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.
... 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
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!
I think that what Gabe suggests is quite reasonable, to say the least. People do pay for games right now, even those that they play once and those that won't be available for their multi-Cell watchphone in 15 years. Think of it as an early preorder method. Think of it as of a way of listening to customers instead of PHBs. After all, if people pay the devs for the right to tell them what kind of a game they want to play when it's done, it is good. Besides, this will even massively boost sales to those who didn't invest early (because the game is more likely to be good/popular).
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'!"
They certainly do. However, asking people to be venture capitalists for a game project requires a little more in return than just asking them to buy a complete, well tested game that other people have played, reviewed, and said they got something out of. Most venture capitalists would be asking for at least a share of the project's rights (including related trademarks, merchandising, etc), AND its profits.
I've been advocating this model for TV shows for a few years. Currently, a group makes a pilot, then tries to sell it to networks, which fund the series. It wouldn't be a massive change to release the pilot publicly and ask people for contributions towards making the full series. Once you've raised enough capital, you start production. You then encourage peer-to-peer distribution of the first season's episodes, because anyone who enjoys watching the show is someone you may be able to get money from to make the next season, or to make your next project. Unlike draconian copyright amendments, this model has the advantage that it funds the really valuable act, that of creating the work, not that of copying it.
The problem with Gabe's idea is that he wants to combine this with the existing model, where you charge for copies. I can't see that working well in the long run, because it limits distribution which makes it harder to get new investors for the second round.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.
Actually, we already do this, so it's hardly a revolutionary idea. This is exactly how games are produced for the board wargame market.
A publisher will announce they're planning to make a game, list the major features (setting, operational level, general type, complexity, etc) and ask for preorders. This is usually accompanied by a mockup of the game or some early counter/map graphics, but can also just be an outline. The preorders will typically be at a 30% discount from the final retail price.
As development progresses, more information will be added to the listing. Rules excerpts will go up along with sample games from the playtest reports. Final art for the finished product will be posted as well, since it's something that is typically done early in development. The whole time this is happening, additional preorders will be coming in. Also, the designer will be listening to feedback from the people who have preordered, and possibly adding requested features.
When the number of preorders reach a certain threshold, the game will go onto the schedule to be printed, but will not be published until it is complete. Typically, this will mean several months more of playtesting to tweak the rules for optimal balance. Unlike computer games, there's no releasing a patch for a shoddy wargame. They have to be more or less right the first time. Again, more preorders will be added during these final months.
When the printing date draws near, the publisher will look at the total number of preorders and multiply that to decide how many copies to print, usually times 3-4. The key being that at this point, the number of preorders will allow them to break even on the number of printed copies, even if no further games are sold. Anything sold after the preorders is profit.
And that's how wargames are made.
However there are differences. Wargaming is a smaller hobby, which has well established companies with good reputations, and whose players are intimately familiar with the subject matter. This is why companies are able to make sales based on nothing more than an outline.
Would this work as well in the computer industry? Who knows. Gamers have been burned far too often in the past with pre-rendered screenshots that looked nothing like the actual game, and fly-by-night companies that barely lasted past their ship date. It's even less likely to work on the console market, where sales are driven purely by graphics and not gameplay.
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.
Agreed that a payment investment which is reduced from the price of a full game would limit the potential losses to any one consumer, and is a good idea.
If 10,000 people like your idea and the assets you've come up with so far well enough to give, say, $20 each, that's $200,000 to play with, which isn't too bad a budget for an indie game. I think that's a very achievable goal - the idea would have to be innovative and enticing, the development process would have to be open enough that people see their money is being put to good use (I'm not saying to give the consumers any real power over the game, but a blog with semi-regular screenshot posts would keep people assured that it's not abandonware), and you'd have to pump a little bit of your own money into it at the start to get those initial assets looking good... if you can do that then I would imagine that the community support would come through for you.
I'd see the "payback" on your investment being a copy of the game at the end, as well as beta access etc if applicable. If all goes to plan you'd be getting a good deal as one of those 10,000 investors; you'd have paid $20 for a $40 game, perhaps.
The only downside to your idea is that it's been tried (by Stephen King, no less) and found to be lacking.
People who enjoy getting something for free don't pay for getting the next installment. Not in big enough numbers for a book - see the problem with financing a TV show this way?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
(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?
The only downside to your idea is that it's been tried (by Stephen King, no less) and found to be lacking.
King did it backwards, he asked people to pay after they already have the product in hand. Only the most generous of suckers is going to do that. Word was the story kinda sucked too.
The key is in holding the next episode/book/song/installment ransom. Sure plenty of people still won't pay, but when you've got a billion people on the net worldwide, you only need a miniscule fraction in order to be profitable.
It would also help to arrange the financing creatively, one way being a subscription. Sign up for the subscription and the money is auto-billed each month, works the same as music clubs, gyms, etc, and to a lesser extent cable tv does. You can also sell physical items like memorabilia that include a dedicated mark-up just for creative production costs, kind of the way PBS and NPR went to donation levels with guaranteed "gifts" in return - that move increased their revenues a couple of hundred percent. People like getting "stuff" for their money even if it is just incidental.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Why do you assume the game has to be public domain at the end? Couldn't you just assume it is shared property of a corporation-like entity comprised of those that funded the game? After all, there's always the sequel, and why not share some of the profits from selling the game with those that funded its creation?
Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
I read the first couple of chapters of that Stephen King crapfest. The only idea he had for that was to see how little actual content he could string together in an incoherent jumble and sell as a "Chapter" to get people to pay way more then they would have for an actual book.
The big problem I see with Valve's idea is you would need a community that actually trusts you to deliver on your promise. Pre-Left 4 Dead 2 announcement Valve probably had that kind of community. They don't any more and apparently haven't begun to realize it yet. Valve had a great community that would plunk down money for a promise. Why will that community keep plunking down money when Valve has shown that they'll walk away from their end whenever they think it serves them better?
Besides this idea isn't that far off from what is already happening in the game market. Heck, how many games come out now that aren't really any where close to being a finished product with the idea that if they are successful enough the company might (or might not) bother to fix them? All he's really proposing is that instead of paying to beta test the games like we do way to often now, we start paying at the barely an idea phase. How many times will the community invest in game ideas that go no where before they stop throwing good money after bad?
Another thing, what would stop Valve (or anyone who tried this approach) from taking the money, creating some barely working mishmash of ideas that show some promise, release a barely working version as the "finished product', and then promptly turning around and releasing the a more polished, "completely different", even though it's almost exactly the same game, as a separate property?
The answer? Not a damn thing.
I'm not saying this idea wouldn't work. But it would depend a large part on the level of trust your audience had that you would actually deliver a final product.