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.
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.
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.
With that list of demands, I'd make a large wager that you'll never invest in any sort of game development. Request changes? So you know better what a nebulous idea of a game will need better than the developer? Why don't you just go make it yourself, then?
Mass-sourced funding like this is banked on the fact that the people buying in have some level of trust that the game dev is going to make a good game. If you don't believe that, you're not going to give them money, no matter what concessions they make. Large investors changing games just because they're funding them... that's exactly why people dislike big players like EA so much, because they'll buy out a small studio and then dictate how they make their games.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.