Valve's Newell On Community-Funded Games 176
Modern games are extremely expensive to make. High-profile, AAA titles have budgets in the tens of millions, and even the smaller, independent titles can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make. Couple this with development times that frequently reach three or four years and you have publishers who are very shy about investing in new projects, particularly for unproven IPs. Valve co-founder Gabe Newell recently spoke about a new way of funding such games: "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.'" Such a system would certainly relieve some of the pressure to stick with tried-and-true concepts (and possibly get management to grant a little more leeway with deadlines and resources), and it would make the video game industry more of a meritocracy than it already is.
Re:Then open it up (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't already do this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Gamers can be demanding (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why is developement taking so loooong? I want the game now!"
"You want to cut out that cool-sounding feature to be able to finish the development (in time)? No way!"
"Look, game studio XYZ makes the same game, but better - I'm outta here!"
"I think I heard that the game might not be 100% exactly what I thought I wanted, so I told everybody I know to not to give you any money, ever!"
"I f*cking paid for the development, why aren't you doing it the way I want!?!"
Although publishers tend to screw some game developement up with uber-tight schedules and other unrealistic demands, they will at least not destroy "their" product with bad press or force development to go on and on and on (till THE game "to rule 'em all" is produced), just because they feel like it.
Re:Requirements? (Score:5, Insightful)
With that list of demands, I'd make a large wager that you'll never invest in any sort of game development. Request changes? So you know better what a nebulous idea of a game will need better than the developer? Why don't you just go make it yourself, then?
Mass-sourced funding like this is banked on the fact that the people buying in have some level of trust that the game dev is going to make a good game. If you don't believe that, you're not going to give them money, no matter what concessions they make. Large investors changing games just because they're funding them... that's exactly why people dislike big players like EA so much, because they'll buy out a small studio and then dictate how they make their games.
Yikes (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, as someone planning to make a game as my thesis project and as someone who enjoys games that sounds terrible!
I generally expect a work of fiction to be created from the vision of one person (possibly using the skills of people he directs) I doubt I'd enjoy watching a movie or reading a book or playing a game designed by a committee for the lowest common denominator.
And although watching a game develop in incremental stages might be interesting for someone interested in game development, personally I think it would ruin my enjoyment of the finished product.
Re:Then open it up (Score:5, Insightful)
The only downside to your idea is that it's been tried (by Stephen King, no less) and found to be lacking.
People who enjoy getting something for free don't pay for getting the next installment. Not in big enough numbers for a book - see the problem with financing a TV show this way?
Re:Flip a coin (Score:3, Insightful)
There Games G-A-M-E-S Really why should we care if someone has the ability to make them or not. It is not like a failure to make a game will end civilization or even harm it. If it comes out then we decide to buy it or not. Play with it for a few months dump in archive and pull it out every couple years for. That is if your lucky. This story makes it seem that a failure to produce a game is a huge loss to the world. Sorry it isn't. Failure to make a game isn't our fault it is due to poor management at the place making the games. Even with Indy games, if they fail they didn't manage the process right. Sorry. If the programmers can program write the program doesn't work and we give them no pity. But if wasn't managed right we give them pitty, Ohh lets give them more money to finish it. Why bad managers take more money then they should for the results they make. Good managers use the money and resources efficiently to produce the product with the budget given. Giving a company your personal bailout money just so they can manage their product poorly isn't a good investment or a good idea.
Re:Flip a coin (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Expect a lot of people to pay ~$50 for a game before it's developed.
2. Give these people absolutely no guarantee that the game will ever be produced or that it will be anything like what it was originally billed to be.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!
5. Realise that 4. was short term, and you've lost the investment base you had.
6. Realise that your reputation as a skilled and inventive game developer has been smeared all over the internet, with major game publishers (keen to see if the model works) seeing that you're now hated by the gaming community.
7. Realise you've killed your employment prospects for ever working in mainstream games development.
8. Get McDonalds application form.
Re:Then open it up (Score:5, Insightful)
Overgrowth, by Wolfire (Score:1, Insightful)
This sounds pretty much exactly like what Wolfire games [wolfire.com] are doing with their new game, Overgrowth.
They started selling (cheap!) preorders ages ago, before they had anything to give out, and have since been releasing more and more content as it is developed, as well as engaging with the community on game features, content and such. Even better, those who have preordered can play with the weekly builds they release, which really helps people believe that the project is actually going somewhere.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not in any way related to Wolfire, other than that I've preordered Overgrowth and am a fan of their previous game, Lugaru.
Let me be blunt here... (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea reminds me of those poor suckers who bought lifetime subscriptions to winning titles such as Hellgate London and Tabula Rasa, or all those who clamored to buy Spore. What guarantee do gamer investors have that a developer won't put out a good idea, take $20 from a few thousand players, and then put out another craptabulous title just to say they did it? No thanks.
Re:Then open it up (Score:2, Insightful)
The only downside to your idea is that it's been tried (by Stephen King, no less) and found to be lacking.
King did it backwards, he asked people to pay after they already have the product in hand. Only the most generous of suckers is going to do that. Word was the story kinda sucked too.
The key is in holding the next episode/book/song/installment ransom. Sure plenty of people still won't pay, but when you've got a billion people on the net worldwide, you only need a miniscule fraction in order to be profitable.
It would also help to arrange the financing creatively, one way being a subscription. Sign up for the subscription and the money is auto-billed each month, works the same as music clubs, gyms, etc, and to a lesser extent cable tv does. You can also sell physical items like memorabilia that include a dedicated mark-up just for creative production costs, kind of the way PBS and NPR went to donation levels with guaranteed "gifts" in return - that move increased their revenues a couple of hundred percent. People like getting "stuff" for their money even if it is just incidental.
King's ebook was nothing less than a disaster.
First it was to be $1 per installment of about 25 pages, a ludicrous enough price considering the near-zero cost of duplication and distribution.
Nevertheless, only the second of four chapters had a return rate below his demanded 75%, and that was still more than 70%.
Then with the fourth chapter he doubled the cost- the payment ratio dropped under 50% and after the sixth chapter he stopped writing the story.
Between issuing childish ultimatums to his fanbase, failing to adhere to his original plan, a sudden doubling of costs, and probably the epistolary format, I'm completely unsurprised the venture failed.
Re:Then open it up (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually... this is epically genius: who needs commercials when you have 50,000 people who invested a few bucks and wants a return on their investment? Now you have 50,000 walking commercials, posting great comments in forums, blogging about it, putting it on facebook, and telling everyone they know about this new game and how great it is and that they're beta testing it.
You're forgetting that beta testing is actually damn boring and all troubles. Crashes, game may look shitty still, maybe no sounds and music, the gameplay isn't there fully yet, features are missing and so on.
It's hard to make people that committed to a game, specially if its some new IP. They will try out the beta all excited and think "so this shit is what I paid for?".