Destructoid is gaming news, community, videos, and sometimes love. Take the tour or jump in with Facebook:

 


Valve: Let players fund videogame development photo

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.


Continue: More Valve stories





prev
next 50 comments

53 comments | showing # 1 to 50

Magnalon's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:46
Magnalon
So is he suggesting, potentially, if players commit to investing $60 to a project, they'll get a free copy of the game upon release? That's win-win: the developer gets the production costs upfront, and the player most likely deepens his love/relationship with the developer; you know, the people that actually put their heart and soul into the game.
Havoc Fang's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:49
Havoc Fang
Aren't Valve pretty self sufficent as it is, with Steam and all?

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.
Dimnos's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:49
Dimnos
I love this idea. I would HATE to see the game industry go the way of music. >:(
Kuwanjahbee's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:50
Kuwanjahbee
Sounds like a good idea on paper. the only thing is if it would work in reality. That is alot of money coming from fans. And what if the game changes to something that the player no longer wishes to back, would there be a refund?
Magnalon's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:52
Magnalon
Oh, and not to mention, this might potentially eradicate the bullshit "exclusivity deals". If consumers are paying for the development costs, there might be less incentive to accept that huge bonus from Microsoft or Sony that screws over so many fans who only own one system. Make it happen, Valve!
Rockvillian's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:52
Rockvillian
I agree with Gabe on this, though there are the usual downsides (like with everything involving humans) including territorial behavior when new players enter the fray once the game reaches the broader public. Single player games would be the safest, but with MMOs or online products, epeens lurk.

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.
phantomile's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:52
phantomile
This is an amazing idea, but I can't see it ever working on a large scale.
Tubatic's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:55
Tubatic
I like it.

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.
snoogans775's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:56
snoogans775
@Rockvillain

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.
The-Excel's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:56
The-Excel
I think indie developers can see the most benefit from this. Of course, when money is involved the possibility of drama increases geometrically, but I really want to see what happens when independent makers get the benefit of large budgets without the stigma of "going pro".
dfielder's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:58
dfielder
I'm totally down for this!
that1dude24's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 14:58
that1dude24
Bad idea.

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.
Magnalon's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:01
Magnalon
@that1dude24
"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.
Tubatic's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:01
Tubatic
@that1dude24

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.
Nic128's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:03
Nic128
I would definitly give fund for games translation that never made it here.
highlatency's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:03
highlatency
The largest problem with this concept is that the developer would have to dish out the up front cost of advertising an idea, with nothing to show except for maybe a picture or 2 and a design document.
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.
mario actually's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:03
mario actually
I think it's brilliant and I think it's actually what we will see - in similar forms - a lot more in the future. Basically it's the same principle as the microfinancing-plattform myc4 or similar projects.
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.)
mr moustache's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:07
mr moustache
They could have my money for Episode 3 right now.
robotbebop's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:08
robotbebop
Something like this is almost already in effect at kickstarter, but kickstarter is more broad (and only available in the US.)

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.
donkeykong's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:08
donkeykong
Special thanks to the Excel for being the first person in history to not use exponentially incorrectly outside of math class.

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.
sexycommando's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:13
sexycommando
This is a great idea in theory:

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.
falinter's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:13
falinter
Isn't that kind of what that Swarm of Angels movie thing is doing?

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?
CBunn's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:17
CBunn
I'd apply my money into stuff like that.
Rockvillian's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:18
Rockvillian
@mrmoustache

Zing!
YeagerMeister's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:19
YeagerMeister
I believe in Valve, if anyone could work the kinks out of this idea it'll be Valve.
Paroxysm's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:25
Paroxysm
I remember 2d Boy did the preorder for World of Goo mid way through development. I could be wrong but I think it was basically for this reason. I paid gladly to support the project and I was not dissapointed.

I don't know if you could start development with player investment but you could certainly complete it.
Timmeh's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:31
Timmeh
I doubt this would ever work, there's just too much that can go wrong. I'll just file in the same category as that whole "With Left 4 Dead we're interested in games as a service. Oh by the way please buy the sequel next year" thing.
CocoJambo's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:32
CocoJambo
Besides many gamers preferring to have the game and not fund it in anyway, what's stopping people from associating in mass and becoming some kind of pseudo publisher, demanding from the developer whatever they wish?

"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.
that1dude24's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:40
that1dude24
Oops. Forgot to mention that this would be hell for new devs. Not many gamers are willing to make a bet on a team that has never created a game before.
whormongr's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:42
whormongr
@falinter if there was a basic investment cost say: $30 or something for the game and there were only x amount of investors allowed then in the end if you didn't sell many ppl the game most probably the studio would keep the small profit and everyone would have a game for a very low pre-order price
Holyetheline's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 15:55
Holyetheline
I think if done correctly this would work... but I don't know when that will ever happen.
Kyousuke Nanbu's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:01
Kyousuke Nanbu
This could work for indie games but never for big time releases.

