that a somewhat large dev looks to us to fund a game rather than EA or Activision.
@Drakengard
Yeah, you would likely not make a ton of money on any one game. Imagine making a years worth of smart investments, though. Those pennies add up in a hurry, trust me when I say it. There's risk involved, but the rewards could very well be a fucking ton of money over the span of 2 or 3 years.
@OneRed
Go drink a cup of coffee and wake the fuck up, you used the phrase "could very well..." like a million times.
Go drink a cup of coffee and wake the fuck up, you used the phrase "could very well..." like a million times.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, OneRed, and I do see how it would be more attractive for backers/investors to put their money towards a return rather than a donation, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't think they'll get the opportunity.
What you're saying is only going to happen if developers CHOOSE that option, and there's absolutely ZERO incentive for them to do so IF Kickstarter is also an option for them. I absolutely grant you, they'll use this Gambitious thing if Kickstarter doesn't work for them because it's better than not making their game at all... but what does that mean Gambitious is left with? The bottom of the barrel, right? The dregs that couldn't cut it on Kickstarter. And who the fuck wants to invest in the Kickstarter's rejects and failures?
At least that's how it looks to me, broseidon. Maybe my imagination sucks, but I can't see a way in which this doesn't suck.
What you're saying is only going to happen if developers CHOOSE that option, and there's absolutely ZERO incentive for them to do so IF Kickstarter is also an option for them. I absolutely grant you, they'll use this Gambitious thing if Kickstarter doesn't work for them because it's better than not making their game at all... but what does that mean Gambitious is left with? The bottom of the barrel, right? The dregs that couldn't cut it on Kickstarter. And who the fuck wants to invest in the Kickstarter's rejects and failures?
At least that's how it looks to me, broseidon. Maybe my imagination sucks, but I can't see a way in which this doesn't suck.
if people use it it's gonna be really cool.
i hate kickstarter for requiring you to have a us address in order to create a project
i hate kickstarter for requiring you to have a us address in order to create a project
It's a matter of more and more. I'm not going to give you $10k out of the goodness of my heart because I like the look of your game, but I just might if I'm getting points on the package. Kickstarter doesn't have that appeal. You preorder the game, get a prize(s) for donating more than that to a certain point, and anything more than the worth of those things combined is charity, more or less.
In essence, I'm saying that the investment model has the potential to fund much larger projects than the preorder/donation model. There are a bunch of games on KS I wouldn't mind funding, but I have no incentive to do so as I'm not personally interested in the games themselves. The added incentive would bring in people who think your game is cool, but don't want it themselves, and the fact that giving more money means more than getting a bunch of prizes you may or may not have any interest in at all.
And lets not forget that KS money is not free money, there is significant costs associated with going that route. Not least of which the fact that these people have already purchased your game, and expect delivery of it. The difference between what KS does and what this site wants to do is that the costs on KS are significant one time costs by nature, and the costs associated with the investment model are small but sustained.
In essence, I'm saying that the investment model has the potential to fund much larger projects than the preorder/donation model. There are a bunch of games on KS I wouldn't mind funding, but I have no incentive to do so as I'm not personally interested in the games themselves. The added incentive would bring in people who think your game is cool, but don't want it themselves, and the fact that giving more money means more than getting a bunch of prizes you may or may not have any interest in at all.
And lets not forget that KS money is not free money, there is significant costs associated with going that route. Not least of which the fact that these people have already purchased your game, and expect delivery of it. The difference between what KS does and what this site wants to do is that the costs on KS are significant one time costs by nature, and the costs associated with the investment model are small but sustained.
Cant wait for these gamer-shareholders lose their collective shits when they find the games they invested in for free on torrent sites.
Shit, that'd be a fucking amazing way of battling piracy. Give people a stake in the game, and maybe they won't steal it. I'd like to see how that plays out.
I don't know how I feel about this. It's mostly negative. See, slippery slope arguments coming to life and all. Consumers aren't exactly the perfect Investors. Yeah, they part with their money easily but hey... This is getting a little ridiculous.
Interesting point of view, OneRed. I was initially skeptical, but I think more choices for developers to get funding can only be a positive force.
Realistically, Double Fine probably illustrates the top end of what Kickstarter can do. If a game needs a budget of $5 million, where do they go? This could serve a middle ground between the less expensive KS projects and big budget mainstream titles. It could even grow to rival those, if it's executed well.
I'll always have concerns about the influence of profit-motivated investors, however. And what happens the first time investors lose money in this setup? Interesting times. I can't wait to see how this shakes out.
Realistically, Double Fine probably illustrates the top end of what Kickstarter can do. If a game needs a budget of $5 million, where do they go? This could serve a middle ground between the less expensive KS projects and big budget mainstream titles. It could even grow to rival those, if it's executed well.
I'll always have concerns about the influence of profit-motivated investors, however. And what happens the first time investors lose money in this setup? Interesting times. I can't wait to see how this shakes out.
@NickKull
Why wouldn't EA or Activision or ZeniMax or Ubisoft just look up the site, find a game their interested in, and just buy up all the shares?
Because they cant if the developer doesn't want them to.
"Instead, a developer decides what percentage of the required funding people can buy."
Why wouldn't EA or Activision or ZeniMax or Ubisoft just look up the site, find a game their interested in, and just buy up all the shares?
Because they cant if the developer doesn't want them to.
"Instead, a developer decides what percentage of the required funding people can buy."
I can see several ways that can go wrong. It's probably a better idea to stick with Kickstarter or Rockethub.
I'm with Trist.. this is pretty stupid when you can just get direct support with no real obligation to pay out.
And, I'm more then willing to bet that -at some point- devs are going to swindle this somehow.. My guess is that they'll set up a dummy game that'll never EVER get made, in order to get investors, then cancel the game and funnel the funds into another game. Embesseling? Sure. But the way the article is making it sound, it'll be perfectly legal as long as there was a game being "made" in the first place and then never came to print.
Either way this whole trend really does need to stop.
And, I'm more then willing to bet that -at some point- devs are going to swindle this somehow.. My guess is that they'll set up a dummy game that'll never EVER get made, in order to get investors, then cancel the game and funnel the funds into another game. Embesseling? Sure. But the way the article is making it sound, it'll be perfectly legal as long as there was a game being "made" in the first place and then never came to print.
Either way this whole trend really does need to stop.
follow
