Slashdot Mirror
Valve's Newell On Community-Funded Games
Modern games are extremely expensive to make. High-profile, AAA titles have budgets in the tens of millions, and even the smaller, independent titles can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make. Couple this with development times that frequently reach three or four years and you have publishers who are very shy about investing in new projects, particularly for unproven IPs. Valve co-founder Gabe Newell recently spoke about a new way of funding such games: "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.'" Such a system would certainly relieve some of the pressure to stick with tried-and-true concepts (and possibly get management to grant a little more leeway with deadlines and resources), and it would make the video game industry more of a meritocracy than it already is.
Well all they've gotta do is start an open source project for it, like blender, and make sure it's something that can continue to develop so it's worth the investment. No one wants to invest in a projec they play once, or that won't be available for their multi-Cell watchphone in 15 years.
... the real investors won't fund something, and they're expecting to sucker gamers into doing it?
Haha. Good luck.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Unless you are a first class citizen, like Goldman Sachs or a venture fund, investing can get complicated, if not dangerous (swimming with sharks and all that).
Patronage might be simpler for the fourth class people of the world.
PLEASE ALLOW SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS FOR DELIVERY OF YOUR 10x ROI.
Looks exactly like the SellABand model, but for games.
Actually, I think it makes more sense for games than for music. Studio time may be expensive -- for that matter, so is making a living -- but compare that to the cost of feeding a team of programmers for a year.
Waiting to be modded down by people who know more about music than I do. (No sarcasm there -- this is just armchair speculation. Move along.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Vommunism.
I have pre-ordered games before while they were still being closed beta tested. It seems to me that what he described was a form of pre-ordering. What won't happen is people pre-ordering games that are purely ideas. If you want investors to put something into your game, it needs to be impressive and exciting.
If I were a game developer, the last person I would like to be financially dependent on would be the "gamer".
"Why is developement taking so loooong? I want the game now!"
"You want to cut out that cool-sounding feature to be able to finish the development (in time)? No way!"
"Look, game studio XYZ makes the same game, but better - I'm outta here!"
"I think I heard that the game might not be 100% exactly what I thought I wanted, so I told everybody I know to not to give you any money, ever!"
"I f*cking paid for the development, why aren't you doing it the way I want!?!"
Although publishers tend to screw some game developement up with uber-tight schedules and other unrealistic demands, they will at least not destroy "their" product with bad press or force development to go on and on and on (till THE game "to rule 'em all" is produced), just because they feel like it.
There needs to be some way for people to bail out too. Otherwise there'll be idiots like 3D Realms out there, all too ready to piss away our money on another DNF debacle. Guess what, this is called investment. All the developers have to do is to sell shares in the game. (And yes, this sort of thing does need to be protected by the usual rules for investments.) Of course, there's always a chance that this'll mean that developers get squeezed out of working on their own creations, but if they can't knuckle down and deliver a product, they deserve to get shafted.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
I suppose I won't see the game and the money. Errrr, no thanks. If this takes off we can expect a lot of "developers" to come with ideas.
So let's see here.
1. Expect a lot of people to pay ~$50 for a game before it's developed.
2. Give these people absolutely no guarantee that the game will ever be produced or that it will be anything like what it was originally billed to be.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!
Seriously though, this just confirms my suspicion that Gabe Newell is completely fucking retarded and has absolutely no sense what so ever. What happens when the budget falls short (not enough investors)? The game isn't produced but the money has already been spent.
Here's a better idea. You want to buy a game, so you go to the store, give the clerk $50, he flips a coin. Heads, you get a game, tails you don't, in either case he keeps your money. This accomplishes exactly the same thing but doesn't involve all this business with investment laws and the FTC.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
1. Access to a weekly build. I want a full build of the current game status, not a reduced-functionality demo. This is necessary because if game development would stop, I would still have something. The extreme programming technique could be used to reduce the risk of loss in investment.
2. Ability to request changes. If I invest in a game, this should give me a certain degree of voting rights.
3. As long as money is invested in the game, development should continue. When a game developer wants to stop supporting a game, he should stop people from investing in it.
