Publishing co-operative

[Adam Locking]

So I was thinking about how a lot of people on this site, and a growing number of gamers in general, are getting fed up with the current state of the industry; AAA publishers pumping out the same crap, on-disc DLC and bloated budgets, and indie publishers being underfunded and unrepresented on several platforms. Then it hit me, what if someone was to set up a new publisher, not as an ordinary company, but as a co-operative?

Think about it, instead of reporting to clueless shareholders who want to fuck us sideways for money, it would instead be talking to its members: us! Instead of gamers throwing money at a kickstarter (which, if the worst should happen, takes all your money and gives nothing back), they pay in to become a member of the co-op, which would be held accountable to its members.

It could start small, funding a few mobile or low cost steam titles to gain funds, with the profits going back in to put towards other projects. Members have access to a website where they can pitch ideas, and vote on specific titles to fund, or what genres/types of games they'd like to see, and members would be able to buy the games at a member-only discount. Monthly newsletters keep everyone informed of what games are launching, providing loads of talked advertising for nothing. Once there's enough money in the company, it should be able to take a crack at the boxed games market (though obviously not AAA) and budgets games accordingly, instead of throwing huge tons of money at a project and hoping it'll be a hit.

Once it gets to this stage, there'll be plenty of indie devs wanting to use us a publisher to get into certain markets (looking at you xbone) with their game already finished and no real financial input required (basically risk-free money for other projects).

So fellow escapists, what do you think? Would anyone join such a venture if it existed, and do you think it'd have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding?

Captcha: Basket Case

...well, thanks for your input captcha...

 

[Caiphus]

I'm afraid that, as idealistic as this would be, it's probably impossible. I have a feeling that Kickstarter is the closest we'll ever see to this kind of business model. I have these major concerns:

a) The incentives are messed up. What incentive do I have to put my money in? A member only discount? But I could get that from pre-ordering a game, or through Kickstarter anyway. Why shouldn't I just watch the rest of you invest and risk your money, and then just buy the game when it goes on sale? What incentives do developers have to choose the co-operative over Kickstarter?

b) The chain of command is iffy. So everyone gets a vote on which games get picked? I don't see that working out much better than Steam Greenlight.

c) Who makes decisions with regards to advertising? Do we advertise? If we don't, what is our main function besides providing a (very small at first) source of money?

d) Who legally owns the co-operative? What happens if it goes bust?

Edit: Thinking about it, there are even more concerns with regards to accounting/auditing/administration and related permissions and expenses. And I'm sorry if I'm being rude, I realise and understand that you aren't going to have an investor-ready pitch here.

 

[Esotera]

It seems like reinventing the wheel a bit, although ideologically it would be awesome. People who want to make games on a shoestring budget will do it anyway via services that already give them access to millions of people such as Steam Greenlight, and kickstarter is always there. All this idea has is its reputation (which currently doesn't exist and is something you'd have to build up).

 

[Smooth Operator]

Group of people funding projects... we just looped back around to shareholders.
Yes it's true that this group would be more concerned with the actual games but they would not agree on the direction to go, most people would still flock to over-saturated genres because it's the hip new thing or the thing they are most comfortable with, would probably still push for nonsensical DLC/season passes/premium accounts because that is what they are used to now.

Bottom line is the larger the group the worse their decisions, if you want specific games for specific tastes then you need to let smaller groups form on their own.

 

[Adam Locking]

It seems like reinventing the wheel a bit, although ideologically it would be awesome. People who want to make games on a shoestring budget will do it anyway via services that already give them access to millions of people such as Steam Greenlight, and kickstarter is always there.

Most kickstarter projects never get more than a million dollars at best (Star Citizen non-withstanding) whereas AAA games now are commanding budgets close to $100 million; the idea is that after a few low-budget indie and mobile games to build up funds it could turn its attention to a middle-ground, with games that only cost 2 to 5 mil, so we can have games with decent production values but still take a few risks and try some new ideas.

I'm afraid that, as idealistic as this would be, it's probably impossible. I have a feeling that Kickstarter is the closest we'll ever see to this kind of business model. I have these major concerns:

a) The incentives are messed up. What incentive do I have to put my money in? A member only discount? But I could get that from pre-ordering a game, or through Kickstarter anyway. Why shouldn't I just watch the rest of you invest and risk your money, and then just buy the game when it goes on sale? What incentives do developers have to choose the co-operative over Kickstarter?

As a potential member, the main incentives would be less risk (you would have more of a legal claim to your money in a business than you would a kickstarter), you would only have to invest the once in membership to get a discount/vote on ALL games from then onwards, and I believe many co-ops give each of their members a small cut of their annual profits (though not too much in this instance, as most money would be getting re-invested into new games).

As a developer, the incentive would be more chance of press releases being noticed (coming from an large company with a couple games to its name, opposed to two guys in their bedroom), industry contacts, be able to keep their IP (opposed to most published who claim it as their own), someone to manage boxed console releases (once we have funding for that) and, as stated, access to markets that favor publishers over indies (such as the xbone downloadable marketplace).

b) The chain of command is iffy. So everyone gets a vote on which games get picked? I don't see that working out much better than Steam Greenlight.

This is a fair point; hopefully someone else will come up with a better system, but for now it's the best we have.

c) Who makes decisions with regards to advertising? Do we advertise? If we don't, what is our main function besides providing a (very small at first) source of money?

Again, press releases from a publisher gain more attention than from an independent source. I imagine there would also be a small budget for advertising, proportional to the budget of the game. The co-op may elect to hire a PR firm in these instances, or select one from its members and pay a reasonable salary.

d) Who legally owns the co-operative? What happens if it goes bust?

Not entirely sure, hopefully someone with more knowledge than me may be able to give an answer (I only daydreamed this up on a work-break yesterday afterall!). Depending on the type of bankruptcy and if there is any money left, members may receive a payout to cover some of their initial investment.

Thinking about it, there are even more concerns with regards to accounting/auditing/administration and related permissions and expenses. And I'm sorry if I'm being rude, I realise and understand that you aren't going to have an investor-ready pitch here.

Hey it's cool, just spit-balling here, it's good to have feedback.

Group of people funding projects... we just looped back around to shareholders.
Yes it's true that this group would be more concerned with the actual games but they would not agree on the direction to go, most people would still flock to over-saturated genres because it's the hip new thing or the thing they are most comfortable with, would probably still push for nonsensical DLC/season passes/premium accounts because that is what they are used to now.

It's possible, but I imagine the sort of people who would be interested in investing in this sort of thing would be the same people that contribute to obscure indie kickstarts, as opposed to the COD/Madden crowd, who are largely unaware that such things exist. I'm stereotyping here, I know, but they do seem to be very different types of gamers.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Would it work? No. Why? Because you won't have people agreeing that what they're paying in is worth what they're getting out. Entertainment cannot work like that because everyone experiences it differently. EVERYONE.
Also we already have Kickstarter and other crowd-sourcing options which is about the only way I can see this working. And like I said there's no guarantee whatever game they put out is something everyone will like.
To put it mildly, it just doesn't sound like a good idea. I mean here we are a bunch of game enthusiasts collected on one area, sharing our opinions and likes and dislikes and sometimes we can get downright nasty... with WORDS. Imagine if you take that and apply it to a studio we all invested in and can't agree on what types of games we want from it, whether we want it on PC, Playstation, X-Box, Nintendo or other device... Then the sexism discussions will start and nothing will ever get done because we won't make it out of the meetings...