Fan-Funding? Yeah or Wow, you're dumb.

robotbebop

This may belong in D&D, but it's more game related so I'm posting here for starters. Also, please don't shoot me if this thread has already been started. I would prefer to be bullet less.

Gabe Newell - obviously best known as managing director and co-founder of Valve Software - recently suggested in an interview that fans should be invited to invest in a game project to provide funding, Effectively cutting out the publisher.

From Kotaku

Gabe Newell wrote:

One of the areas that I am super interested in right now is how we can do financing from the community. So right now, what typically happens is you have this budget - it needs to be huge, it has to be $10m - $30m, and it has to be all available at the beginning of the project. 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.'

So move financing from something that occurs between a publisher and a developer… Instead have it be something where funding is coming out of community for games and game concepts they really like.

The idea has generated a lot of internet commentator dialog, in only the form of extremes as is normally the case.

The common talking points in support -

- Gamers want to be a part of a project, and will invest to have their say heard. (This is potentially fraught with problems, see below.)

Uhm... I think that's it. The internet is not very positive in the Digg and random blog comment areas.

Here are some common talking points against -

- Gamers are cheap, and only want to pay for a released game.
- Supposedly 2/3 games never see release, so it's a very risky investment. I'm not sure this is an issue in this kind of fan funding.
- As above, Gamers want to be a part of the project and will invest to have their say heard. However, said gamers may also have unrealistic expectations and may not be happy when their stupid game ideas are denied.
- This would only work for indie games. Which, honestly, I don't see as a real problem. I honestly think that this would be an immensely great opportunity for indie development. There are lots of Pat Reynolds types out there who would just support anything indie to be indie and feel superior to the Halo-loving plebeians.

So, I think those are pretty much givens. I would like to ask that if you are going to make a similar argument listed above, please expand on it in a bit of detail.

EDIT: OTHER GIVENS - "They could do pre-orders, or I would invest for X company to make X game/sequel"

My take --

I would like to see a system similar to kickstarter. However, instead of people just pledging arbitrary amounts of cash they pledge their stake in percentage of the required budget. So, say your game needs about $80K USD. People come to you site, hear your story and decide to pledge X percent. So if you only had two people pledge 50% each, you'd be set. Once the budget has been reached, you send out contracts, and collect investment dough.

There are definitely some legal issues with this, so paper work would probably have to be physically mailed and etc. Now, IANAL but the main things these investors need to realize are

A) This is an investment, investments come with risks. There is a chance that they could lose their investments. (This does not protect you from investment fraud however.)

and

They can have their say heard, but they cannot withdraw their investment if you say No to whatever stupid idea they have. You are offering an investment in your product, not a custom game.

The game goes gold, the programmers sleep, the game goes to replication and all is merry, what happens now? You start dispensing monthly cuts of your sweet, sweet game money. Or... avoiding calls and changing you identity if your game flops.

That's just a basic jist of it all. If people want to come in post release I guess that could be hairy, but if the investors can work it out among themselves amicably it should be fine.

The above system is inspired by a co-worker of mine who plays poker. The guy has it down to such a science that he makes good deals of money off of it. I know for a fact he's not a bullshitter. Basically, some summers he goes down to Vegas with a wad of cash, some of which is staked by his buddies. They know that he generates a return on a certain percentage so it's a win win for everybody.

I don't see how such a system couldn't work here, it might take a bit of networking to do but it sure seems feasible.

ANYway.. TL;DR - Gabe Newell says - HEEY, Got an idea, let's have the fans pay for our game! Wait, is this feasible or is he just talking out of his ass?

Bartholamue

Why hasn't Valve made Half-Life 2 Episode 3 yet?

robotbebop

Because we cheap gamers won't pay for it! Time to contribute to the war effort, son!

Darlan

I agree that this kind of thing probably wouldn't work, but speaking of "WoW" in the title, there's a game that shows there's an audience of gamers who will dump shit tons of money into one game.

Get the right marketing to the right people...