4. Online platform. Ongoing projects should be listed on a service like ebay.
In particular for game topics neglected by the big publishers, this would open up ways for newcoming game developers to implement ideas from and for communities with special interests. While I think this would be a welcome change, many people will prefer buying games without risking loss of investment. If trolls are kept in check, I think the game development process could work in a very open way.
So consumers should shoulder the cost and risk for game development? Utter nonsense!
How about reducing your development costs? How many iterations of game engines exist today? Why not reduce them to a few "best of breed" engines and then use those engines for more than one property life-cycle before designing a new engine. Just because Microsoft releases a new version of DirectX, doesn't compel a developer to implement it. Stop chasing the eye-candy ideal, and get back to the fundamentals of compelling game design.
If he's serious then he should add something to Steam to support this process. I'm assuming that Steam has enough checks when signing up as a developer that people wouldn't be able to use this as an easy tool to con people, and it's possible that existing developers and publishers might even use this for some of their more unusual ideas.
Wow, as someone planning to make a game as my thesis project and as someone who enjoys games that sounds terrible!
I generally expect a work of fiction to be created from the vision of one person (possibly using the skills of people he directs) I doubt I'd enjoy watching a movie or reading a book or playing a game designed by a committee for the lowest common denominator.
And although watching a game develop in incremental stages might be interesting for someone interested in game development, personally I think it would ruin my enjoyment of the finished product.
I would be very wary of making such an investment, certainly for as much or more than I would expect to pay for a game once complete (and it is rare that I pay full-price-as-at-release-date for a game), because the cynic in me would expect something akin to Hollywood Accounting to be used to make sure that I didn't get the cut at the end.
Though if the level of investment required is less than what I'd expect to pay for the game once complete, the risk of getting nothing back (no game, no cut of profits) might be small enough considering the investment amount for me to be willing to take a punt on an idea I like the sound of.
Lot's of resources are spent in experimentation. Stop experimenting and then game development will not exceed one year.
If I'd paid $20 for HL2 - Episode 3 6 years ago, and still didn't have it now, I'd be pretty pissed.
If someone had offered me a glimpse of Schizoid or Braid (both from Xbox 360 arcade) and said "Would you like to invest? I would have dove in head first.
Name...That...Autocomplete!
You know why he's suggesting it, right?
It's not to fund Valve games, it's to fund boutique software houses getting into the business.
His company wants to license their "The Source" game engine and their "SteamWorks" and "SteamPublishing" technologies. In order to do that, they need new boutique game developers that can't afford to develop their own versions of the technologies in question. And right now, the funding just isn't happening from the VCs for new, untested development teams, particularly when even theoretically "safe bet" companies are failing to deliver product and cutting staff.
-- Terry
This was an exclusive of the TV Show "Good Game" not kotaku.com, credit where credit is due.
If the premise looks good and the dev team -is-... then sure, why not?
Personally I don't like my game choices to be largely at the whim of financial investors ( publishers and distributors, largely ) who have very little connection with the game at all and are only looking for 'sure fire success stories'.
Thankfully even the big publishers do try new concepts from time to time - often using chunks of the money they got from the 'sure fire success stories' - but it can't hurt to have more developers try to innovate instead of producing [licensed sports title] 2010, 2011, 2012, ...
If being able to privately and -directly- invest in a title increases the odds of that title being made, I don't mind putting a small amount of money in, and risk losing/breaking even/making some profit off of it.
Tell Gabe to answer my emails. I'd like the TF2 source code opened up, so that people can make real mods for it instead of the half-assed server mod hacks that they have to use now.
CustomTF extended the life of TF by 10 years, and CustomTF2 could do the same.
He'd get a community game thatno one would have to pay for. Does anyone make money off mods... if they're not bought out by Valve? They're labors of love, and as such, the programmers are often much more productive than people working for money. When you're getting paid for something, it oftentimes ceases to be fun.
So, basically, like an IPO.
(Pardon the AC, it's been years since I posted on slashdot)
I'm working on a game called Minecraft, which uses pretty much this model. It's been in development for a bit over two months, and pre-orders have been online since June 13. I've sold over 1000 copies since then, which more than pays for the remaining development time, and the curve on sales is still pointing upwards.
