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.
Contest:
2:40 PM on 07.20.2009
| 
Either way, this wouldn't work because people are assholes, poor and more than content to buy a game when it comes out instead. If anyone could do it, it'd be Valve, but I think this may be one or two pegs too high.
This happened to me with Minecraft. Great game, but once more people became involved in the development, a literal task force emerged that started a crusade against griefers and "noobs" to the point where it ceased to be fun for me anymore.
The way I read it, you'd maybe even get a monetary gain on your investment, and a copy of the game. So that's a game and maybe $30 as a return on your investment into a really good title.
Perhaps this can delve into the concept of shares. If i put in 2 "shares" at $60 and the game's an unmitigated blockbuster, I get my money back, plus $120 bucks wired to my theoretical "Valve Investor Club ScreenName". If we're talking about being investors, lets go ahead and assume that we're expecting our money back and then some, no?
Maybe that's a bit extreme, but I wouldn't necessarily want this to be a kids club/pat on the head sort of deal, where they figure any and all payback can come in the form of games and Space Dollars.
Territorial behavior doesn't apply here. The player's financial involvement would take place entirely before the game even existed. If there was a territorial side of things, it would be instant and on an individual level, like the stock market.
Niche titles will almost never be funded, IP titles will almost never be funded, we will just get sequel after sequel. Chances are good that FPS/action titles will dominate the market even more so than now.
And, you don't get to see the product before you buy it. It's like playing Russian roulette with games.
"And, you don't get to see the product before you buy it. It's like playing Russian roulette with games."
That's the definition of "investing". It is inherently a risk.
I dunno. I could see a ground swell of players, for example, chipping in funding for an obscure import or helping to greenlight a game with odd subject matter. I don't think itd be "OK, what do you want us to make" rather than "OK, here's our crazy ideas. What are you willing to bet on"
So far as it being risky, oh its definitely risky. But that's investment.
The next large issue would be that the only way to turn around and get 10-30Mill for a project from gamers would be to hype it up and get people excited about the project, and that kind of goes hand in hand with problem number 1.
This could work quite well(and has) with indie developers, and although I would LOVE to see this actually work, theres too much cost upfront to be probable. To obtain the upfront cost we would be brought back into the current system with large investors/publishers or exclusives, which would cut down on the Fan base ect.
Cool concept that I would definitely love to be apart of.
I'd love to see this in the games industry, because this is the idea, that could be the democratic revolution of the finance-sector (You know the guys who killes peoples 401ks and are now making billions again...). So, yeah! Let's do exactly this and let's start with games.
(Apart from the enthusiasm: Of course it will not be able to replace banks, but it could be a serious alternative, if done right. Combine this with a decentralized energy-infrastructure and you come one step closer to my utopia.)
But the idea is sound, ask the community for X amount of money, if X is reached then the pledges are collected and development begins. If one could come up with a few tweaks to that system where you pay so much for a percentage of monthly revenue then it sounds far more feasible.
The only problem is that projects can completely disintegrate for any number of reasons. Especially projects started on the internet. Aspiring developers taking this model have a very hard task in convincing anonymous investors that A) they're game is marketable and fun and that perhaps more importantly - B) The individuals are committed to finishing the game on schedule.
Also, random internet people are not likely to be experienced investors. The developer would have to make absolutely sure they're not liable to get sued if the game sells poorly or the game doesn't live up to the possibly unrealistic expectations of some incompetent or irrational investors. I think this isn't a risk from individually unsatisfied investors, but if there was a good number of pissed of investors they could form a class-action lawsuit and then you'd pretty much be screwed into legal costs as a developer, I would think anyway.
Guys, this doesn't make sense. It's like the stock market 2: the sequel, except it's being applied in tandem. Gamers who are willing to part with any money without an immediate or guaranteed return represent probably somewhere in the range of 1%, and they are probably already investing.
Even if a higher percentage decided to get involved there's still no guarantee the games they want would be anticipated by other investors. There are so many avenues for failure here that I'm just gonna say no. Either that or I'm completely misinterpreting the situation.
Maybe a better idea would be business as usual. Maybe I'm just not dreaming big.
Gamers can invest in a game idea that they want to help become a reality, get a copy of the game, and make a return on investment if the game is a market success.
Game developers get investors, customers, and advocates all at once. People who invest in your game are more likely to know about games and what kind would succeed, and would have a vested interest to actively promote it. Ultimate grassroots support.
The problem is that this will most likely only work with independent game developers, which means new IPs and franchises. Game publishers that own rights to your favorite franchises won't buy into this, ie. it will be difficult to fund and make a Chrono Trigger sequel since Square Enix owns that. I want a true sequel to the X-Com games for PC, but that is owned by Take Two who is just sitting on it like fat idiots.
I'd totally be down for this. But what happens if everone who wanted to buy the game invests in it and gets a free copy? Do the developers still make a profit in there somewhere?
Zing!
I don't know if you could start development with player investment but you could certainly complete it.
"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."
As an informed gamer I wouldn't mind doing this, as I could support many weird ideas with no loss (I still get the game) and would also support Wii Fit/Wii Sports/ Halo/ Call of Duty and any kind of established, huge sales franchise, having even some profit.
The other issue is that because they are investing, many people would think they are entitled to interfere with development or that they can also ask for progress reports as well since its their money.
In theory, maybe it could work for smaller games but there would be so many issues with the ever fickle gaming community that it would never, ever work.
So I would
1.) Release concept and any sketchs, one will most likley not fun unless they have something to excited about.
2.) Once enough money is made to start, proceed with development until you can get into a closed beta.
3.) In closed beta, have the funders run the game and give feedback on broken items, SUGGESTIONS for improvement.
4.) make changes, possible additional beta cycle.
5.) Game comes out, hits retail, you get your copy shipped or beta upgraded to GOLD.
The only issue I can see is if someone views a mechanic as being broken and wishes it to be removed or revamped and its not done, you might lose a funder on your next game.
Overall though, very interesting, especially as long as your not catering to every funders whim
What if that investor would be a PS3 user?
I'm just saying.
http://www.interstellarmarines.com/indie/
btw the trailer of their upcoming game is awesome.
SPOILER : walking sharks for the win !!!
This is an idea that would certainly benefit smaller indie studios (who would probably be delighted to take donations already), but for more mainstream games, it offers little (if any) benefit, and carries a load of attendant hassles.
But on the other hand, I really hope to see some smaller indie devs to try this out.