Zerokku

RainbowDespair already summed up my entire opinion back in the VG Sales thread -

RainbowDespair wrote: »

My main problem with the investment idea is that the games I would be most passionate about investing in are probably the least likely to pay back my investment. I'd be happy to invest $100 into getting US versions of Siren 2, Summon Night 3, Retro Game Challenge 2, Mother 3, a sequel to Mirror's Edge (although I've heard that's already been green lighted), another game from the guys who did Aquaria, and so on, but I'm not sure that any of those would be able to make back their money (which is probably why they haven't been done already).

Although it would probably be smart to invest in, say, Half Life 3, it's hard to get excited about it. HL3 will get made with or without my help.

LittleBoots

I dunno, I deffinitely don't think it will work in the current economic environment for sure. But in order to make any real judgement on it I'd have to see a sample community investment proposal (is that what's it's called?)

robotbebop

Zerokku wrote: »

RainbowDespair already summed up my entire opinion back in the VG Sales thread -

RainbowDespair wrote: »

My main problem with the investment idea is that the games I would be most passionate about investing in are probably the least likely to pay back my investment. I'd be happy to invest $100 into getting US versions of Siren 2, Summon Night 3, Retro Game Challenge 2, Mother 3, a sequel to Mirror's Edge (although I've heard that's already been green lighted), another game from the guys who did Aquaria, and so on, but I'm not sure that any of those would be able to make back their money (which is probably why they haven't been done already).

Although it would probably be smart to invest in, say, Half Life 3, it's hard to get excited about it. HL3 will get made with or without my help.

There's no reason studios HAVE to have a really high budget. Shit, their entire budget doesn't have to come entirely from the community I guess. I think the main thing is that if you want to release a game and have it fan funded, you would have to spend a lot of your own time first networking and promoting. Get a real demo, game design and market research available.

It's silly to think that people would invest if a site was like "We are making a game, It will be like all your favorite JRPGs. Give us $100k to make it please. We know this game will succeed because people talk about it on forums like, all the time dude!"

EDIT: Possibly even toss people cool stuff for investing. Stuff that is desirable but not super expensive. That way people might say, "hey, i've given this company $20 bucks and I have a T-shirt and mouse pad. Probably less than I'd spend at the mall and I have a potential income source in 6-months to a year's time!"

EDITEDIT: changed "There's no reason studios have to have a minimum budget." to "There's no reason studios HAVE to have a really high budget" as the former statement directly contradicts my proposal. :oops:

Lurk

To be fair, small indie titles can get funding like this from pre-orders.

robotbebop

Lurk wrote: »

To be fair, small indie titles can get funding like this from pre-orders.

Ah, yes, a la World of Goo. The issue I have with this is that if shit happens, you're obligated to refund money you may have almost entirely spent already.

Kasanagi

I think it could work, but you have to think about the game publishing process a bit differently. The way I see it, the development team comes up with a presentation to show the community, just as they would a publisher (not unlike the hot new trailer for that mechwarrior game). The steam community sees said presentation (which can also be playable, as many of them often are) and then the community can decide whether to invest or not. It doesn't have to be a large amount per person either. $10, with enough people investing, can be enough. As gabe says in the interview, this would eliminate most, if not all of the "sure thing" guesswork that most game development suffers from now, where games that get greenlighted are only given the go ahead because they're in some way or form guaranteed to have a market. I see it a lot like the mod community for source is now, where most of the big-name mods started small and with few features/content, but as people donated or contributed, they grew and eventually became retail entities (see Garry's Mod, and Counter-strike).

I dunno, I've been in plenty of situations where potential games have come up and forum-goers have said "I will pay money to see that made" or something similar. Now we can put our money where our text is.

Slicer

Lurk wrote: »

To be fair, small indie titles can get funding like this from pre-orders.

I really get the impression that this is what Gabe was talking about. The indie developers that struggle to get their neat idea out there, not Valve's latest guaranteed best seller.

robotbebop

Kasanagi wrote: »

I think it could work, but you have to think about the game publishing process a bit differently. The way I see it, the development team comes up with a presentation to show the community, just as they would a publisher (not unlike the hot new trailer for that mechwarrior game). The steam community sees said presentation (which can also be playable, as many of them often are) and then the community can decide whether to invest or not. It doesn't have to be a large amount per person either. $10, with enough people investing, can be enough. As gabe says in the interview, this would eliminate most, if not all of the "sure thing" guesswork that most game development suffers from now, where games that get greenlighted are only given the go ahead because they're in some way or form guaranteed to have a market. I see it a lot like the mod community for source is now, where most of the big-name mods started small and with few features/content, but as people donated or contributed, they grew and eventually became retail entities (see Garry's Mod, and Counter-strike).