I know Mount & Blade used a similar system, and so does Dwarf Fortress. If small indie games can do this, why can't valve?
There are some other areas where some community funding would be welcome:
For example, the implementation of web standards, like HTML5.
The sooner it gets done, the better.
--SC
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I like it.
It's basically investing.
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
in its and bits. i would have no issues donating 5-10 frequently to a game title i was enthusiastically waiting for.
Read radical news here
Are not games being funded by people just buying them?
I see the gaming industry having a heart palpitation as sales have dropped in these
economic times because get this:
"Games are a luxury product and are the first things to go in tough economic times."
What about some plain old simple market research to probe viable ideas/markets,
or have they already blown the riches from the last couple of years on shit they didn't
need. Cry me a river, i hope they are out done by a bunch of kids in a basement.
First of all I do think that his idea has merit but it doesn't take a genius to start seeing the flaws - in particular what motivation does the development team have to continue developing the project?
1. Generate interest
2. Collect investment
3. Profit
4. Interest wanes, Investments slow
5. Developer thinks of new idea
6. Goto 1
With this business model we'll never see any completed games.
What you need to do is set up a third party finance company who sign people up for a subscription. Subscribers then get access to all the games currently in development and then each month the subscriptions are divvied up between the various projects in a fair and quantifiable manner (i.e. number of players/hours played/etc). This way the investment is incremental so encouraging longer term development rather than letting developers grab a quick cash injection before moving onto the next project.
Hey, there's this new game in production, "Duke Nukem Forever". Duke's great, that'll be a hit! I'm investing everything I have in that one, I'll make a killing when that comes out!
Game companies invest in a game not to get a game they want, but for a return on investment... that's called making money. Sometimes game makers get into this mindset that they're doing the world a favor by creating the perfect game, when their objective (if they're a business rather than a hobby) is to make money. Usually those two goals coincide and you get a great offering, but the idea of having your everday gamer invest in an idea ignores reality. The only way this sort of thing could work would be if an extremely popular game series was cut loose by a major studio. This would also mean the studio would have to be willing to release all rights to the franchise (ain't gonna happen) and that once it started to sell, that it didn't come back in and try to take over. With the proposed model, what's being proposed is that rather than the game company foot the bill for a fancy game demo, you're getting people to do it... but what's more likely to happen is that you (as a fan) would spend money investing in your favorite idea, which would then build a really interesting demo/prototype, which would then, after enough folks jumped onboard, be picked up by a stinking expensive game publisher, which would then change the product to fit their marketing models. Thus in the end perpetuating the status quo, only now even the game prototypes would be expensive and overly complex. --Ray
http://www.beanleafpress.com
"Modern games are extremely expensive to make. High-profile, AAA titles have budgets in the tens of millions"
Seen Gabe Newell lately? That's just for the catering.
I thought about this process a few years ago. The concept of a player bond. You donate $20 and we give you a $20 credit on your first month's subscription (I was looking specifically at MMO development.) Donate $100 and get a $100 dollar credit against your subscription fees (so assuming $10 a month you would get 10 months free.)
Sadly checking with the IRS and SEC this is a paperwork nightmare and would eat most of the donations.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
It takes Pixar four years to produce a feature film from an story concept that has been kicked about for five to ten years -
and even then there will be many false starts.
It is easy even for the pro to become enamored with an idea that isn't working or is fundamentally second-rate.
The fan will find it even harder to let go.
But the greater risk may be the fan-driven production: "Snakes on a Plane."
The resulting media must be under a Free Sofware license (or Creative Commons, as appropriate) so that I can benefit from the software I paid to have developed.
There's absolutely no way whatsoever that I will pay for directed development on closed-source software.
Further, there must be no DRM involved, which pretty much rules out Steam. So Valve's Newell can go piss up a rope.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The real power of player driven investment and pre-orders is investor matching, which happens a lot in other industies.
Developer announces the game. Investor A comes up and says, "I'll chip in X if you can clear 60,000 pre-orders." Investor B comes in and says I'll match player donations. Investor C says, If you can get a contract with Wallmart to distribute the product I'll throw in Y dollars.
