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.

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.

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.

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?

Then you made a bad investment. ;)

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.
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.