Valve considering user funded game development
polycounter lvl 18
Now here's an interesting little tidbit that popped up on the Australian video game program "Good Game" tonight.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/07/valve-predicts-fan-funded-game-development-future/#comment-32411
You can watch the interview here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/video/default.htm?pres=20090720_2030&story=5
Select "Inside Valve Software" on the side bar and skip to about 4:25.
I'm somewhat at a loss as to what this would really mean or entail but it's an interesting concept. Could it possibly work?Gabe Newell wrote:“One of the areas that I am super interested in right now is how we can do financing from the community. So right now, what typically happens is you have this budget - it needs to be huge, it has to be $10m - $30m, and it has to be all available at the beginning of the project. There’s a huge amount of risk associated with those dollars and decisions have to be incredibly conservative.
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.’
So move financing from something that occurs between a publisher and a developer… Instead have it be something where funding is coming out of community for games and game concepts they really like.”
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/07/valve-predicts-fan-funded-game-development-future/#comment-32411
You can watch the interview here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/video/default.htm?pres=20090720_2030&story=5
Select "Inside Valve Software" on the side bar and skip to about 4:25.
Replies
When it comes to games, though, it sounds like a terrible idea to me. Considering 95% of all games are crap, I already think I'm paying too early. Result based payment over hype based payment, thank you very much. I'm sure Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever would have ended up getting a lot of money with this concept and look at how they ended up.
If Valve actually managed to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars they earned over the years so that now they need outside financing, I wouldn't happily give them my money...
It smells of "we cant get a loan from institutions so lets get it from customers instead"
Its a great way to mitigate risk when its spread so thinly..
interestingly though, I wonder what recourse a so called investor would have if the game didnt make it or if it were irretrivably shit..
I agree with Johny, fans already try to assert an ungodly amount of ownership over games, now imagine they actually have a stake in ownership... however Valve is pretty good at telling its community: "no you're wrong. We're going to do it a way that works and is fun for everyone, not just the vocal minority" But they do it in a way that makes it look like they took the horrible advice and made it better.
I'm not going to say it won't work, but I see it ending negatively more times then good.
I'm curious how well this could work in the real world. On the one hand, it sounds like a great way to show them what you want in a game by throwing money at a project that sounds cool. On the other, Valve is known for extremely long development cycles and those make people very uncomfortable. People would get even more uncomfortable if Valve took the money people are throwing at them and they don't produce what people were hoping or expecting for ten years.
I wonder if this is Valve trying to get away from standard investment procedures to get funding for something really crazy that normal investors wouldn't touch.
Like Gabe says, the devs need the money up front. . . so, I'm not sure how they would keep the devs honest. Solve that issue and I think it's a great idea - sort of like placing a bet on unnanounced games.
One year later: Oh never mind, EA made it already because they thought the idea was great aswell -_-"
There would be a website where you could go an check out games in development. Each game would have a page with standard info like how far along it is, screenshots, info about the devs, etc. People would invest in it continuously. So, if the people are untrustworthy (like a low Ebay rating), and the game is brand new (0% done), then you probably won't invest in it.
As a developer, it's a good reason to make your development public and to try and win support from the community - they will give you money up front. It would be a nice way of getting feedback on how you are doing.
Early investors get a bigger potential return, fakers get a big black mark and are never supported again. Sounds awesome.
Maybe something like what doc_rob says could work, but the problem i tried to make clear would still exist if you post your game up there at 0% done. Because that basically means you are pitching your game concept on the web, and that is just plain stupid.
When the game you invested in get's canned, that would be a pretty big bummer aswell.
The best example of a structure like this is Sellaband. Basically, you browse bands in a genre you like, find a band, listen to their demo or previous albums and then buy one or more shares in the band and when all the shares (parts) are sold they can make a new album. The thing is, the budget is lower, they only pitch with what they already made and you know they will deliver because the organisation of the site helps them.
Maye the game idea could work if the last two guarantees Sellaband makes are delivered. But i think they are not easily converted to the game idea.
I don't see any logic here...
I think its better to look at the whole thing not as a gamer, but a small time investor. It could be very lucrative on small but original games.
Plus... with the way the economy is now I dunno that a system like this could be used in the near future.
How about Valve cutting their cost to the bone by working from garden sheds, we have a greenhouse but we could rent that out if they wanted it; would certainly be cheaper than paying out millions renting those big expensive offices they're in. That seems like a much more reasonable way to save money and reduce production overheads to me.
I hear they already are... oh wait that was Pixar, nevermind carry on.
