Never happen. Greed abounds. Corp America (which is every AAA title game company) has too much fat and overhead greed to make this work. They don't give 2 shits about making "a great game". They only care about making the most money possible.

As these companies continue to fail, I eagerly watch the indie's pop back up here and there that create good games that are enjoyable and don't cost $50.00.

well i'll be helping this concept along... sort of by finally getting to pre order natural selection2. It seems purely out of circumstance that their pre-order funds are now directly pushing the game much closer to release, and actually fueled it's status from vaporware, back to the realm of genuine software development. I know i'll never see any return on my investment other than the full game, but it's the closest working situation i know of to the proposed idea in this topic. and a shameless plug for ns2

BatAttack summed it up nicely. I really hope this concept takes off. The current publisher/developer model is really quite lousy, which is why we have so many generic and derivative games dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.

Agreed, this could be a workable concept although it would need a lot of issues ironed out both legally and practically.

But if the general gaming communities investment knowledge is anything like some of the comments in this thread, then this idea could be doomed to fail. I get the feeling that private investment is something your average gamer (or Joe) has little to no experience with.

The whole point of giving money to indie devs is to help them make the kind of games you want to play but nobody else is making. If you only care about making a profit, you're better off sticking with the stock market.

One big issue that could come up from this is when people start "owning" part of the project by way of investment the issue of control rears its ugly head. Not a problem if the developers own a significant chunk of the pie, but if things get diluted it can become problematic. Having worked for a startup company which relied on private investment, I got to witness this sort of thing first hand. When politics gets into things it can derail a project pretty quickly.

This comment was edited on Jul 25, 2009, 01:00.

My comments have nothing to do with Valve. The name up there could be Bioware, EA, LucasArts, Activision...etc, and I'd still say the same thing to those 3 people that commented and clearly did not have a clue what was being presented for discussion.

I've made no defense on Valve's part whatsoever I just said it's an interesting idea but one that may not be feasible. So for those of you that are clearly illiterate and just want to turn this into a Valve rant...I have actually agreed with you Verno, or rather you agreed with me, since I posted first. But you are too busy wanting to flame me for defending Valve, which I haven't done.

Unlike the guy posting below me, I can admit when I'm wrong so you have my apologies Dagok.

This comment was edited on Jul 23, 2009, 09:10.

The danger of treating this as an investment is that investors would want a return. They'd expect to make a profit. With that expectation looming over the developers, they'd likely compromise their vision in order to increase potential sales. Donations, on the other hand, go towards a cause. In this case, the cause is a good game.

> If you only care about making a profit, you're better off sticking with the stock market.

Perhaps so, but this is the definitive difference between investing in a game and donating to a game. Gabe is talking about a community investment model.

> it did work for mount and blade, but they had some entertaining gameplay to dangle in the player's face before they asked for money. Other devs would have to do the same thing.

Sure, that's pretty standard.

If you are shopping around for a publisher, you need to have something to 'dangle in their face' too, in most circumstances. It's rare to get funding of any sort with nothing but some paper napkin scribbles.

An indie dev might be able to get an early prototype up and running on their own, but need funding to flesh it out into a full game.

I don't know why people think Gabe is proposing that community members just hand out money on nothing but empty promises.

BatAttack summed it up nicely. I really hope this concept takes off. The current publisher/developer model is really quite lousy, which is why we have so many generic and derivative games dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.

It is not nebulous. You have invested in the game project. If it breaks even and goes on to make a profit, you can expect to see your money back and more (perhaps $100 back on the $50 you put in). If it does not go beyond breaking even, you will get nothing back.

I don't see why anyone should even be concerned with getting a return on their investment. The whole point of giving money to indie devs is to help them make the kind of games you want to play but nobody else is making. If you only care about making a profit, you're better off sticking with the stock market.

it did work for mount and blade, but they had some entertaining gameplay to dangle in the player's face before they asked for money. Other devs would have to do the same thing.

>This is a pipe dream, there are so many things that would prevent it from happening that it will never get off the ground. Valve is acting very strange lately.

Except it has already worked for Mount and Blade; they got to a 1.0 release, made possible largely by community contributions - and they weren't even promising a return on investment.
What were they offering? A unique game, not being done by anyone else.

Just because people can't see themselves investing makes them think no one else will either.


Scammers> Obviously some upfront credentials would be needed, and then proof of progress along the way. And given Valve is talking about doing this through Steam, you could expect some kind of auditing system might exist.


Giving money to Valve> A lot of people (already accused of illiteracy) seem to think Valve wants the community to give them money upfront.
No. FAIL.
Valve already have the money to develop whatever they want to.
They are talking about indie studios getting funding for their projects, which they are unable to get from publishers because they are too niche, too obscure, too risky, whatever.

Given that the goals of publishers are totally different from the goals of gamers, it seems reasonable to get money from the people who want you game to be good.

>Owning a piece of the game being 'nebulous'.
It is not nebulous. You have invested in the game project. If it breaks even and goes on to make a profit, you can expect to see your money back and more (perhaps $100 back on the $50 you put in). If it does not go beyond breaking even, you will get nothing back.