I dunno, I've been in plenty of situations where potential games have come up and forum-goers have said "I will pay money to see that made" or something similar. Now we can put our money where our text is.

Yeah, exactly.. the real trick for an investor is to be able to spot a person with a Big Idea! or somebody who has really done their homework.

Lurk

robotbebop wrote: »

Lurk wrote: »

To be fair, small indie titles can get funding like this from pre-orders.

Ah, yes, a la World of Goo. The issue I have with this is that if shit happens, you're obligated to refund money you may have almost entirely spent already.

They wouldn't. If the pre-order would signify a share of the total product (as newell says), they wouldn't be obligated to return anything because it would be an investment with its risks. The pre-order cost would be fairly high then, an indie game that would cost 20 at release would cost 60 or more to invest in.

Aiserou

I don't know about bona-fide investment like they are talking about, especially for AAA games. That kind of deal with that many people will probably just leave a bitter taste in everybodies mouth.

I would like to point out what Mount&Blade did, though. Once they had a playable version of the game that they could show and say "Hey, this is a real thing we have here and it could possibly work" they started offering pre-orders for like $5* , with guaranteed beta access and a copy of the game once it came out, no matter what the price becomes. As time went on, they gradually upped the pre-order price by like $5 increments. Sure enough, once the game came out at retail (for what, $40?) those who had pre-ordered didn't have to pay a cent.

I think this was a genius move for an indie dev. He got to work on his game(if I recall he went full-time while it was still pretty early in development), still put food on his table, fans were happy with early access, early access inspired a tremendous mod community(which is good for any game), AND he got a retail product out on the shelves.

I think this is a fantastic method for indies that are serious about what they want to do. Hopefully it wouldn't lead to idiots burning out once they realize how hard making a game is and leaving their customers hanging.

*Some of my prices may be off, that was a long time ago, all I know is I paid a lot less for M&B than I should have.

robotbebop

Lurk wrote: »

robotbebop wrote: »

Lurk wrote: »

To be fair, small indie titles can get funding like this from pre-orders.

Ah, yes, a la World of Goo. The issue I have with this is that if shit happens, you're obligated to refund money you may have almost entirely spent already.

They wouldn't. If the pre-order would signify a share of the total product (as newell says), they wouldn't be obligated to return anything because it would be an investment with its risks. The pre-order cost would be fairly high then, an indie game that would cost 20 at release would cost 60 or more to invest in.

Then how is that any different from what we're talking about? Gabe originally said investors receive a full copy of the game on top of their returns.

Evangir

I could see this working for niche genres with rabid fanbases. Space Sims for example. The genre definitely doesn't have the mainstream appeal to receive any publisher interest, but the fans are absolutely crazy for them, and continue to modernize the ancient engines (like the Freespace 2 engine) of their favourite 10+ year old games.

Drake

Aiserou wrote: »

I don't know about bona-fide investment like they are talking about, especially for AAA games. That kind of deal with that many people will probably just leave a bitter taste in everybodies mouth.

I would like to point out what Mount&Blade did, though. Once they had a playable version of the game that they could show and say "Hey, this is a real thing we have here and it could possibly work" they started offering pre-orders for like $5* , with guaranteed beta access and a copy of the game once it came out, no matter what the price becomes. As time went on, they gradually upped the pre-order price by like $5 increments. Sure enough, once the game came out at retail (for what, $40?) those who had pre-ordered didn't have to pay a cent.

I think this was a genius move for an indie dev. He got to work on his game(if I recall he went full-time while it was still pretty early in development), still put food on his table, fans were happy with early access, early access inspired a tremendous mod community(which is good for any game), AND he got a retail product out on the shelves.

