People pay ridiculous amounts of money for special editions of games packaged with some 5 dollar plastic bullshit, I don't see why paying some extra to fund a game and getting a monetary return on it is seen as some kind of ripoff.
Who says anything about monetary return? Gabe sure didn't.
.
"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."
Actually he does say that you would get a return which I'm assuming would be money. Unless they plan on handing out baseball cards or something as the return.
Personally for Valve I wouldn't have any problems investing a few thousand dollars into one of their games. Unlike a lot of companies they are pretty damn good at making their money back.
It would be like Activision saying, "Give us a thousand dollars for the next COD and we'll give you the game and some of the profits." Yes Thank you.
Let's see... giving $60 for a $30 million game is a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of the game's budget, and may net you a buck fifty down the road after expenses. Not exactly a good deal.
Edit: Ye gods, I'm grumpy today. Also bad at reading.
Your 60 dollar donation would likely be used at Krispy Kreme.
Let's see... giving $60 for a $30 million game is a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of the game's budget, and may net you a buck fifty down the road after expenses. Not exactly a good deal.
That's why I think something like this would have to be done in multiple stages. One is basically a really early pre-order system, to nab the most number of gamers that are interested in the product but really don't have that much cash to invest. For them, it'll mostly be about fame ("Hey! I helped fund Episode 3! See my name in the credits!" ).
But I do think there'll be other folks (potentially like myself, and many of my friends) who would be interested in plunking down a lot more than $60. I don't know how much ... hundreds? A thousand? A few thousand? I know for myself, spending a grand is fine. (I've spent about that much on charities, stocks, etc. in the past) Is there enough of people like me to really put a dent in a $30 million budget? I don't know, and I think that would be the major sticking point.
For what, so they could continue their quest to be Neversoft 2.0?
Yes. Now shut up.
don't be hatin'.
I can't think of a company I would want to put any money toward personally. Of course the measly amount I could donate wouldn't even put a ding in the costs of modern game development.
People pay ridiculous amounts of money for special editions of games packaged with some 5 dollar plastic bullshit, I don't see why paying some extra to fund a game and getting a monetary return on it is seen as some kind of ripoff.
Who says anything about monetary return? Gabe sure didn't.
.
"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."
Actually he does say that you would get a return which I'm assuming would be money. Unless they plan on handing out baseball cards or something as the return.
Personally for Valve I wouldn't have any problems investing a few thousand dollars into one of their games. Unlike a lot of companies they are pretty damn good at making their money back.
It would be like Activision saying, "Give us a thousand dollars for the next COD and we'll give you the game and some of the profits." Yes Thank you.
Let's see... giving $60 for a $30 million game is a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of the game's budget, and may net you a buck fifty down the road after expenses. Not exactly a good deal.
Edit: Ye gods, I'm grumpy today. Also bad at reading.
Your 60 dollar donation would likely be used at Krispy Kreme.
Let's see... giving $60 for a $30 million game is a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of the game's budget, and may net you a buck fifty down the road after expenses. Not exactly a good deal.
That's why I think something like this would have to be done in multiple stages. One is basically a really early pre-order system, to nab the most number of gamers that are interested in the product but really don't have that much cash to invest. For them, it'll mostly be about fame ("Hey! I helped fund Episode 3! See my name in the credits!" ).
But I do think there'll be other folks (potentially like myself, and many of my friends) who would be interested in plunking down a lot more than $60. I don't know how much ... hundreds? A thousand? A few thousand? I know for myself, spending a grand is fine. (I've spent about that much on charities, stocks, etc. in the past) Is there enough of people like me to really put a dent in a $30 million budget? I don't know, and I think that would be the major sticking point.
Exactly my point in my edit. For people who are used to spending money on stocks, bonds, etc this is a way to get people into investing in companies. Which is how a lot of millionaires keep getting richer.
AZChristopher on
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Good god, you guys are bolding the wrong part of that statement:
"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."
Has there ever been a game that you've been really excited about and just know that, if done right, it'll be a big hit? Ever wish you could your money where your mouth is, and perhaps be financially rewarded for it? Imagine putting down a thousand dollars on the development of Bioshock, and then seeing it suddenly become the big hit that it's become, and getting your money back and then some. That would be nice.
Now, is investing like this in video games a good idea? Probably not. You can probably get a much better return on investment via other means, not to mention being much safer. Then again, people do this all the time with stocks. So, why not in games too?
