Paladin Anderson said:
Hal10k said:
Paladin Anderson said:
Hal10k said:
Paladin Anderson said:
I looked into Kickstarter after hearing about Tim Schafer's overwhelming success with raising money through it. I read about it and found out it's a donation program to get art, movie, and gaming projects off the ground.
It got me thinking. Why isn't there a program for video game investment like this? Where investors get a share of the profits based on sales and how much money they invested.
While I'd love to see a new Tim Schafer game, I don't have money to give away. I have bills to pay. But if it was an investment, something where I would see a return on it in the future, I'd be much more inclined to hand over my money.
Is there a site like Kickstarter for this? If not, why isn't there?
What you've described is, in theory, the basic principle behind a stock market. In practice, people get caught up more in the actual market than the stocks, resulting in a situation where it's considered normal for an unrelated third party to invest thousands in a company only to sell its shares the next week. It devalues the investment somewhat. Stuff like kickstarter may represent the first step towards the return of the original form of the stock market. Or maybe not. Who knows.
It needs to happen. Between fan funding and digital distribution, publishers will be on the ropes. Maybe even a thing of the past. From buying up studios and destroying them to forcing feeding customers everything from obtrusive DRM to supporting SOPA, publishers need to become a thing of the past. They don't understand games. They have no love for them. All they see is money and that's not enough.
I would love to see a day when gamers and game studios not only make games people want, but make profits by doing so. I would be excited to be part of it.
Your idealism is endearing, but a bit misplaced. The fact of the matter is that the opportunity presented by Kickstarter programs is a very confused one. As it stands, it's just indicative of consumer's willingness to invest, much as they would for a retirement fund or something, but with a different eventual goal and the knowledge of group participation. If developers start offering a percentage of the profits to the investors, they lose a significant portion of their profit and become increasingly dependent on sales. If they start offering more flexible investments to increase the percentage they receive from investments, then they're just aping the structure of the current stock market, under which the most efficient way to get funds to a developer is- guess what- through a publisher.
Heh, yeah, in retrospect that did seem idealistic to the point of cheesiness. ^_^;; That's just not how the world works I guess. Everything will always be controlled by rich old (censored) who want nothing but money standing on the shoulders the people whose heart and souls go into making great products. For example, the EA and Bioware relationship.
Geez. I'm depressed now.
Wanting to make money and wanting to make good products aren't mutually exclusive. The fact that games are a high-supply luxury good with many substitutes means that the primary objective of producers is to make something that people want to buy. And if enough people like it, the company will turn a profit, and that company can start making another great game next quarter. That's the way the system works. All of your favorite games were made under this system, and games that are just as great or better will be made under it in the future.
Capitalism: It works, bitches.
And
that is how you do idealism, my friend.