There are plenty of ways in which player driven investment could take form, I would wager leverage against traditional investment is more a likely avenue to pursue.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
The game Mount & Blade was funded using a similar model. The idea is simple, buy an undeveloped version of the game and feel free to download it later on in development. I still have my installation key after years, and the game is still in development. This idea definitely isn't new for video games, just not publicly endorsed.
The problem is the lack of sharing and re-use that goes hand in hand with competition. My friends and I all think how awesome Left4Dead would have been if it had been built on the open city of GTA4 (or is it 5 now?). How much work went into building those huge worlds or the engines that generate those worlds say, in GTA or Fallout3 or Oblivion. Then they are used for maybe one game and a few addons and that's it. What a waste.
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the Unknown Worlds team, who are using this model to produce Natural Selection 2.
I suppose it's less revolutionary for them, as they have a history of community-funded development. In the original Natural Selection, players could pay a modest fee to enroll in the "Constellation Program." Members received a variety of perks, including early access to beta releases and an in-game/forum icon.
Of course, the NS2 developers have a history of transparency and delivering on releases, and have ready access to a supportive community. So the model works for them. I doubt a new studio would get similar traction. I suspect it will be even harder once a few community-funded games fail, leaving behind a bunch of pre-rendered screens and angry gamers.
sad, but it's true. There needs to be a way of sorting the chaff from the wheat with both concepts and developers.
I've got 5 or 6 concepts that developed properly could be hits, but I don't have all the skills necessary to develop them into games.
As well, there are plenty of developers who have the skills necessary, but have crappy concepts.
There needs to be a matchmaking lobby for developers and designers. Then once the concept is hammered out, the "investors" get to choose what they want to put money into.
Most projects will never get fully funded. They will likely die. But once the project receives funding, the developers must be under some sort of contract with the "investors"
They're using their grammar skills there.
Stardock has already been doing something similar to this for some time now. Those who pre-ordered Sins of a Solar Empire, Gal Civ 2, or any of either game's numerous expansions got access to closed betas very early on in the games' developments. The payoff, for those who invested in the games early on, is the ear of the developer and a chance to have a much larger say in how the game turns out than is usual.
This sounds pretty much exactly like what Wolfire games are doing with their new game, Overgrowth.
They started selling (cheap!) preorders ages ago, before they had anything to give out, and have since been releasing more and more content as it is developed, as well as engaging with the community on game features, content and such. Even better, those who have preordered can play with the weekly builds they release, which really helps people believe that the project is actually going somewhere.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not in any way related to Wolfire, other than that I've preordered Overgrowth and am a fan of their previous game, Lugaru.
end thread.
While I find the idea interesting, I can't help but wonder what would this will mean for the gaming community. You know how there are Apple fans who have thousands of dollars invested in Apple's products and then there are Apple fans who have thousands of dollars invested in Apple stock? Two completely different people. The first will argue until they are blue in the face while the latter will call you a child killer and walk out of the warning everyone about the putrid smell coming from the sorry sack of shit sitting in the other room.
Now gamers are passionate and many are overly competitive assholes. Now imagine that their paychecks are tied in to it? It would be like crossing a bomb wielding religious zealot with a day trader.
With the utter shit that's come out of many AAA developers recently I can't even justify paying for the game after it's been released, let alone ahead of time.
The idea reminds me of those poor suckers who bought lifetime subscriptions to winning titles such as Hellgate London and Tabula Rasa, or all those who clamored to buy Spore. What guarantee do gamer investors have that a developer won't put out a good idea, take $20 from a few thousand players, and then put out another craptabulous title just to say they did it? No thanks.
mmmm...forbidden donut
I think this is great!
On paper. I dont know that this is going to work. i love the idea, but i dont see the benafits for smaller companies.
the Major issue i have is that the AAA titles will rob the spot light from the little guys and the funding will be grossly misdirected.
I think perhaps we are looking at this wrong. I can think of reasons why it might or might not work, but it is perhaps more productive to think about what kind of games I would want to see produced.
I would probably pay more for some games than I would for others. It would also help if they asked for the money after securing a development house I trusted.
