Slashdot Mirror
On The Need For New Videogame Funding Models
Thanks to Costik.com for pointing to entrepreneur Gordon Gould's comments on possible new videogame funding avenues, as he notes "the coming console shift to Xbox 2 and the Playstation 3 is going to once again raise the bar on development costs", meaning "a shrinking number of titles per publisher slate w/increased pressure on those titles to be out of the ballpark blockbusters." He suggests that "developers' ability to gain more control over their destiny is handicapped by the relative scarcity of funding sources", but this may be changing, as investors from outside the industry start to fund development (as seen recently at MMO creator Turbine.) However, Greg Costikyan weighs in with a response, arguing that "...even looking at something as goofy and hit-driven as the game industry, an investor is already taking a big risk, and his or her instinct is going to be the same as the publishers': be conservative in what you fund."
The unfortunate consequences that this brings, not entirely unjustifiably, is that daring new games will not be made. When every 5 years or so brings a new genre (FPS, violent vigilante games), we'll simply see 10 clones of those, instead of new ideas. When developing a game costs millions of dollars to make, with entire teams of workers to go at it (as opposed to the Atari days when one guy made the whole game), you kinda can't blame them for not taking huge risks.
Even Nintendo's very creative games this generation, Pikmin and Viewtiful Joe, were made (I'm totally speculating) only because they were pet projects of titans of the industry.
It doesn't need more ass-hats telling other people to go out and do something while they mind the fort.
How 'bout you take a play from your own book and give up your recreational nannying to go dig a well in Rawanda. 'K
Unfortunately, the innovative interesting new games rarely sell better than run of the mill sequels, or movie franchised add-ons.
All investment is risk, but the key to smart investment is that you try to minimise risk. Not many people worry how their money is multiplied, and to most investors, one computer game is the same as another. They would care little what games are made, as long as their investment grows. Computer Game publishers know this and therefore tune their business plans accordingly.
And, the general gaming public doesn't help by buying $hit games en masse.
It's a little disappointing that the gaming industry seems to be going the way of the movie industry. No risks, nothing interesting except for rare 'arthouse' movies.
The important question is, what can be done?
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. -- Leo Tolstoy
I do pay for all that. It is called taxes.
Oh great. I'm still 250 some Mountain Dew points away from getting the original X Box.
Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart
Watch as the industry starts shifting towards handhelds instead of full blown console games. Nintendo stands to make a pile more cash if they can stand up and release an answer to the PSP. It doesn't have to be fancy... just a machine with a reasonable amount of power. The handheld war will be won mainly on price, not raw power.
(before you shout ngage, read where I said about a *reasonable* amount of power...)
You'd think hardware manufacturers would make dev kits that make it easy to make games. That way games could be produced faster, hence cheaper.
I remember talk of Nintendo's kit that they used to build Wind Waker and FF:Crystal Chronicles. They were supposed to be able to build games in under a year with it. Anyone know if it is working?
Also, the recently resigned Nintendo president set up some sort of fund to help pay for games:
As reported last year, Yamauchi-san announced plans to establish a game development fund in Japan. Thereby, Yamauchi-san will invest venture capital into budding game developers and related visionaries.