Valve Boss: Let Fans Fund Games Development

[mookiemookie]

I would certainly be behind an idea like this with a Silent Hunter title.

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.

http://kotaku.com/5318368/valve-let-fans-fund-games-development

[SteamWake]

So now they want the money up front?

Yea thatll work. :haha:

Its simple make a good game that Im interested in and I will buy it. Thats how I 'fund' game developers.

But come to think of it in some ways with unfinished products being sold we are putting money up front :D

[GoldenRivet]

HMMMmmmmmm :hmmm:

that DOES sound interesting

[GoldenRivet]

So now they want the money up front?

Yea thatll work. :haha:

Its simple make a good game that Im interested in and I will buy it. Thats how I 'fund' game developers.

But come to think of it in some ways with unfinished products being sold we are putting money up front :D

also true...

i think it could get interesting, you would obviously have to get a lawyer to represent the fan base as a group of investors.

there would need to be some sort of contract which states

1. you have X years to produce the game and distribute it

2. if the game dies on the operating table we get 100% refund of our cash investment back

(number 2 would serve as incentive for them to get the game produced... as it would cost them much more to table the game or to shut the project down than it would be to simply finish it.

[Zachstar]

Im sure gabe knows just how frakkin much game development costs these days. I sort of doubt the fans can upfront THAT much investment.

[mookiemookie]

Im sure gabe knows just how frakkin much game development costs these days. I sort of doubt the fans can upfront THAT much investment.

On a major major title, you're right, I doubt it. But on a small one like a Silent Hunter, Destroyer Command, or Dangerous Waters title? It could work...

[GoldenRivet]

On a major major title, you're right, I doubt it. But on a small one like a Silent Hunter, Destroyer Command, or Dangerous Waters title? It could work...

not only that but your fan base would only have to front a small percentage of the initial investment.

you get in return a free game, and a royalty percentage on the sales commensurate with your investment amount.

EDIT:

if i came to your house and offered you a deal wherein - if you invest $5,000 into the development of Silent Hunter 5 i would give you .25% of the total worldwide sales profits would you invest yoru 5 thousand bucks?

worst case scenario... the game falls through and by contract you get your $5,000 back in full

Best case scenario... worldwide sales profit tops $5 Million... and you get a check for... $12,500 - almost triple your money

[FIREWALL]

Go try that on Wallstreet about wanting your money back if the stock fails or company fails. :haha: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[GoldenRivet]

Go try that on Wallstreet about wanting your money back if the stock fails or company fails. :haha: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I was just discussing this actually.

My former boss who is now a good friend of mine said that in the lat 90's when tech stocks were booming, he put $40,000 dollars on various tech stocks, sat on his arse at home all day watching the stock ticker... his year end profit was $350,000

now it is inverse... you start with $350,000 and you END with $40,000

[SteamWake]

I was just discussing this actually.

My former boss who is now a good friend of mine said that in the lat 90's when tech stocks were booming, he put $40,000 dollars on various tech stocks, sat on his arse at home all day watching the stock ticker... his year end profit was $350,000

now it is inverse... you start with $350,000 and you END with $40,000

Commodity futures ftw ;)

[UnderseaLcpl]

This seems like a good idea on the face of it. Established software companies could potentially use this business model to reach otherwise unreacheable target markets. I really see no reason why they wouldn't pursue it, other than the possibility of generating some consumer backlash if they fail to deliver.
Seeing as how this idea comes from Valve, it could either succeed spectacularly or fail utterly. It's hard to predict which.
Imo, Valve will never be able to truly abandon the conventional model. There are simply too many different desires to satisfy. Don't believe me? Just ask a modder. Getting a person to buy or download a product because it falls within acceptable parameters is one thing, but building a product that satisfies all of your investors' desires is quite another, and getting anyone to invest again if the initial attempt produces a sub-par game is another thing altogether. That is too many "ifs" for my liking, but that is not to say that Valve couldn't pull it off if they had a good marketing strategy and suitably flexible programmers and artists, which is in itself yet another hurdle to overcome.