I think this is a fantastic method for indies that are serious about what they want to do. Hopefully it wouldn't lead to idiots burning out once they realize how hard making a game is and leaving their customers hanging.

*Some of my prices may be off, that was a long time ago, all I know is I paid a lot less for M&B than I should have.

I missed out on that. I remember reading about this model on the guys webpage, when the cost to get in was still fairly cheap. I thought about it for a few moments, then decided against it. Now I'm probably going to jump on the current Steam deal while I can, because everything I read about this game now makes me want it hard. If given a similar opportunity now, with an equally interesting game, I'd probably jump on it.

Vegan

I can't see myself investing in a game because I rarely pay more than $10 for any game as it is. They would surely want more.

randombattle

This is a pretty silly idea because very very very few gamers have tons of disposable income to invest in a game.

Yeah who here can honestly say they have more then like 100 dollars to spend on a single game. Games cost a lot more then like 10k to make and if you were going to make it for that cheap anyway you wouldn't have much of a problem finding a publisher and whatnot.

I mean it works in theory but if you have no fans then no one will invest in your game anyway and if you already have fans you probably don't need them to invest because you have a big enough market to get normal investing.


This all seems pretty silly to me. All this boils down to is super pre-ordering..

UnbreakableVow

So I just compiled a list of the games I plan to buy for the rest of the year.

Right now, the total amount spent will be $720, plus tax. Reviews pending on a couple other games, it jumps to $880 plus tax.

As much as video games are a passion of mine and something I'd love to support, well, I'm already spending an obscene amount of cash on them as is. I cannot subsist on electronic entertainment alone, and I'm fairly sure that most of the general population is the same way.

Lurk

I wouldn't mind slamming down a hundred dollars as a possible investment for long term game from an indie title. People spend more on lottery tickets and would probably get less.

Hevach

Investing in individual projects like this isn't really a good way to invest - a lot of games don't get finished, or just plain suck. It's not just games, either, almost nobody puts their own private money directly into individual projects like this, unless it's their own (and even then, most hit up every venture capital source they can before putting their own dick on the block). Newell's talking about getting fan investment at the beginning of the project, when you're lucky to have so much as concept art. How many games can you honestly call one way or the other based on pre-development concept art? By the time we hear about many games, there's already early screenshots, and it's still pretty hard to gauge until previews and early reviews start rolling in the last few weeks before release.

The first major company that tries this will cause a shitstorm in the financial world. Every broker, accountant, or chucklefuck with a TV show will say it's too risky of an investment for the numbers involved, put your money where it belongs in a stable diverse portfolio, the developers themselves (even the most reliable names in the industry don't hit a home run every time - investing in an individual game is high risk, investing in the developer is likely far less risky, as they'll have other games in the pipe), or in a venture capital firm that funds the developer (in doing so gaining the protection from that project failing that comes with the firm's diverse investment in many projects).

A lot of people will take that for what it is, and probably not invest. A lot more will take it entirely wrong and say OMG OMG OMG STOP BUYING THEIR GAEMS TV SED SO. And the moment a game gets player funding and then underperforms, or worse yet fails entirely, it'll effectively doom the concept, a lot of the people who lose money as a result will be completely blindsided and not see it coming, or understand why they just paid for a game that'll never come out now.

Frem

I was reminded of this blog post.

It basically says that even investing $50 in a project pays for perhaps 20 minutes of a developer's time (though possibly a lot more for an indie dev). This does not bode well for the investor's great opinions on how the game should work.

Khavall

I'm glad Mount+Blade came up, because that seems like the way this would work.

If I'm hearing about a small upstart game that sounds like something I'd really like to play, I'd pay $5 for the initial cost. Once it gets a playable super-pre-alpha, 10 or 15 would be nice to see where it is and get the final for free. Then when it gets to alpha, 25. Beta, 40. Release, 50.

It would be an interesting thing to see, depending on what they're looking for. I would've paid $50 for Prince of Persia after the reveal. I don't know if I would've paid much more, if any more.

I'd be pissed if I paid for a game that never came out. I'd be ok with paying for a game that didn't do too well financially, since I would still have the game. I'd be a little off-put paying for a game that I ended up not liking that didn't make much money.