Personally, I think it's an interesting idea. I'm all for folks trying out new business models. If I think it's a bad idea/investment, then what's it to me? I just won't participate. But there are certainly times where I feel particularly passionate about certain titles and I'd be willing to spend some money on a risky investment for a potential big gain. Also, I don't think this is really meant to be just a large pre-order program. I'm guessing this would best be aimed at those upper-middle-class gamers with some excess cash that would otherwise be spent on stocks, or gambling (Vegas, etc.), or on vacations, etc.
The biggest problem I see is that, since gamers would be actually funding the project, wouldn't it would follow they'd have some kind of say in how the project turns out? I'd be afraid of self-labeled hard-core gamers effectively turning the project into a design-by-committee train wreck.
And the concept of a return on investment sounds awesome, but I wonder how much could you reasonably expect to get back on your funding. Even if you ponied up $5,000 or $10,000, it would be a pittance compared to what a major publisher would be kicking in.
For what, so they could continue their quest to be Neversoft 2.0?
I will end you.
But, I thought what we had was special.
Leave your pants.
UnbreakableVow on
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
Game companies like to keep things hidden from the public for varying lengths of time, but especially during the beginning. To ask for money to be set aside before development starts means you're going to have to have extensive design documents available to the public. People tend to want to know specifics on what they are buying into.
The biggest problem I see is that, since gamers would be actually funding the project, wouldn't it would follow they'd have some kind of say in how the project turns out? I'd be afraid of self-labeled hard-core gamers effectively turning the project into a design-by-committee train wreck.
That would just be down to the terms you're given. You couldn't possibly have a design by committee, certainly not one composed of thousands of gamers (make it an MMO! Like GTA but with dragons and you can get a job and have sex with a girl). If you just have it so you're investing in the idea of the game as proposed by the developers, it's a safer bet. When you get people bitching how ideas had to be cut to meet publisher deadlines and requirements or whatever, I guess it appeals to the side that gives developers more freedom.
darleysam on
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
What if the project turned into Duke Nukem Forever and you had a rather large stake in it...what then?
Good god, you guys are bolding the wrong part of that statement:
"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."
Has there ever been a game that you've been really excited about and just know that, if done right, it'll be a big hit? Ever wish you could your money where your mouth is, and perhaps be financially rewarded for it? Imagine putting down a thousand dollars on the development of Bioshock, and then seeing it suddenly become the big hit that it's become, and getting your money back and then some. That would be nice.
Now, is investing like this in video games a good idea? Probably not. You can probably get a much better return on investment via other means, not to mention being much safer. Then again, people do this all the time with stocks. So, why not in games too?
Personally, I think it's an interesting idea. I'm all for folks trying out new business models. If I think it's a bad idea/investment, then what's it to me? I just won't participate. But there are certainly times where I feel particularly passionate about certain titles and I'd be willing to spend some money on a risky investment for a potential big gain. Also, I don't think this is really meant to be just a large pre-order program. I'm guessing this would best be aimed at those upper-middle-class gamers with some excess cash that would otherwise be spent on stocks, or gambling (Vegas, etc.), or on vacations, etc.
The biggest problem I see is that, since gamers would be actually funding the project, wouldn't it would follow they'd have some kind of say in how the project turns out? I'd be afraid of self-labeled hard-core gamers effectively turning the project into a design-by-committee train wreck.
And the concept of a return on investment sounds awesome, but I wonder how much could you reasonably expect to get back on your funding. Even if you ponied up $5,000 or $10,000, it would be a pittance compared to what a major publisher would be kicking in.
No. This kind of investment scheme is where you give them your money, they say thank you, and you have no voice in the final product. Even if you compare this with actual stock ownership, the amount of stock you effectively have is so small, they don't even give a shit about your 'votes' when it comes to electing the board.
Good god, you guys are bolding the wrong part of that statement:
"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."
Has there ever been a game that you've been really excited about and just know that, if done right, it'll be a big hit? Ever wish you could your money where your mouth is, and perhaps be financially rewarded for it? Imagine putting down a thousand dollars on the development of Bioshock, and then seeing it suddenly become the big hit that it's become, and getting your money back and then some. That would be nice.
Now, is investing like this in video games a good idea? Probably not. You can probably get a much better return on investment via other means, not to mention being much safer. Then again, people do this all the time with stocks. So, why not in games too?
Personally, I think it's an interesting idea. I'm all for folks trying out new business models. If I think it's a bad idea/investment, then what's it to me? I just won't participate. But there are certainly times where I feel particularly passionate about certain titles and I'd be willing to spend some money on a risky investment for a potential big gain. Also, I don't think this is really meant to be just a large pre-order program. I'm guessing this would best be aimed at those upper-middle-class gamers with some excess cash that would otherwise be spent on stocks, or gambling (Vegas, etc.), or on vacations, etc.
