Gabe Newell Wants You to Fund Your Games
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
Developers make game. If the game is good, then I will buy it, and then I will be happy, and the developer's will be happy too. If not, I will not buy it.
I refuse to pay money on a game that hasn't been made, and might not ever get made.
I refuse to pay money on a game that hasn't been made, and might not ever get made.
A possible way to eliminate all that risk might be to ask gamers to pay for the development of their games.
WAIT......WHAT?!
I swear I would punch this guy, if he told me "we" had to pay for developing our games, when it's THERE job to do that.
Seriously x[ There getting lazyer and lazyzer
WAIT......WHAT?!
I swear I would punch this guy, if he told me "we" had to pay for developing our games, when it's THERE job to do that.
Seriously x[ There getting lazyer and lazyzer
The only real difference I can see is that your return on investment would be entirely based on 1 game instead of all the games that company makes. But yeah, if i wanted to invest in games I'd buy stock.Frank_Sinatra_ said:
But you see, this is exactly why we have game publishers. Having independent investors would just ruin the whole thing. And what would happen in instances like Duke Nukem forever, where the money invested ends up being a complete waste? It's a novel thought, but put into practice, would never work. Like I started out saying, this is why we have game publishers, as they can afford to take the risks and take a hit on potential losses.
So he basically saying he want us to give him monies?
All the Valve fan-boys out their most likely will though.
All the Valve fan-boys out their most likely will though.
While I wouldn't give to Valve for any game, nor for the production of any shooter, I would give to specific projects. Maybe specific games, maybe a new engine, maybe something else, but it wouldn't be a blind funding. I would pick the projects after a bit of research, and it would only be with specific studios. Hal Laboratories, Ape Inc, Black Isle, and occasionally THQ, if I really wanted to spend money. Blizzard, Nintendo, Sony, and others like them I would not fund, because they're big enough on their own to collect enough revenue to fund whatever projects they want, and if they were asking for money from their respective crowds, I'd start to wonder what was going on.
wait a second, what scale of investment are we talking about? around the 40-50 pounds per-person mark? if so, lets do a comparison of the proposed idea and the way we buy games at the moment:
The way it is now
1) We hear about a new game - complete with all the hype.
2) The people who have their interest sparked will probably follow the game's development, and begin to develop something of a relationship with it.
3) On it's release, we flood to the shops with the rest of fandom, our various expectations and our 40 pounds, and purchase a copy.
4) We may or may not be grievously disappointed.
The hypothetical way
1) We hear about a new game - with some pictures (prob not trailers) and perhaps a design blue print of some kind.
2) Interest may be sparked, and a relationship with the game thus maybe formed.
3) The interested party invests 40 pounds.
4) Game is released - and we get a copy free.
5) We may or may not be grievously disappointed.
This seems to be almost exactly the same situation - but with payment made at different times. A notable difference however is that when you invest in buying the finished copy of a game - you're more than likely investing in the marketing surrounding it. In the hypothetical version, you're investing in the naked concept itself. You can also choose to only invest at a later stage of the game making process, thus limiting risk as much as you'd want.
In my mind this idea harks back to people patronizing writers and poets etc to create literary works for their own private consumption. I don't see there being much difference between small writers being patronized by minor gentry folk and small developers being patronized by smaller groups of people (i.e. gamers). To continue the analogy, the situation at the moment is like those small, unheard of writers all being forced to appeal to the king for money.. there's just no proportional alternative for them.
Add to this that it is entirely voluntary to invest, and id say you have a legitimate alternative cash source for small developers to look to. It wont replace the publishing system already in place, but it could well add to it.
Why shouldn't the opportunity be there?
The way it is now
1) We hear about a new game - complete with all the hype.
2) The people who have their interest sparked will probably follow the game's development, and begin to develop something of a relationship with it.
3) On it's release, we flood to the shops with the rest of fandom, our various expectations and our 40 pounds, and purchase a copy.
4) We may or may not be grievously disappointed.
The hypothetical way
1) We hear about a new game - with some pictures (prob not trailers) and perhaps a design blue print of some kind.
2) Interest may be sparked, and a relationship with the game thus maybe formed.
3) The interested party invests 40 pounds.
4) Game is released - and we get a copy free.
5) We may or may not be grievously disappointed.
This seems to be almost exactly the same situation - but with payment made at different times. A notable difference however is that when you invest in buying the finished copy of a game - you're more than likely investing in the marketing surrounding it. In the hypothetical version, you're investing in the naked concept itself. You can also choose to only invest at a later stage of the game making process, thus limiting risk as much as you'd want.
In my mind this idea harks back to people patronizing writers and poets etc to create literary works for their own private consumption. I don't see there being much difference between small writers being patronized by minor gentry folk and small developers being patronized by smaller groups of people (i.e. gamers). To continue the analogy, the situation at the moment is like those small, unheard of writers all being forced to appeal to the king for money.. there's just no proportional alternative for them.
Add to this that it is entirely voluntary to invest, and id say you have a legitimate alternative cash source for small developers to look to. It wont replace the publishing system already in place, but it could well add to it.
Why shouldn't the opportunity be there?
I don't know if someone were to give them say five dollars. Would they get their name somewhere in the credits?
I think Gabe it trying to find a way out of the developer/publisher model by skipping the publisher and going strait to the people. This sounds like the PBS of game development:
"Gosh we would love to develop the next game play mechanic of this project, but unless we meet our next pledge goal our programmer might not be able to make rent."
"Gosh we would love to develop the next game play mechanic of this project, but unless we meet our next pledge goal our programmer might not be able to make rent."
I personally think it's a great idea,Dahemo said:
As to answer your concerns, I think it would have to be done in a way that the developers will pitch their biggest gameplay ideas and then possible "investors" will decide whether they want to invest or not.
As to whether your game is not very good or it isn't even released, then tough, you lose out, much the same way as the stock market, if a company you own shares in goes bankrupt then you lose out.
What I think this will give to the gaming market is a freedom for devs to implement risky gameplay designs, without fear of corporate investor restraints.
And i think we'll hear an end to people complaining about games which take a very conservative approach. Which is a good thing
No from me, because If I funded a games development and it sucked, I'd be pissed. and that's just not how business works.
The thing is something like this would entitle said person to a share of profits on release (as mentioned), but also a say in the actual development, and that I see being ugly on a large project. The other thing being the rage if a game is canceled and they don't get a refund.
Hi Gabe, I would love to fund your projects but seeing as though you gave me a half done port of TF2, let EA run the servers which appear to be made up of plastic cups, rope and dreams, then decided not to give me any updates...
lets just say, I wouldn't see it as the wisest investment.
lets just say, I wouldn't see it as the wisest investment.