Either way, it's not completely horrible as a idea.

kedinik

This model could succeed, but it would be about making the investors feel personally accomplished for backing a risky game that comes out and kicks ass, not about getting a great return on their $20.

LittleBoots

I'm pretty sure there would have to be some legal fine print to protect either the developer or investor from a "game that never comes out". Meaning: I'm pretty sure if Developer A takes investments on the premise that they will use said investments to make a game to sell at market, then never produce said game investors would have grounds to sue, unless there was some legal fine print that took into account the risk of Developer A failing to deliver a marketable product. In which case the investor couldn't say they were surprised unless they were just irresponsible and didn't read said legal fine print.

Honestly this idea just sounds like venture capitalism but instead of coming from a few sources with large amount of funds it comes from many sources with smaller amounts of funds. Yes, it would be risky.. but that's just the nature of it.

Darmak

Khavall wrote: »

I'm glad Mount+Blade came up, because that seems like the way this would work.

If I'm hearing about a small upstart game that sounds like something I'd really like to play, I'd pay $5 for the initial cost. Once it gets a playable super-pre-alpha, 10 or 15 would be nice to see where it is and get the final for free. Then when it gets to alpha, 25. Beta, 40. Release, 50.

It would be an interesting thing to see, depending on what they're looking for. I would've paid $50 for Prince of Persia after the reveal. I don't know if I would've paid much more, if any more.

I'd be pissed if I paid for a game that never came out. I'd be ok with paying for a game that didn't do too well financially, since I would still have the game. I'd be a little off-put paying for a game that I ended up not liking that didn't make much money.

Either way, it's not completely horrible as a idea.

Mount & Blade is what I thought of when I first read the thread title, or perhaps Cortex Command or Minecraft.

Roland_tHTG

It would be very hard for me to "invest" in a game I hadn't played, much less in one that hasn't even been made. There are certainly exceptions, such as my preorder of NS2, but those would be very few and far between.

kedinik

I would invest pocket-money in a conceptually interesting game attached to a developer with a good track record.

LaCabra

Gabe Newell likes to dream.

CmdPrompt

kedinik wrote: »

This model could succeed, but it would be about making the investors feel personally accomplished for backing a risky game that comes out and kicks ass, not about getting a great return on their $20.

Yeah, I agree. I'd be more than happy to put money towards supporting people like Toady than attempting to make money back by investing in a business. For that reason, indie devs can and should try business models other than relying on donations or only making money once the game is fully finished.

Szechuanosaurus

My personal opinion is, if a company who's business it is to assess game proposals and prototypes for the express purpose of investing in them - companies who have robust knowledge and experience in investing in games development - won't invest in a game, then I'd be a fucking moron to throw my own money at said game.

So basically, any game that seeks investment from an uneducated, inexperienced public is most probably doing so because they've been turned-down by the experts. Sure, you might end up investing in a game that you yourself would enjoy and like to see get made, but the odds are high that there is no way in hell that you'll make back your investment, never mind a profit and in the end the most you can hope for is to have paid an extremely high price tag for a very niche game.

If I want to invest in the games industry, my money is most likely going to work the hardest by buying shares in a publisher with a proven track record in backing chart topping games.

McAllen

Kasanagi wrote: »

I dunno, I've been in plenty of situations where potential games have come up and forum-goers have said "I will pay money to see that made" or something similar. Now we can put our money where our text is.

Most people who say this are exaggerating and liars. Just one of those forum cliches that mindless drones use when they want to express their opinion in the most trite way possible.

And I agree with people who say that 10 dollars is the right amount. Millions would have to buy this game, and if I have to contribute 100 dollars because of some sick rule then I'd rather let the company have the trouble and restrictions that apply when signing up with a publisher.

Really, I wouldn't even get my 10 bucks back from Duke Nukem Forever, I just see major scandals when it comes to this idea. It really just seems like a "get rich quick" scheme that people would try to exploit.

HyperAquaBlast

But what if the game sucks?

Video gamers love to whine and so do investors. Now put those two together and how much whining can lead to somekind of maybe legal matter? Kids be suing up the ying yang cause their investment is shit.