The biggest problem I see is that, since gamers would be actually funding the project, wouldn't it would follow they'd have some kind of say in how the project turns out? I'd be afraid of self-labeled hard-core gamers effectively turning the project into a design-by-committee train wreck.
And the concept of a return on investment sounds awesome, but I wonder how much could you reasonably expect to get back on your funding. Even if you ponied up $5,000 or $10,000, it would be a pittance compared to what a major publisher would be kicking in.
...and then we're getting into the territory of what many developers are ALREADY doing to some extent or another.
Good god, you guys are bolding the wrong part of that statement:
"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."
Has there ever been a game that you've been really excited about and just know that, if done right, it'll be a big hit? Ever wish you could your money where your mouth is, and perhaps be financially rewarded for it? Imagine putting down a thousand dollars on the development of Bioshock, and then seeing it suddenly become the big hit that it's become, and getting your money back and then some. That would be nice.
Now, is investing like this in video games a good idea? Probably not. You can probably get a much better return on investment via other means, not to mention being much safer. Then again, people do this all the time with stocks. So, why not in games too?
Personally, I think it's an interesting idea. I'm all for folks trying out new business models. If I think it's a bad idea/investment, then what's it to me? I just won't participate. But there are certainly times where I feel particularly passionate about certain titles and I'd be willing to spend some money on a risky investment for a potential big gain. Also, I don't think this is really meant to be just a large pre-order program. I'm guessing this would best be aimed at those upper-middle-class gamers with some excess cash that would otherwise be spent on stocks, or gambling (Vegas, etc.), or on vacations, etc.
The biggest problem I see is that, since gamers would be actually funding the project, wouldn't it would follow they'd have some kind of say in how the project turns out? I'd be afraid of self-labeled hard-core gamers effectively turning the project into a design-by-committee train wreck.
And the concept of a return on investment sounds awesome, but I wonder how much could you reasonably expect to get back on your funding. Even if you ponied up $5,000 or $10,000, it would be a pittance compared to what a major publisher would be kicking in.
Return on investment all depends on your percentage. If you put in $5,000 roughly 2 years before the game releases and make $500, you just made more than if you had kept that money in the bank. Really if the investment nets more that it would in a CD, then it went pretty well for you.
The biggest problem I see is that, since gamers would be actually funding the project, wouldn't it would follow they'd have some kind of say in how the project turns out? I'd be afraid of self-labeled hard-core gamers effectively turning the project into a design-by-committee train wreck.
And the concept of a return on investment sounds awesome, but I wonder how much could you reasonably expect to get back on your funding. Even if you ponied up $5,000 or $10,000, it would be a pittance compared to what a major publisher would be kicking in.
I agree that this idea is not without its problems and challenges. I am happy to see some interesting discussion though, rather than flat-out "Oh this is dumb, he wants us to bankroll Episode 3 ololol".
There would probably be a few ways to do it. The simplest is dictating that if you invest, no matter how much, you don't have any input into the actual product itself. Not sure if that would attract enough investors though. Other things to try: investors get early access to betas, particularly large investors get some additional visibility, input, etc.
Game companies like to keep things hidden from the public for varying lengths of time, but especially during the beginning. To ask for money to be set aside before development starts means you're going to have to have extensive design documents available to the public. People tend to want to know specifics on what they are buying into.
See above. Also, this isn't a difficult problem to solve. This happens all the time in many industries. If I remember correctly, that's what it means to be an "executive producer" for TV shows and movies. Sure there are plenty of people that want to know the specifics of what they're buying into. And there are others who have faith in those in charge (otherwise they wouldn't have invested in the first place).
Good god, you guys are bolding the wrong part of that statement:
"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."
Has there ever been a game that you've been really excited about and just know that, if done right, it'll be a big hit? Ever wish you could your money where your mouth is, and perhaps be financially rewarded for it? Imagine putting down a thousand dollars on the development of Bioshock, and then seeing it suddenly become the big hit that it's become, and getting your money back and then some. That would be nice.
Now, is investing like this in video games a good idea? Probably not. You can probably get a much better return on investment via other means, not to mention being much safer. Then again, people do this all the time with stocks. So, why not in games too?
Personally, I think it's an interesting idea. I'm all for folks trying out new business models. If I think it's a bad idea/investment, then what's it to me? I just won't participate. But there are certainly times where I feel particularly passionate about certain titles and I'd be willing to spend some money on a risky investment for a potential big gain. Also, I don't think this is really meant to be just a large pre-order program. I'm guessing this would best be aimed at those upper-middle-class gamers with some excess cash that would otherwise be spent on stocks, or gambling (Vegas, etc.), or on vacations, etc.
