Sale method - Would you be interested

[flatearth]

I was thinking about how the ransom model for selling games would actually work, and tell me, would you be intersted in this. Let's say the game would be some mid high-end game, no starcraft, but still a game that looks good and seems nice, a game like Alan Wake.

The game is not available in any store, only from the developers web site. You are not actually bying a game, you are donating money.

Donate 30$
- You get to download the game
Donate 40$
- You get the game mailed to you, covers and all
Donate 50$
- Game in mail and little extra material in the box (like a map or some dev photos)
Donate 70$
- Game in mail, extra material and a T-shirt
Donate 100$
- Game in mail, extra material, T-shirt and all of them signed
Donate 150$
- Special edition box (metallic case) all extra material as before
Donate 300$
- as above, and your name and public thanks in the developers website
Donate 500$
- as above, and you get to meet the developers in person and they will thank you


And as the real trick in this. When 100000$ is donated, the game becomes freeware.

Would you be interested in this kind of model, and how much would you donate?

The reason why I ask this, is because I am a member of the Finnish Pirate Party, and we are searching for alternate sale methods for games, music and art.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

If you have to donate in order to download the game... you're really just buying it. You can call it a donation or a download tax or a tithe or... I dunno, a fucking dowry, but in the end people will just end up torrenting it.

 

[Alex_P]

If you have to donate in order to download the game... you're really just buying it. You can call it a donation or a download tax or a tithe or... I dunno, a fucking dowry, but in the end people will just end up torrenting it.

No, no. It's the "ransom model." It's weird. Basically you say "I want to make this thing, give me money to make it happen" (whether you made it already or not depends on the project). Then people can donate money. If they reach a certain amount by a certain deadline, you release your thing for free to everybody; it has been "ransomed." If they do not, you don't release your thing and give the money back -- there are third-party sites, kinda like "ransom model" escrow services, that will keep the money safe so that you can't just run away with it.

This works well with a stream of small stuff from an already-established creator.

The main appeal is that creators know exactly how much they're going to make for a project up front (if they can raise the money) and don't have to sweat stuff like distribution or DRM. People can share and torrent and steal to their hearts' content -- you've already made the money. (Hell, as a creator you should encourage them to share and torrent and steal to their hearts' content, since it'll generate buzz for your next ransomware project, so you can set the ransom number higher if you need to.)

-- Alex

 

[flatearth]

In this kind of example, the money would not be returned, because that would most likely bankrupt the company, as they have already given out products. This example goes in the category of "you enjoyed it, help others enjoy it too". This would also the only way to get those special edition items, so those would be collectors items.

Musician Jill Sobule just succesfully made a ransom record. It was prepaid by the fans, and then released to the public. It had scale system like this one, but the highest price was 10000$ so you would get to sing in the album. One person paid that sum.

 

[poleboy]

No, no. It's the "ransom model." It's weird. Basically you say "I want to make this thing, give me money to make it happen" (whether you made it already or not depends on the project). Then people can donate money. If they reach a certain amount by a certain deadline, you release your thing for free to everybody; it has been "ransomed."
-- Alex

There are issues with this, however. Making a game these days takes time. No one wants to wait several years for a game to be made after they paid for it. And if the game is already made, it will make its way to pirate torrents quickly because well, that's the way it is now.

Anyway. If you ignore the high-end purchases that flatearth suggests, isn't this exactly how it works today, except that games are a lot more expensive and pretty much never become freeware? Would any game publishers be interested in switching to a model that offers more advantages to the customers than themselves?

 

[Alex_P]

Gifts have been used to encourage donations since time immemorial. Especially by PBS. I see no problem with using gifts to encourage ransom model donations.

However...
$100,000 is not a "mid high-end game." At best, $100,000 gets you one developer working for one year. Games have budgets in the millions.

I'm not sure the ransom model is still going to be effective on such a large scale.

I see it as being better for, say, small periodic updates. (Imagine a community's best modders and mapmakers using "ransom" to generate enough money to allow them to work on extra content full-time.)

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

In this kind of example, the money would not be returned, because that would most likely bankrupt the company, as they have already given out products. This example goes in the category of "you enjoyed it, help others enjoy it too". This would also the only way to get those special edition items, so those would be collectors items.

But if you break the whole "the product gets released or you get your money back" rule, you're destroying the main thing that makes it better than begging for donations. The beauty of the system, when it works, is that the donation is risk-free: I'm assured either my money back or a product.

Also, releasing a product to donors before the actual "ransom" is paid up means you're not actually "ransoming" anything. That's a huge risk for the creator since now the product is out in the wild but he hasn't met his budget goal yet -- the whole piracy headache that the ransom model is trying to avoid is back and even stronger than before.

-- Alex

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Oooooh, now I see.

That is a weird concept... I could see it working in the way Alex described (content updates).

Regardless, I doubt I would participate in a ransom project.

 

[Alex_P]

I've got enough disposable income that I would pay for a ransom project... If I could be reasonably sure that the money was actually going to something good.

That means both:
1. A creator I already trust and respect. (=> I can make a reasonable guess as to the quality of the product before it is released.)
2. A guarantee that I get my money back if the "ransom" fails. (=> I can be sure that I'm paying for something that is actually going to be released.)

-- Alex

 

[poleboy]

I still think you are missing an important point - the fact that release dates constantly get pushed and projects sometimes abandoned in late stages. Working on a game that's technically already been sold means huge pressure on the developement team to get it out the door on time - and we all know how that usually ends (see KotoR 2 and every Troika game ever).
Think about the outrage every time release dates get pushed the way it is now. Now imagine people had already paid for the game. If a company had to abandon a game like that for any reason, they would probably never sell a game again. I really don't think any company wants to take that risk as long as the current system seems to work.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Hey, I'm all for them trying a new angle, tho I'm not sure how well it will work.

 

[shatnershaman]

The game is not available in any store, only from the developers web site. You are not actually bying a game, you are donating money.

Well you just left out everyone without highspeed internet.

 

[Altorin]

it's a great concept in theory

but in theory, communism works.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I imagine in theory its a good thing, and losing a few people with dial up is ok, compared with the price of a full boxes release out to stores, most of which would take one or two copies if you were lucky.