Left 4 Dead 2
Valve's Gabe Newell has either come up with a stroke of funding genius; or a way to guarantee no new ideas ever; or a way to kill a company. When it comes to paying for game development, Gabe thinks that what, "would be much better (than standard publisher funding) 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, either this democratizes funding and ensures that gamers are involved (tick). Or it means that several thousand gamers all get to complain (with money) that PhantomCockRacer XIII is not as good as PCR XII... was at that point in development before they proceed to picket the bank.
Would you fund game development given the chance? And what say would you want? Tell us in the Forum.
See the full interview here at Good Game.
So, either this democratizes funding and ensures that gamers are involved (tick). Or it means that several thousand gamers all get to complain (with money) that PhantomCockRacer XIII is not as good as PCR XII... was at that point in development before they proceed to picket the bank.
Would you fund game development given the chance? And what say would you want? Tell us in the Forum.
See the full interview here at Good Game.
Read More Like This
Comments
Psalms 20 Jul 2009 16:33
1/4
If we're talking about something along the lines of discounted really early pre-orders then that sounds like a great idea. I don't know how practical it would be as a practise but I'm sure it would work for certain games, especially those with a dedicated fanbase. I don't think it would be as much a problem for new IP as for unproven developers. It also might also lead to spoilers being revealed as developers report progress to their investors.
It has it's issues but I'd really like to see it happen.
It has it's issues but I'd really like to see it happen.
Steviepunk 20 Jul 2009 20:08
2/4
It could work. If 100,000 'funders' pay $100 each, that would be $10,000,000.
But as Psalms has pointed out, it would take a developer with a good reputation to be able to get that kind of support. A discounted rate for the game itself (and make some in-game extras), then the potential of getting more than the $100 back again at a later date.
But as Psalms has pointed out, it would take a developer with a good reputation to be able to get that kind of support. A discounted rate for the game itself (and make some in-game extras), then the potential of getting more than the $100 back again at a later date.
more comments below our sponsor's message
W 21 Jul 2009 08:12
3/4
Yeah, pay crytek to produce another PC game. It is most likely that most game titles will not turn out great, and unless you have a IDE and game engine to work off of, it will cost a lot of money for each failure.
Open source game engines and IDE's are getting better. Once they get up to level, you can make new content for them (games) or pay to get them done, much cheaper than doing it all yourself.
The game industry should get on board with this, most businesses have to spend a lot of money on their own systems, or buy in others. A collective industry wide developed and improved open source platforms/IDE offers a much cheaper platform to concentrate on content. The issue is, that you can buy in cheap, but it is usually not an unreal or crytek level engine.
Open source game engines and IDE's are getting better. Once they get up to level, you can make new content for them (games) or pay to get them done, much cheaper than doing it all yourself.
The game industry should get on board with this, most businesses have to spend a lot of money on their own systems, or buy in others. A collective industry wide developed and improved open source platforms/IDE offers a much cheaper platform to concentrate on content. The issue is, that you can buy in cheap, but it is usually not an unreal or crytek level engine.
TimSpong 21 Jul 2009 10:24
4/4
While there's more on this particular debate (sure, get lots of people to invest a little but on the firm proviso that they get no say whatsoever in the game design itself)... I'm intrigued by:
Do people really, really care about spoilers? As in plot spoilers? I mean, I'm playing through 'Game-N' again at the moment. I know what's going to happen, but I'm trying to see how good I am at the actual game play. It's me against the game. I actually feel that if a game can be 'spoilt' by someone letting on to a plot element, then it's not much of a game. The 'play' aspect being the main point about gaming.
Then again, I'm still very much in the 'Oh please, video game stories? That's like opera lyrics in English. They should make sense, but they sort of get in the way of watching the big lass fall off the tower".
Cheers
Tim
Oh s**t, I made an opera reference on our gaming forum... erm, Boobs! Guns! Top Gear! Fit lasses!
Psalms wrote:
It also might also lead to spoilers being revealed as developers report progress to their investors.
Do people really, really care about spoilers? As in plot spoilers? I mean, I'm playing through 'Game-N' again at the moment. I know what's going to happen, but I'm trying to see how good I am at the actual game play. It's me against the game. I actually feel that if a game can be 'spoilt' by someone letting on to a plot element, then it's not much of a game. The 'play' aspect being the main point about gaming.
Then again, I'm still very much in the 'Oh please, video game stories? That's like opera lyrics in English. They should make sense, but they sort of get in the way of watching the big lass fall off the tower".
Cheers
Tim
Oh s**t, I made an opera reference on our gaming forum... erm, Boobs! Guns! Top Gear! Fit lasses!