The biggest problem I see is that, since gamers would be actually funding the project, wouldn't it would follow they'd have some kind of say in how the project turns out? I'd be afraid of self-labeled hard-core gamers effectively turning the project into a design-by-committee train wreck.
And the concept of a return on investment sounds awesome, but I wonder how much could you reasonably expect to get back on your funding. Even if you ponied up $5,000 or $10,000, it would be a pittance compared to what a major publisher would be kicking in.
Return on investment all depends on your percentage. If you put in $5,000 roughly 2 years before the game releases and make $500, you just made more than if you had kept that money in the bank. Really if the investment nets more that it would in a CD, then it went pretty well for you.
You have also gotten kissed by a mermaid and ridden a unicorn, because returns of 10% don't happen anywhere unless fraud is involved.
No. This kind of investment scheme is where you give them your money, they say thank you, and you have no voice in the final product. Even if you compare this with actual stock ownership, the amount of stock you effectively have is so small, they don't even give a shit about your 'votes' when it comes to electing the board.
This is true; I guess it's probably like the packets of info I get with my 401(k) that I pretty much disregard because my ownership is so meager.
The net profit is secondary to the fact that this game you wanted to play finally got made.
That's probably the bigger incentive, but I guess we'd see a split between passion projects (where people are dumping money into a project because they actually want to play it) and strictly business investments (where people are dumping money into a project they think is going to sell). At least in my case, a lot of the games I like don't tend to sell very well, so I guess my apprehension stems from the conflict between the two.
The cynic in me is just picturing, like Brainiac 8 mentioned, another Duke Nukem Forever situation and a royal shitstorm of a legal battle.
You have also gotten kissed by a mermaid and ridden a unicorn, because returns of 10% don't happen anywhere unless fraud is involved.
Well, that's not entirely true (unless you only mean CDs). There are plenty of investments that return 10%. But they're highly risky and you're probably just as lucky to lose all your money.
For example, I bought a bunch of shares of Citibank (C) when they were really low. There was a huge risk of them going bankrupt. Now they're sitting at 2.5-3 dollars per share. If they ever get close to the 30 dollars a share or so, before the whole financial collapse, then that's a huge return. Of course, I had to be ready to lose my entire investment because there was a good chance of that happening too.
I see a lot of parallels with Gabe's idea and stocks. Basically, it sounds like he wants a way to open up game funding beyond just the handful of publishers out there. I think it's an interesting idea worth discussing and talking about. Whether or not it's practical, of course, still remains to be seen.
I see a lot of parallels with Gabe's idea and stocks. Basically, it sounds like he wants a way to open up game funding beyond just the handful of publishers out there. I think it's an interesting idea worth discussing and talking about. Whether or not it's practical, of course, still remains to be seen.
I still find this kind of humorous in light of the fact that Valve is not publicly traded. Which is not to say it's a bad idea, it's just...an interesting juxtaposition?
I see a lot of parallels with Gabe's idea and stocks. Basically, it sounds like he wants a way to open up game funding beyond just the handful of publishers out there. I think it's an interesting idea worth discussing and talking about. Whether or not it's practical, of course, still remains to be seen.
I still find this kind of humorous in light of the fact that Valve is not publicly traded. Which is not to say it's a bad idea, it's just...an interesting juxtaposition?
Ha! Excellent point.
That said, even for publically traded companies (such as EA), I think it'd be cool to be able to invest in just one game. There are lots of things that EA makes that I don't care for, but there might be a specific title that I really want to see made, and I think there's a potential return on investment for it.
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
If the likes of XSeed wanted to raise funds for localization of some super obscure title, I could get behind that. Instead of looking to raise millions, they'd be looking for a few hundred thousand. Also so I'd know ahead of time exactly what I'd be getting.
Start with empty pledges first so other people can see that they're not alone in their support Then call everyone's tab in if it gets to a certain required level.
If the likes of XSeed wanted to raise funds for localization of some super obscure title, I could get behind that. Instead of looking to raise millions, they'd be looking for a few hundred thousand. Also so I'd know ahead of time exactly what I'd be getting.
I forgot about XSeed...I could see me investing some money into their company, as i respect what they do, even though they probably lose quite a bit of dough by doing it.
I see a lot of parallels with Gabe's idea and stocks. Basically, it sounds like he wants a way to open up game funding beyond just the handful of publishers out there. I think it's an interesting idea worth discussing and talking about. Whether or not it's practical, of course, still remains to be seen.