This is a pipe dream, there are so many things that would prevent it from happening that it will never get off the ground. Valve is acting very strange lately.

Scammers would flock to this like flies on shit, it would never ever work.

Possibly. Except if the devs have to show some proof of progress, scamming gets a lot harder. Maybe the devs would need to create playable prototypes first.

Dagok in a Valve related topic insulting people and defending Valve.

My comments have nothing to do with Valve. The name up there could be Bioware, EA, LucasArts, Activision...etc, and I'd still say the same thing to those 3 people that commented and clearly did not have a clue what was being presented for discussion.

I've made no defense on Valve's part whatsoever I just said it's an interesting idea but one that may not be feasible. So for those of you that are clearly illiterate and just want to turn this into a Valve rant...I have actually agreed with you Verno, or rather you agreed with me, since I posted first. But you are too busy wanting to flame me for defending Valve, which I haven't done.

Scammers would flock to this like flies on shit, it would never ever work. Anyone is capable of mocking up some art and asking for funding. This would be especially problematic given the international aspect of the gaming community and industry in general. Just the tax implications and distribution problems give me a headache even thinking about it.

Who are they going to listen to? They can't make both of us happy, but they've got our money.

I don't think that's too much of an issue with niche game. The people who play them tend to have very similar tastes. And the developers wouldn't necessarily have to cater to the every whim of their investors. $50 isn't a huge investment and I don't think anybody would riot if a few design decisions were made that they didn't completely agree with. In the end, it's still the game of the developers. If someone likes the direction the game is going and believes the game has potential, they can contribute to its development by investing in it.

How many people would that be, in extremely optimistic circumstances? A few thousand, perhaps? Which will pay salaries for a month.

Indie developers aren't exactly rolling around in money to begin with. They certainly wouldn't rely on donations in order to pay the bills. Rather, the donations would only make the game better.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2009, 15:20.

Yay, someone else that shows us they can't read. Way to go Creston!

Stay in school people.

Dagok in a Valve related topic insulting people and defending Valve. Hang on, I think I see pigs flying outside and wait....yeah a cow just jumped over the moon.

This whole topic is pretty silly considering the average gamer is impatient as hell and there is no way people would put up with the kinds of timetables that industry typically sees for development. Maybe this would work if all I wanted to play was Braid clones that look like intro college games but uh yeah, not for any serious development on any scale.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2009, 14:54.

I'm not defending anyone. I havent stated what I think about this, but at least I understand the idea they are talking about. It has nothing to do with episodes or paying for a game up front before it's even developed. Which yourself and your illiterate buddies PHJF and Steele Johnson fail to comprehend.

To make it perfectly clear, they are talking about the community investing in a games development, and getting a return on that investment should the game actually make money in the long term. This being an alternative to Publisher funding, which is not easy to get.

It's an interesting idea, an idea however that may not be feasible. But certainly worth discussing (for those that know what they are talking about) and exploring the logistics behind it.

In the end, who's going to give Valve any money anyways? I'd probably send Egosoft forty bucks or so to make another X game. (provided I get the game for free.)

Anyone else? I love Bioware, but I'm sure as fuck not handing any money over before I get a product.

Contradict yourself much? I smell biased hatred here. So you'd entertain the idea, as long as it's not Valve... and you just said you'd hand over $40 to get another X game made, then state you won't hand over money before you get a product...make up your damned mind.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2009, 14:29.

Yay, someone else that shows us they can't read. Way to go Creston!

Keep defending Valve, dipshit. Only a fanboy monkey like you would have any fucking interest in a nebulous concept like "Owning a piece of this game going forward."

Creston

If my investment could significantly increase the chances of a great indie game being made without having to deal with publishers or trying to appeal to the masses, I'd do it. I think it's much better to pay for a game specifically tailored to your interests rather than wait for a game that might appeal to you but probably won't because it's aiming for the broadest audience possible.

The problem with that idea is that whose interests are they going to listen to?

I give 50 bucks to a dev, and ask for non-regenerating health, no cover system and the ability to go prone.
You give them 50 bucks, and ask for regenerating health, a cover system, and the ability to do a dance emote. ( )

Who are they going to listen to? They can't make both of us happy, but they've got our money.

So then they'd have to, for example, refuse your money and say "We're not doing that."
Which means that eventually ONLY the people that want that specific feature set will be the ones ponying up money. How many people would that be, in extremely optimistic circumstances? A few thousand, perhaps? Which will pay salaries for a month.

This idea will never work.

And, let's be honest, it doesn't HAVE TO. If Valve is bitching about a game costing 30 million bucks to make, how about you guys make a game that doesn't cost that much money? We've seen a whole plethora of awesome games lately that cost a mere fraction of the "AAA title budgets" and have in many cases been MUCH better games too.

In the end, who's going to give Valve any money anyways? I'd probably send Egosoft forty bucks or so to make another X game. (provided I get the game for free.)

Anyone else? I love Bioware, but I'm sure as fuck not handing any money over before I get a product.

Creston

Yay, someone else that shows us they can't read. Way to go Creston!

Stay in school people.