Sounds like "Hot or Not" but with games and real money for voting purposes.
I'm in.
Buyer beware. This is no different than investing in the stock market. Would I invest $20 of my money in the established and successful Valve Software? Sure, that seems like a safe bet. Would I invest $20 of my money in the unproven fan-mod startup Asshat Software? I'm much less likely.
Besides that, there are laws in place to prevent those kinds of abuses. If Asshat Software is incorporated as a legitimate company, and it's fradulently selling shares in a product it has no plans to deliver, it's called fraud and they send the Asshats to Pound-Me-In-The-Ass prison for attempting it.
Like I just told Doc Rob, this is not much different than buying stock in a company. You'd be getting a non-voting share in a game, which entitles you to partcicipate in profits (and losses!) but not in controlling development. If you buy a share of Apple stock, you don't get a hotline to Steve Jobs to bitch about things; you just get the stock. I expect it would be the same in a game. Any l33t g4m3r who thinks his $20 contribution to the development of Cornhole Avenger 2 entitles him to influence how the game is made is going to get a complimentary lesson in economics along with his game investment.
someone invests a minimum 35 bucks lets say. You give them a free game when it comes out, which, they already paid for. If the game is making a profit, you give them a piece. You'll still be making a profit, and they're only getting a percent of it. A tiny tiny percent. If you don't make a profit, you still basically pre-sold a game.
my bad
I think it's a great idea, simply because it hasn't been thought up. it's origional and I think it's just what small time people like Mitch and I can learn from. maybe it'll be a flop, maybe not, but at the very least we'll learn something, or it might be able to be applied to something else..
imagine an indie games site, where you can post progress of your work and viewers can send a few dollars to projects that interest them. the site would index who gave what to who, to make it easy for crediting them and deciding who gets a copy of what..
If the site did not send the money through to the developer, the whole concept is lost. So if the site did give the developer the money, the investor lost it. I don't know about you but i would not risk that.
The comparison to stocks here isn't quite valid imo - stockholders have options as far as being informed of what's going on in the company, they can complain when they don't like it, and they can sell their shares and move on if it's not fixed. With this system, you pay presumably a large amount of money to this studio, then you don't get thrown one single bone until the game either comes out or doesn't. It's so susceptible to mismanagement and outright fraud (how many times has a dev promised something, then not followed through? What if you had invested based on that promise?) that I am very very uncomfortable with it.
B
maybe they will completely embrace user input rather than shut out
A large amount of money? I don't see that happening. If studios are asking fans to donate 10-20 bucks, it'll work. If it gets into hundreds of dollars, no one will bother.
Beyond that, the situation is simple. Got $20 you're willing to invest in a game idea you like? Go for it. Are you very very uncomfortable with the idea? Keep your money and buy the game if/when it hits retail.
valve could even sweeten the deal up by giving investors other perks.
it started off really simple. they released an early alpha, and the players paid very little for it.
they could give input on the forums, and at the same time they beta-tested it, and all sorts of stuff. as the game improved the price gradually increased, until it was released.
imho, its one of the most fun games on PC right now.
its also got a very open architecture, so its fully moddable.
and its been interesting to see how the game developed.
thats the way i think this should be done.
open beta the games. the players get to see that their money is going somewhere.
another way to do it is open beta with milestones.
set a $ milestone for certain features, to be implemented. and as soon as the milestone is met, those features are added.
of course, this is a much better system for open world games. linear games will be far more troublesome.
it would also be a good way to do development tools.
he, i got this idea from reading the goblins webcomic.
the creator has something he calls "tempts fate" which is a goblin who needs to get through a set of challenges. and the more money he gets, the better tempts fate does it.
on the last tempts fate comic, he was donated $3858 in 21 days.
I'm also excited by the prospect of a highly motivated creative team being able to make whatever the *#&($ they want. Don't see that often enough.
I'd be willing to pay 40 bucks to valve for that, Hell i almost feel like i owe it to 'em. Sure the game might crash and burn, but if i got PAID to play an amazing game... Think about that. That's fucking cool.
Come to think about it, it almost seems like the less profitable the game was, the more I might enjoy it. I'm sick of these mass market, easy, generic games that publishers always push. Fight night 14, madden 205. Rip off of wow X.
It's a wonderful idea, but it'll probably never work. Here's hopin' though.
' hey. if you could spare a couple bucks we're thinking about adding this viewcube thing into the top right of. . . '
' fuck off. you dicks '
hahahah.
oh man, the view cube joke never gets old.