I still find this kind of humorous in light of the fact that Valve is not publicly traded. Which is not to say it's a bad idea, it's just...an interesting juxtaposition?
Ha! Excellent point.
That said, even for publically traded companies (such as EA), I think it'd be cool to be able to invest in just one game. There are lots of things that EA makes that I don't care for, but there might be a specific title that I really want to see made, and I think there's a potential return on investment for it.
It'd be like any bandwagon situation anyway... Everybody would just dump their money into Madden (thus thinning the per investor payback) and avoid unknown or new IPs like they were plague ridden. Mirror's Edge wasn't a huge failure, but it also performed under expectations. A little creative book keeping and the single game investor doesn't see a dime in return.
We're talking about investing in individual titles in a market driven endeavour. We already invest in the company by buying the games we like. Now an already successful company suggests pre-investing in individual titles? This kind of thing can't possibly end well for the investor.
It'd be like any bandwagon situation anyway... Everybody would just dump their money into Madden (thus thinning the per investor payback) and avoid unknown or new IPs like they were plague ridden. Mirror's Edge wasn't a huge failure, but it also performed under expectations. A little creative book keeping and the single game investor doesn't see a dime in return.
I think this should only be used for titles that actually need outside funding. Something like Madden certainly doesn't, but a title from a small/indie developer, or maybe even a really niche title from a large one, would make sense. Otherwise, if you really like Madden, then you should just buy shares of EA.
For example, I think we've all complained about certain games released in Japan that never come stateside. If I really think Ouendan 2 would have sold really well here, then why not give folks like me a chance to put my money where my mouth is?
And regarding the "creative book keeping", this is why we have things like the SEC around to make sure companies don't do illegal things like that.
We're talking about investing in individual titles in a market driven endeavour. We already invest in the company by buying the games we like. Now an already successful company suggests pre-investing in individual titles? This kind of thing can't possibly end well for the investor.
Careful. Buying a company's product doesn't make you an investor in that company. There's a big difference.
Development costs for Ghostbusters: The Game totalled between USD 15 million and USD 20 million, according to a US newspaper.
The Fort Worth Star Telegram reported the figure, according to Kotaku, as part of a profile on Terminal Reality. Last month, actor Dan Aykroyd told If magazine the game did indeed accrue a high budget, saying: "I know they spent a lot of money on this game like USD 12 million or USD 15 million - and that’s a nice budget to do a great game."
Originally set to be published by Vivendi, the game was bought up by Atari when its publisher merged with Activision. Subsequently, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe signed a deal to publish the PlayStation SKU of the game across PAL territories. Upon its release in the UK last month, the game entered the all-formats chart at number four.
I'm not sure if it includes both of the versions (PS2/Wii and 360/PS3).
Edit: Terminal developed the 360/PS3 version so probably just that.
It'd be like any bandwagon situation anyway... Everybody would just dump their money into Madden (thus thinning the per investor payback) and avoid unknown or new IPs like they were plague ridden. Mirror's Edge wasn't a huge failure, but it also performed under expectations. A little creative book keeping and the single game investor doesn't see a dime in return.
I think this should only be used for titles that actually need outside funding. Something like Madden certainly doesn't, but a title from a small/indie developer, or maybe even a really niche title from a large one, would make sense. Otherwise, if you really like Madden, then you should just buy shares of EA.
For example, I think we've all complained about certain games released in Japan that never come stateside. If I really think Ouendan 2 would have sold really well here, then why not give folks like me a chance to put my money where my mouth is?
Because the amount of money you would be putting up would mean a very small mouth. If we're talking an investor model, then that means investors do have some say. At least if enough of them get together and form a large enough bloc. And that means that individual game investors might have some say in the direction game development takes. Including both content and release dates. (Moar tits! Release the game naow!)
When you have to pay dividends, it requires some kind of action on the part of the company being invested in. It's a terrible can of worms to open, one I'm not surprised that someone who doesn't run a non-publicly traded company is unable to understand.
We're talking about investing in individual titles in a market driven endeavour. We already invest in the company by buying the games we like. Now an already successful company suggests pre-investing in individual titles? This kind of thing can't possibly end well for the investor.
Careful. Buying a company's product doesn't make you an investor in that company. There's a big difference.
You're right, 'invest' was a poor choice of words. But it's not that far off either. By buying Title A, I'm paying a company back (yes, indirectly, but still...) for their own investment into a title and it then allows them to portion the profits out into other titles. In anyway they see fit.