I'm inclined to believe that this particular model will not work just yet. The timing is atrocious, given the current state of the economy. (Yes, even with the recent surge)The market is still far too volatile to commit to something as time-consuming as the development of modern entertainment software. Where is this disposable investment income going to come from? Has there been a spike in employment or production that I am not aware of? Does this resurgent sector of the economy typically employ avid gamers within the dominant 18-29 age group or give them the means to purchase games for their 9-17 year-old, predominantly male offspring? I think not, for a number of reasons, including the fact that 18-29 year-old age groups rarely have offspring that fall within the 9-17 year-old range.
The more I look at it, the more I think that this initiative was pioneered by persons with only a keyhole's glimpse of the economy as a whole, and brought to the table by a series of imaginatve PowerPoint presentations.

This approach might work if it is properly employed, but it would take a marketing genius and an expert team of developers to ever come to fruition, especially if the strategy is to offer dividends on game sales. It is possible, but I wouldn't risk a single dollar on it unless the prospects of return on investment were very good, and preferably, had already been demonstrated. As a consumer, I much prefer to have software companies lining up to offer me products that I am at liberty to purchase or ignore.

Thankfully, as a niche group of gamers, we have modders and independent developers to fall back on, and their drive and motivation is not extinguished by profit forecasts. While it would be nice if some company benevolently decided to produce a major subsim with mass appeal and sales and scalable everything and the ability to cater to the virtually infinite range of gameplay features we routinely request, the probability is that it isn't going to happen. Then again, there's a reason that I'm not a marketing strategist. Perhaps it will work after all. :hmmm:

[SteamWake]

Youve seen first hand how the people whom purchase games (and some that stole them) cavetch and moan about their faults.

I can only imagine having an investment would react. The 'aggrivation' factor should not be overlooked.

[GoldenRivet]

I can only imagine having an investment would react.

as can the developers.

companies bend over backwards to please their investors :up:

perhaps the same would hold true here.:hmmm:

[SteamWake]

as can the developers.

companies bend over backwards to please their investors :up:

perhaps the same would hold true here.:hmmm:

Yea but in this case its a pretty tough crowd.

[GoldenRivet]

You can make some of the people happy all the time

you can make all of the people happy some of the time

but you cant make ALL the people happy ALL the time ;)

[Rilder]

Valve doesn't make anything but linear storyline games and crappy FPSes, they don't deserve my money till they actually make a good game.

[Biggles]

Valve doesn't make anything but linear storyline games and crappy FPSes, they don't deserve my money till they actually make a good game.

You clearly haven't played Team Fortress 2:O:

[SUBMAN1]

I might buy into something like this if I get a vote in the way it is developed.


And BTW - I agree that Valve does make sucky games. HL2 for example. I had more fun with HL1, but as always, both titles you are stuck in the rat maze, overcoming obstacles, just like a rat. HL1 had the better story I think too.

-S

[mookiemookie]

Valve doesn't make anything but linear storyline games and crappy FPSes, they don't deserve my money till they actually make a good game.

Portal????? The most innovative game to come along in YEARS? Plus the Half Life series? The franchise that defined and REDEFINED the FPS genre? SUBMAN, you think HL2 sucked? Good god, I thought you were insane to begin with, and now I understand there's no accounting for taste with that comment there. You may dislike the FPS genre, but there's no sane way to say HL2 wasn't a GREAT game in the FPS arena. Name anything better....actually, let me save you the trouble and say that any FPS you COULD name doesn't stack up to HL2 and you're wrong.

Good sir, I BEG to differ! Valve is one of the premier game companies out there!

[SUBMAN1]

Portal????? The most innovative game to come along in YEARS? Plus the Half Life series? Good sir, I BEG to differ! Valve is one of the premier game companies out there!

Portal - well, that wasn't developed by Valve. It just used the Valve engine and was published through them for being so innovative.

As far as HL1 and 2 - if you like simple rat in a maze type games, well, there ya go - a match made in heaven. Personally, I like a to add a little intelligence to my FPS's - Op Flashpoint comes to mind.