Games I would want to see ( a lot of these could be done with existing game engines)
A new x-wing/tie fighter game (it has been way to long) (maybe with rpg elements)
possibly a star wars rebellion sequel (grand strategy)
Something new from the Jedi Knight series (force unleashed doesn't count without a pc version)
A new x-com game
I am sure there would be plenty more if I dug through my old favorites
Clearly ip becomes a major issue. Much of what people might want enough to pay for is in sequels for games (or ip) that they already loved.
You actually think this is a good idea? People can't even invest in their own stocks properly; they should not be putting up the capital for video game projects. They will take on all the loss of a bad game. The risk is placed where it can be best managed and diversified. I just don't see how anyone with any knowledge of economics could advocate for this in the modern era.
So, is this a promising investment vehicle? Overall, I think the current system works well for larger (e.g. $30M) projects. Gamers are interested in playing games, and don't necessarily have large amounts of money that they want to risk. It would be inefficient for them to bear the investment risk. However, for smaller projects ($200K), the analysis costs in getting a big player to understand the nature and market of the project could be prohibitive. Gamers, who already have specific knowledge of the market, might be able to finance the project efficiently because their cheaper analysis costs would outweigh their lower risk tolerance and access to capital.
1. Though shall not have other game forms before me.
Board Games!?!? Pshh...
Now give praise to the little baby Wii, that shall bring salvation to gaming as we know it!
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
The same model worked for Wolfgang Baur and creating RPG modules (http://open-design.livejournal.com/).
This is pretty much how Mount & Blade was funded.
The earlier you paid, the less it cost you. And you got access to the beta.
I can understand how this would alleviate some costs and financial burdens, but the point of a video game is that the company comes up with a really good concept and turn it into a profitable game.
It's kind of weird that he'd want this to be done. Will the person "investing" have any say in content or design? I don't know why someone would want to do this without a real good say in the design of the game.
Plus, Valve's games haven't been real good. Besides Counter-Strike, and Half Life series of games. The rest are complete and utter shit. I can't even name the other games, the rest are just Mods. CS isn't even considered a full game, to me. It's all multiplayer. Plus it gets repetitive after awhile. Half Life and Half Life 2 are really the only decent games.
Maybe dumb and desperate, but definitely not cheap. :)
Surely Orange Box and L4D sales not to mention money generated by Steam has filled the coffers of Valve to the point where they could invest in themselves...
(And perhaps Mr. Newell isn't suggesting this idea for Valve - for all I know they do fund their own development process.)
This idea makes sense for indie developers who don't have megabucks in the bank...
But it seems to me that a development house as successful as Valve should have the resources to fund their own games. The only reason I can think of that they would want to have the community fund development would be if they didn't believe in their own ability to deliver a game on time and within budget and so they want to offload the risk to the gaming community.
Yes. Compared to all the shows they normally would have had in the 10pm slot, Jay Leno's talk show is a real bargain. As for the pilots, I figure that if they're going to make them anyway, then why not let people watch them?
.
Of course, I guess the flaw in my logic is that if they are spending all their time trying to figure out ways to avoid producing new shows, then there won't be many new pilots to air.
One thing I always liked about the valve games is that I never had to repurchase any game after I had bought it. One thing I disliked about steam was the fact that its all the same type of game. I found another site since then that I use http://games.gamestreamer.net/ It allows the same kind of thing, seems to have much better speeds as well. Steam always has such a limited genre in game selection.
Because I can open my old book of ideas, and show you that I had that very idea, just in a better and more fair manner, and without disgusting mental acrobatic lie-words like "IP".
I can tell you that it is pretty much impossible to get people to pay upfront, for something that they *may* get. Because, if you think a game concept does not change extremely in those 4 years, you know nothing about the business. ^^)
If you then add idiocies like closing down the source of the game, that those people already completely financed, including profit, you can right out forget it.
I say: They financed it, they *own* it. Including the code. Including a thank you in the end titles. Including some unique object that later buyers will never be able to lay their hands on. ^^
Luckily, I found an even better model. Better, because the buyers already get something right at the beginning, and only have to pay that piece too. And I will be using that exact model in my next game. Which means I do not have to have a greedy idiotic "client" to get money, who wants me to make a piece of shit out of it. (I look at you, EA! Microsoft is a shiny knight of cuddly love bears compared to you!)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.