If the likes of XSeed wanted to raise funds for localization of some super obscure title, I could get behind that. Instead of looking to raise millions, they'd be looking for a few hundred thousand. Also so I'd know ahead of time exactly what I'd be getting.
Similarly.
There are quite a few games I'd consider investing in a localisation on.
I think if this were ever to be remotely viable, it would have to be more of the passion project route: Gamers would pay upfront for a project, and they wouldn't get any profits from an investment in the opportunity, but they would get a game that they might otherwise have not gotten. Though I guess they have a system like that now, only they use the terms "donations" and "freeware."
EDIT: Localizations are actually a good point. I'd totally pay upfront a year or so for a localization of Retro Game Challenge 2.
I think if this were ever to be remotely viable, it would have to be more of the passion project route: Gamers would pay upfront for a project, and they wouldn't get any profits from an investment in the opportunity, but they would get a game that they might otherwise have not gotten. Though I guess they have a system like that now, only they use the terms "donations" and "freeware."
EDIT: Localizations are actually a good point. I'd totally pay upfront a year or so for a localization of Retro Game Challenge 2.
Still no guarantee. A game would essentially need to be fully funded through investments to see the light of day. If the investment guarantees a copy, then they clearly know the minimum number they need to make. But how many more need to be made for everybody else and what guarantee is there that anybody else even cares?
And even if game investment becomes a reality, and enough money is raised to cover half of a moderately budgeted title, say five out of ten million. The pub/dev still stands to lose money and if there is some kind of dividend involved, the investors may never see any kind of profit or even simply break even.
I hate to use a car analogy, but investors in Ford aren't investing in individual vehicles. They're providing the capital for the company to produce the products the market might be interested in. It's up to the non-investing consumer to decide where their money goes after the fact. And if a company doesn't provide products the market wants, then it changes direction or fails. And sometimes the investors are screwed.
It's simply a bad idea from a man who runs a company that doesn't even need to implement it.
I'm with Santa here, people would just bandwagon (in this thread we've already said "imagine investing in CoD or TF3!") and why would Valve/T2/etc offer a return on a sure thing in the first place? The return would be insanely small, if anything. This would be for small developers who haven't found financial backing yet and would require a major effort to draw in capital $30 to $60 at a time. And if you say it's for people looking to invest $1000 or more, I'm pretty sure there are developers out there right now looking for investments that big.
As for the SEC protecting investors, this is getting into the territory of why it doesn't happen. If EA is going to have to track where it spends each development dollar on specific games and report unique financial results per title to an oversight commission to make sure Mirror's Edge investors aren't getting screwed, from their perspective that's a lot more trouble than it's worth when they can just offer stock in the company as a whole.
Some forecasts from Famitsu (FS = first shipment, TF = total forecasted sales)
Wow, what's with the "lol valve is rich they don't need to make moar money" bullshit? Companies need to look towards the future, companies that sit on their asses and get complacent get caught flatfooted when the industry changes. There's absolutely nothing wrong with any company, rich or poor, looking for future solutions to problems that don't exist now but may occur in the future.
Wow, what's with the "lol valve is rich they don't need to make moar money" bullshit? Companies need to look towards the future, companies that sit on their asses and get complacent get caught flatfooted when the industry changes. There's absolutely nothing wrong with any company, rich or poor, looking for future solutions to problems that don't exist now but may occur in the future.
Because they're asking us to solve their problem by tossing money down a pit.
Based upon what MH2 did?. I believe the series has grown a bit in popularity since then. Or is that just first month? That seems reasonable for first month to me.
Posts
Your 60 dollar donation would likely be used at Krispy Kreme.
Yes. Now shut up.
That's why I think something like this would have to be done in multiple stages. One is basically a really early pre-order system, to nab the most number of gamers that are interested in the product but really don't have that much cash to invest. For them, it'll mostly be about fame ("Hey! I helped fund Episode 3! See my name in the credits!" ).
But I do think there'll be other folks (potentially like myself, and many of my friends) who would be interested in plunking down a lot more than $60. I don't know how much ... hundreds? A thousand? A few thousand? I know for myself, spending a grand is fine. (I've spent about that much on charities, stocks, etc. in the past) Is there enough of people like me to really put a dent in a $30 million budget? I don't know, and I think that would be the major sticking point.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
don't be hatin'.
I can't think of a company I would want to put any money toward personally. Of course the measly amount I could donate wouldn't even put a ding in the costs of modern game development.
Maybe an up and comer like 2dBoy or something.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
It helped elect a president...
I will end you.
Exactly my point in my edit. For people who are used to spending money on stocks, bonds, etc this is a way to get people into investing in companies. Which is how a lot of millionaires keep getting richer.