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.
Mattchewie's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:02
Mattchewie
Interesting idea. As long as people are just funding the Concept, I think it may 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
Turbofail's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:07
Turbofail
I'm paypaling them $100 for Portal 2 right now.
robotbebop's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:11
robotbebop
This is definitely something I'd like to try out, I just don't if i'm up for the massive support burden it would create. It seems feasible enough given appropriate management of investor expectations - there'd probably be a lot of reminders that they are investors in a project and not customers looking for a custom game.
Matthew Blake's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:12
Matthew Blake
Something like this worked wonders for an indie game called Mount and Blade. When they first started development, you could pay five bucks to get in on the beta. As the team took feedback from the players, they began adding new features, slowly ramping up the price of entry accordingly, while allowing the early investors to receive all updates for free. This allowed the game to snowball, as the feedback from new players allowed the creators to constantly tweak their game to perfection, and even taught the early players enough so that their mods became part of the final package! I think a system like this would be perfect for game development.
triclops41's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:12
triclops41
All I want to know is how we use this model to get a new x-wing vs TIE fighter.
Doos's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:22
Doos
If this tactic were practiced, I'd give Tim Schafer $1000.
robotbebop's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:23
robotbebop
@Matthew Blake - were those people just buying into early access, or were they actually investing in the sense that once the game went retail/gold/whatever they received a return on their initial investment?
Emrah's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:28
Emrah
I will fund COD 8 by infinity ward, (MW3). I'll send them 20 dollars and will receive 78 in return.
darknil's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:30
darknil
Everyone had a pretty answer but I have a question.

What if that investor would be a PS3 user?

I'm just saying.
Turnip's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:32
Turnip
Actually the idea is not new and already used by a danish company
http://www.interstellarmarines.com/indie/

btw the trailer of their upcoming game is awesome.

SPOILER : walking sharks for the win !!!
Cadtalfryn's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:36
Cadtalfryn
I was hoping this was going to be Valve giving everyone that is pissed at them for L4D2 a big F U when I clicked on the link. However, its an interesting idea. I doubt it would work for anything more than things like PSN/Wii Ware/XBL games.
Pangloss's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:37
Pangloss
This notion is fraught with problems. Remember the whole Diablo 3 concept art "controversy"? Blizzard might have been a little more hesitant to tell the idiot fankids to blow it out their asses if these fankids had also been investors. There are just too many aspects of the gamer/developer relationship that turn sour once money (on the front end) is involved.

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.
Nitex's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 16:55
Nitex
Those "fankids" are the real Diablo loving crowd your talking about there. There would be no Diablo 2 or 3 coming if it wasn't for them and their money the first go around. It always helps to think.
andycadaver's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 18:30
andycadaver
What a fucking brilliant idea. I love Valve, sooo much. Sooo much. I sure as hell know if I had the cash to throw around, I'd place it in quality developers like Valve and BioWare. Throw EA the finger and work this shit D.I.Y.! Er... well, D.I.T. at least (do-it-together). And uh... from rich people. Like a tiny communist slice in a big, fat capitalist devil's food cake. Heh, like what I did there? Yeah. Hell yeah. I like that too.
ShadowKirby's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 18:53
ShadowKirby
It's a nice idea in theory but that1dude24 pointed out a few good things. I fear that big games would get all the attention and smaller projects would fall in the shadow. All we'd get would be Halos and Gears of Wars.

But on the other hand, I really hope to see some smaller indie devs to try this out.
Wedge's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 18:57
Wedge
Oh darn, someone already mentioned Mount and Blade. World of Goo also sort of did this by offering the game for "pre-order" and giving you the first world, which could be done more than 6 months before the game actually came out.
Dexter345's Avatar - Comment posted on 07/20/2009 20:42
Dexter345
I'd invest in a Valve game.
prev next 50 comments

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

Comments policy

Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?

Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

 

   Got news?   tips@destructoid.com   |   Dtoid Twitter

New Videos

more videos


Reviews & Previews
BioShock 2 review
Dante's Inferno review
Chime review
Hustle Kings review
iPhone Review Round-up: January review
more reviews
Dawn of War II Chaos Rising
Metro 2033
A trip to the racetracks Days of Thunder Arcade
Double the pleasure, double the fun with Darwinia+
Wizarding world in plastic Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4
more previews


- The Dtoid Army is 56714 strong -

Showing Cblogs with 3+ faps   show all

Call for entries: the Areas of my Expertise

New to Dtoid? Read the survival guide


 Originals
Jim Sterling: How Aliens are blatantly better than Predators





















More Destructoid Originals




We are Destructoid   tips@destructoid.com
Nick Chester
Editor-in-Chief
Niero
Founder, Big Boss
Jim Sterling
Reviews Editor
Hamza Aziz
Community Manager
Dale North
News Editor
Rey Gutierrez
Destructoid Video EIC
Anthony Burch
Features Editor
Brad Nicholson
Managing Editor
Tom Fronczak Colette Bennett
Ashley Davis Ben Perlee
Conrad
Zimmerman
Chad Concelmo
Jonathan Holmes Jonathan Ross
Brad Rice Jordan Devore
Will Maddock Matthew Razak
Josh Tolentino
Joseph Leray
Topher Cantler Samit Sarkar
     
  Adam Dork
Daniel Lingen
Hollie Bennett
Joe Burling
Mikey Turvey






 
 
  get involved

register or login
post a blog
post a forum
enter a contest
contribute a news tip
suggest a feature
be a guest editor
support

new member's guide
login assistance
tech support
report abuse
email our editors
read our dev blog
nuclear crisis?
keep in touch

RSS feed
Twitter
Facebook
Myspace
Flickr
Game nights
Meetup+play online
seriously

about Destructoid
advertising
terms of use
privacy policy
jobs at MM
buy our crap
our network

Tomopop
Japanator
Despingation?




Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming community's need of accountable enthusiast press
living the dream since March 16, 2006