-S

[Rilder]

Portal????? The most innovative game to come along in YEARS? Plus the Half Life series? The franchise that defined and REDEFINED the FPS genre? SUBMAN, you think HL2 sucked? Good god, I thought you were insane to begin with, and now I understand there's no accounting for taste with that comment there. You may dislike the FPS genre, but there's no sane way to say HL2 wasn't a GREAT game in the FPS arena. Name anything better....actually, let me save you the trouble and say that any FPS you COULD name doesn't stack up to HL2 and you're wrong.

Good sir, I BEG to differ! Valve is one of the premier game companies out there!

It doesn't matter how good it is if its linear, ruins the entire game.

Portal, also linear.

TF2 is just meh, WWIIOL is better, Battlefield heroes might not be better gameplay wise but its free so I'd rather play that. Americas army when I could play it was better but that was years ago.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

W/o debating the merits of the idea or individual games, one must wonder ... isn't that what we are de facto doing in a world of rampant file sharing? A game that isn't on a torrent somewhere probably isn't worth playing (or it has a copy protect so tight you hesitate to buy it because your legitimate copy might not run for some reason and you basically lose your shirt).

As far as getting games already made, there's almost no percentage in buying legal - cheap and free copies can be found on Google... The only percentage is to keep a worthy company alive, so it can make its next title w/o going bankrupt, or make it a bit better due to more operating funds. Thus, de facto, every time we buy a game these days, we not so much buying but investing, thanks to the reality today.

[danlisa]

Every game we buy from any studio contributes to the development of future titles from that same studio. RRP's don't just cover the creation of the title you're buying but also ensures the continuation of that developers future projects. So, the onus is on the studios to create games that don't suck.

So Valve wants us to pay twice......Um, 2 words for you and the second is OFF!!!!

This along with Activision increasing the RRP for COD MW2, it seems that Gabe & Bobby have finally lost it, if they ever had it.

[mookiemookie]

So Valve wants us to pay twice......Um, 2 words for you and the second is OFF!!!!

I think the idea is that you essentially become a stakeholder in the game, like buying stock in a company. You're not paying twice, you're making an investment. If the game sells well, you recoup your investment and turn a profit. So you're not just doing all the funding without seeing any benefit.

I was sort of intrigued by the idea of, essentially, buying stock in a game title.

[SteamWake]

I think the idea is that you essentially become a stakeholder in the game, like buying stock in a company. You're not paying twice, you're making an investment. If the game sells well, you recoup your investment and turn a profit. So you're not just doing all the funding without seeing any benefit.

I was sort of intrigued by the idea of, essentially, buying stock in a game title.

What if the game goes to the shelves in a buggy unfinished state as seems to be the norm nowadays and the sales suffer. Some units sell but sales projections were way off and the whole project loses money and soon the product is abandonware?

What do the 'investors' get then?

[mookiemookie]

What if the game goes to the shelves in a buggy unfinished state as seems to be the norm nowadays and the sales suffer. Some units sell but sales projections were way off and the whole project loses money and soon the product is abandonware?

What do the 'investors' get then?

Then you made a bad investment. ;)

[Arclight]

Every game we buy from any studio contributes to the development of future titles from that same studio. RRP's don't just cover the creation of the title you're buying but also ensures the continuation of that developers future projects. So, the onus is on the studios to create games that don't suck.
Ideally, some of the profits go to supporting their current projects as well. Sad thing is that products that don't do well are abandoned, so they can use what they earned for the next title.

What if the game goes to the shelves in a buggy unfinished state as seems to be the norm nowadays and the sales suffer. Some units sell but sales projections were way off and the whole project loses money and soon the product is abandonware?

What do the 'investors' get then?
I think the idea behind the whole thing is to make sure devs at least have the monetary resources to deliver a polished product. Problem is they still have to deal with deadlines. :-?



I like the idea, I have often thought about simply donating money to devs. If it happens on a big enough scale, it can help assure ongoing support, getting a buggy release up to scratch or making something good even better. Investing is even better; if it does well, you can see a return on your investment, something you don't get with donations.

Considering the amounts of time and money that go into the productions nowadays, it might even become a necessity at some point.