But, I thought what we had was special.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
The biggest problem I see is that, since gamers would be actually funding the project, wouldn't it would follow they'd have some kind of say in how the project turns out? I'd be afraid of self-labeled hard-core gamers effectively turning the project into a design-by-committee train wreck.
And the concept of a return on investment sounds awesome, but I wonder how much could you reasonably expect to get back on your funding. Even if you ponied up $5,000 or $10,000, it would be a pittance compared to what a major publisher would be kicking in.
Leave your pants.
That would just be down to the terms you're given. You couldn't possibly have a design by committee, certainly not one composed of thousands of gamers (make it an MMO! Like GTA but with dragons and you can get a job and have sex with a girl). If you just have it so you're investing in the idea of the game as proposed by the developers, it's a safer bet. When you get people bitching how ideas had to be cut to meet publisher deadlines and requirements or whatever, I guess it appeals to the side that gives developers more freedom.
It sounds like a bad idea in the making.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
No. This kind of investment scheme is where you give them your money, they say thank you, and you have no voice in the final product. Even if you compare this with actual stock ownership, the amount of stock you effectively have is so small, they don't even give a shit about your 'votes' when it comes to electing the board.
...and then we're getting into the territory of what many developers are ALREADY doing to some extent or another.
In summary, Gabe's idea is silly and he's chubby.
Return on investment all depends on your percentage. If you put in $5,000 roughly 2 years before the game releases and make $500, you just made more than if you had kept that money in the bank. Really if the investment nets more that it would in a CD, then it went pretty well for you.
There would probably be a few ways to do it. The simplest is dictating that if you invest, no matter how much, you don't have any input into the actual product itself. Not sure if that would attract enough investors though. Other things to try: investors get early access to betas, particularly large investors get some additional visibility, input, etc.
See above. Also, this isn't a difficult problem to solve. This happens all the time in many industries. If I remember correctly, that's what it means to be an "executive producer" for TV shows and movies. Sure there are plenty of people that want to know the specifics of what they're buying into. And there are others who have faith in those in charge (otherwise they wouldn't have invested in the first place).
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
You have also gotten kissed by a mermaid and ridden a unicorn, because returns of 10% don't happen anywhere unless fraud is involved.
This is true; I guess it's probably like the packets of info I get with my 401(k) that I pretty much disregard because my ownership is so meager.
That's probably the bigger incentive, but I guess we'd see a split between passion projects (where people are dumping money into a project because they actually want to play it) and strictly business investments (where people are dumping money into a project they think is going to sell). At least in my case, a lot of the games I like don't tend to sell very well, so I guess my apprehension stems from the conflict between the two.
The cynic in me is just picturing, like Brainiac 8 mentioned, another Duke Nukem Forever situation and a royal shitstorm of a legal battle.
Well, that's not entirely true (unless you only mean CDs). There are plenty of investments that return 10%. But they're highly risky and you're probably just as lucky to lose all your money.
For example, I bought a bunch of shares of Citibank (C) when they were really low. There was a huge risk of them going bankrupt. Now they're sitting at 2.5-3 dollars per share. If they ever get close to the 30 dollars a share or so, before the whole financial collapse, then that's a huge return. Of course, I had to be ready to lose my entire investment because there was a good chance of that happening too.
I see a lot of parallels with Gabe's idea and stocks. Basically, it sounds like he wants a way to open up game funding beyond just the handful of publishers out there. I think it's an interesting idea worth discussing and talking about. Whether or not it's practical, of course, still remains to be seen.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Never too long a a row to hoe in order to flamebait. That's a sign of dedication right there, sir.
I still find this kind of humorous in light of the fact that Valve is not publicly traded. Which is not to say it's a bad idea, it's just...an interesting juxtaposition?
Don't invest money for this kind of behavior! :rotate:
This assumes Halo is worth the effort.
That was like a quick insta-burn.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Not Halo, but the hatred of it. Clear distinction.
Ha! Excellent point.
That said, even for publically traded companies (such as EA), I think it'd be cool to be able to invest in just one game. There are lots of things that EA makes that I don't care for, but there might be a specific title that I really want to see made, and I think there's a potential return on investment for it.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Start with empty pledges first so other people can see that they're not alone in their support Then call everyone's tab in if it gets to a certain required level.
I forgot about XSeed...I could see me investing some money into their company, as i respect what they do, even though they probably lose quite a bit of dough by doing it.