I'm not a lawyer but I play one on mexcian public tv.

darleysam

kedinik wrote: »

I would invest pocket-money in a conceptually interesting game attached to a developer with a good track record.

I think what you mean is "har har har gabe newell is dumb and likes cake!"

Actually I think this could be a good idea, and people are reading this the wrong way.

KiTA

I've been wanting to see how much G&T would charge for a fan made Asheron's Call ad on the main page. Does that count as fan funding?

(Come to think of it, didn't the AC fanbase also do a print ad for AC years ago?)

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is Turbine sucks at advertising. :P

Monger

LaCabra wrote: »

Gabe Newell likes to dream.

Steam was a pretty good dream, though.

Szechuanosaurus wrote: »

My personal opinion is, if a company who's business it is to assess game proposals and prototypes for the express purpose of investing in them - companies who have robust knowledge and experience in investing in games development - won't invest in a game, then I'd be a fucking moron to throw my own money at said game.

Keep in mind that a game publisher is weighing risk of whether a game might be marketable to an audience of X consumers that probably will exist at the time of release, such as to justify Y expenditure that a game developer needs to pursue nutty, whimsical idea Z. Newell is talking about a system where a bunch of people go "I am your audience, have some money." For huge, AAA, 3-6 year dev cycle blockbuster retail games, this isn't the most practical solution. For smaller niche titles that Executive VP of Sales Initiative Elroy Boondoggle is unaware there is minor, reliable, quality-starved audience? This is potentially a great system.

I really don't see any reason this wouldn't work outside of

McAllen wrote: »

I just see major scandals when it comes to this idea. It really just seems like a "get rich quick" scheme that people would try to exploit.

Axen

Darmak wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

I'm glad Mount+Blade came up, because that seems like the way this would work.

If I'm hearing about a small upstart game that sounds like something I'd really like to play, I'd pay $5 for the initial cost. Once it gets a playable super-pre-alpha, 10 or 15 would be nice to see where it is and get the final for free. Then when it gets to alpha, 25. Beta, 40. Release, 50.

It would be an interesting thing to see, depending on what they're looking for. I would've paid $50 for Prince of Persia after the reveal. I don't know if I would've paid much more, if any more.

I'd be pissed if I paid for a game that never came out. I'd be ok with paying for a game that didn't do too well financially, since I would still have the game. I'd be a little off-put paying for a game that I ended up not liking that didn't make much money.

Either way, it's not completely horrible as a idea.

Mount & Blade is what I thought of when I first read the thread title, or perhaps Cortex Command or Minecraft.

In Mount & Blade's case it helped that modders were able to add in a ass load of stuff right off the bat. Still I bought M&B for $5. Best five bucks I ever spent.

edit- I think for this to actually work the game would have to be a niche title. I can't at this moment think of a specific game, but I know there are some awesome niche titles out there that people would gladly pay to see a sequel made.

lgb

This would be absolutely perfect for homebrew releases, yes. Then certain stupid stupids wouldn't have to waste precious manhours not playing video games, figuring out whether this indie company is stealing from this indie group which both think you're a riot.

Okay, clearly no one is going to understand what that means.

McAllen

If there was some immediate retribution for your donation, like how the Mario and Resident Evil Marathon was all about donating to Child's Play and in return you got to interact with the people and there was evidence of there actions, I would be fine with it.

A Valve fund raiser could be something simple like 2 dollars for extra commentary in the Left 4 Dead campaigns, or something like that. Or can you not do that without having publisher interference? I can't help but feel like most of this would fit into micro-transactions.

cloudeagle

darleysam wrote: »

kedinik wrote: »

I would invest pocket-money in a conceptually interesting game attached to a developer with a good track record.

I think what you mean is "har har har gabe newell is dumb and likes cake!"

Actually I think this could be a good idea, and people are reading this the wrong way.

I still want to know why Gabe isn't reaching into his money bin and funding games himself instead of asking people to throw their money down a hole.

Also, not enough gamers will be passionate about game X for this to work at all. Few enough of us "vote with our dollars" as it stands now. Won't work.