Assuming I had any money with two kids.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
It'd be like any bandwagon situation anyway... Everybody would just dump their money into Madden (thus thinning the per investor payback) and avoid unknown or new IPs like they were plague ridden. Mirror's Edge wasn't a huge failure, but it also performed under expectations. A little creative book keeping and the single game investor doesn't see a dime in return.
We're talking about investing in individual titles in a market driven endeavour. We already invest in the company by buying the games we like. Now an already successful company suggests pre-investing in individual titles? This kind of thing can't possibly end well for the investor.
For example, I think we've all complained about certain games released in Japan that never come stateside. If I really think Ouendan 2 would have sold really well here, then why not give folks like me a chance to put my money where my mouth is?
And regarding the "creative book keeping", this is why we have things like the SEC around to make sure companies don't do illegal things like that.
Careful. Buying a company's product doesn't make you an investor in that company. There's a big difference.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Edit: Terminal developed the 360/PS3 version so probably just that.
When you have to pay dividends, it requires some kind of action on the part of the company being invested in. It's a terrible can of worms to open, one I'm not surprised that someone who doesn't run a non-publicly traded company is unable to understand.
You're right, 'invest' was a poor choice of words. But it's not that far off either. By buying Title A, I'm paying a company back (yes, indirectly, but still...) for their own investment into a title and it then allows them to portion the profits out into other titles. In anyway they see fit.
There are quite a few games I'd consider investing in a localisation on.
EDIT: Localizations are actually a good point. I'd totally pay upfront a year or so for a localization of Retro Game Challenge 2.
Still no guarantee. A game would essentially need to be fully funded through investments to see the light of day. If the investment guarantees a copy, then they clearly know the minimum number they need to make. But how many more need to be made for everybody else and what guarantee is there that anybody else even cares?
And even if game investment becomes a reality, and enough money is raised to cover half of a moderately budgeted title, say five out of ten million. The pub/dev still stands to lose money and if there is some kind of dividend involved, the investors may never see any kind of profit or even simply break even.
I hate to use a car analogy, but investors in Ford aren't investing in individual vehicles. They're providing the capital for the company to produce the products the market might be interested in. It's up to the non-investing consumer to decide where their money goes after the fact. And if a company doesn't provide products the market wants, then it changes direction or fails. And sometimes the investors are screwed.
It's simply a bad idea from a man who runs a company that doesn't even need to implement it.
As for the SEC protecting investors, this is getting into the territory of why it doesn't happen. If EA is going to have to track where it spends each development dollar on specific games and report unique financial results per title to an oversight commission to make sure Mirror's Edge investors aren't getting screwed, from their perspective that's a lot more trouble than it's worth when they can just offer stock in the company as a whole.
Some forecasts from Famitsu (FS = first shipment, TF = total forecasted sales)
[NDS] Pokemon Heart Gold/Soul Silver (Pokemon) FS 1.59M-2.21M / TF 3.40M-4.80M (Pokemon DP: FW 1.586M / LTD 5.686M)
[WII] Monster Hunter 3 (Capcom) FS 800K-1.00M / TF 800K-1.20M (MH2: FW 368K / LTD 571K)
[PSP] Tales of VS. (Bandai Namco Games) FS 180K-220K / TF 180K-260K (TotW RM2: FW 210K / LTD 317K)
[NDS] SaGa 2: Hihou Densetsu - Goddess of Destiny (Square Enix) FS 170K-250K / TF 260K-360K (Romancing SaGa PS2: FW 221K / LTD 455K)
[PS3] Tales of Vesperia (Bandai Namco Games) FS 130K-190K / TF 230K-330K (ToV 360: FW 101K / LTD 195K)
[PS2] SD Gundam G Generation Wars (Bandai Namco Games) FS 130K-180K / TF 130K-180K (GG Spirits: FW 231K / LTD 372K)
[NDS] Blood of Bahamut (Square Enix) FS 110K-160K / TF 130K-180K
[PS3] Kidou Senshi Gundam Senki Record U.C. 0081 (Bandai Namco Games) FS 90K-120K / TF 120K-180K (GM2: FW 162K / LTD 316K)
[NDS] Tingle's Love Balloon Trip (Nintendo) FS 80K-120K / TF 140K-180K (Rosy Rupeeland: FW 46K / LTD 235K)
[NDS] Super Robot Gakuen (Bandai Namco Games) FS 80K-110K / TF 80K-110K (SRT OG Saga: FW 90K / LTD 121K)
So there ya go on MH3, expecting 800k - 1.2m
Because they're asking us to solve their problem by tossing money down a pit.
Based upon what MH2 did?. I believe the series has grown a bit in popularity since then. Or is that just first month? That seems reasonable for first month to me.