You Steam The Future?

[BlueWolf72]

In a recent interview ABC TV?s Good Game, Valve boss Gabe Newell says Valve wants to let the Steam community fund future game development.
Valve shocked the world with Steam and Gabe is considering a way for you to pay upfront as a community for the game you would play.?? Imagine paying $30.00 dollars for for another Half-Life, or maybe Opposing Force 2 would you do it?

?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.?

Inside Valve Software Interview

 

[xdrive]

I would certainly put some money up for development of a game as long as i know for sure it wont be a flop. I would put my trust in valve.

 

[BlueWolf72]

I agree xdrive but I would be in a pickle, paying the 30 bucks giving my input and having an idea how the game would end. I am one of those who wants to play not understanding anything. However, making money on 30 bucks sounds cool. Lets see how Gabe pulls this off.

 

[Barnz]

Like I said in other thread, I'm in.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

So what we become Shareholders in the game except we have no say whatsoever?
I'd consider doing it for games that are unlikely to flop the downside is that they'll probably won't need fans financing them.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

I assume he means this for small indie developers to begin with. I think he's coming from a direction where he wants small developers to have the freedom to develop an idea without the publishers constantly looking over their shoulder. Budgets for huge games probably aren't going to work prior that way I suspect!

What I would say is that if I were to pay for a concept before development, I would like more involvement than just an owner of a copy upon release. You are kind of an investor and there should further incentives to get involved since you are taking an unnecessary risk.

 

[Eejit]

I agree xdrive but I would be in a pickle, paying the 30 bucks giving my input and having an idea how the game would end. I am one of those who wants to play not understanding anything. However, making money on 30 bucks sounds cool. Lets see how Gabe pulls this off.

Where do you get that idea from?

 

[BlueWolf72]

The idea of a community paying for the building a game. So if I am putting my money and ideas (for example) I would have a idea how the game would play and end. If the idea is just give Valve money from the community and get a game and some money at the end so be it but I was just thinking they might ask for your investment and ideas. Again I could be wrong...

 

[Eejit]

I imagine it's more about gameplay ideas than story.

 

[Mutley]

It's a tricky one, very good idea to but just as hard to execute.

You are paying for a game that you have no idea about, if it would be good or anything like the prequels.

What happens if it sucks?

And why should the people who fund it have to buy it again?

 

[Avoidist]

I imagine the gameplay ideas would be the key that would lure the investors to the game in the first place. The way I picture it there would be little more incentive than early playtesting.

 

[Nibwoddle]

I just watched this on television, and I must say it's a brilliant idea. From such a great company too, I think this could work incredibly well.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Typical Valve being very sketchy with the details. How much would we be ask to invest? Do we get any say on the development of the game? If so how do you stop retards with stupid ideas investing in the game to get their idea in the game. How do i know that the studio won't go bust, if it's a very small developer i don't have much confidence.

Overall i fail to see what the advantage of this is to me. Gabe says we may get a return that's not good enough you don't see shareholders investing to be told you may get a return, they expect profit.

The way i see it is if you make good games then you should make enough to be able to pay for the development yourself. Strong sales show that the game was well received and usually people will want more and you should have enough profit to make it.

 

[Kyorisu]

Wait people actually watch GG? Holy crap. That show is awful.

 

[Sloth]

The way I first imagined it was that investors "pre-buy" a copy of the game a bloody long time in advance - perhaps with an extra few dollars and some extras attached.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

The way I first imagined it was that investors "pre-buy" a copy of the game a bloody long time in advance - perhaps with an extra few dollars and some extras attached.

That's pre-purchasing which we already have. The way Gabe talks about it it does sound like he wants us to invest in the actual game not just buying it early.

 

[Lizardizzle]

I'd gladly throw 10 bucks at gabe to help with their game.

 

[MFL]

This reminds me of all the past discussions on whether or not gamers deserve anything from the developers of the games they play. Heh.

 

[MJ12]

I am confused, it sounds sketchy. Why would I want non-game developers pushing through game decisions? Lets face it, most gamers do not necessarily have great ideas..

 

[ellimanest]

Lets face it, most gamers do not necessarily have great ideas..

True, but I think ideas sent in would be filtered, and only the good ones would be used. We know Valve have great taste already, what with the exsisting games, its just us giving them inspiration really.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

True, but I think ideas sent in would be filtered, and only the good ones would be used. We know Valve have great taste already, what with the exsisting games, its just us giving them inspiration really.

See that's what i don't understand. Right now we can already send our ideas and if they are any good they may get some consideration. I still don't see the advantage of someone investing in the development of the game to someone buying the final game at launch.
I honestly wish Valve would be more clear instead of coming out with half assed ideas without an explanation.

 

[Au-heppa]

The idea of a community paying for the building a game. So if I am putting my money and ideas (for example) I would have a idea how the game would play and end.

Wow. That's a really awful. Gabe doesn't really suggest that your ideas would go into the game. He's quoting what the gamer would say "Hey, I really like this idea you have." as in "I really like the game you are making."

I am confused, it sounds sketchy. Why would I want non-game developers pushing through game decisions? Lets face it, most gamers do not necessarily have great ideas..

Agreed.

True, but I think ideas sent in would be filtered, and only the good ones would be used. We know Valve have great taste already, what with the exsisting games, its just us giving them inspiration really.

How is that any different from the present. A lot of people are already sending their ideas to developers.

 

[Apocalypse89]

Wow. That's a really awful. Gabe doesn't really suggest that your ideas would go into the game. He's quoting what the gamer would say "Hey, I really like this idea you have." as in "I really like the game you are making."

That's pretty much how I understood it. You pretty much buy a game way in advance, knowing that the money is invested into development. Any ideas you send would just be suggestions, like they are now.

It's interesting, but I'm not sure how well it would work. Outside of small independent games, I can't see developers abandoning a publisher in favor of it, which defeats the whole point.

 

[Bluestrike]

Very doubtfull this works,
Perhaps initially when people are naive but once a few failed titles have passed peole will be alot less likely giving their money away for nothing in return.
Supporting one title might be manageble but it isnt supposed to stop there is it

Not mentioning dissapointents in games that did get finished.

Hey online distribution would also result in cheaper games removing the middle man (store).

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Hey online distribution would also result in cheaper games removing the middle man (store).

It hasn't so far. Digital Distribution is still just as expensive if not more expensive than retail. It's the reason i've ditched buying games on Steam and gone back to retail.

 

[Paulaner]

Digital Distribution is still just as expensive if not more expensive than retail.

^^^^ This.
For me, digital distribution is often more expensive than retail. Which is kind of crazy.

 

[L3N!N]

Imagine paying $30.00 dollars for for another Half-Life, or maybe Opposing Force 2 would you do it?

I seriously don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that if enough people pump money into Valve and shout "We want [insert game here]!" then Valve will do it?

I'm doubting that's it. Talk about a sentence that totally corrupts the main idea of the whole article.

Can somebody please explain? I'm at a loss because of this.

 

[Laivasse]

I think it's an interesting idea. Everyone knows that the increasingly huge budgets which are required for game development are something of a roadblock to innovation. The theoretical payoff, which some of you are having difficulty envisioning, would be that developers are freed up to experiment with different sorts of games which people are interested in seeing released, rather than guaranteed moneymakers alone. I doubt there would be much creative input from these 'community investors', but rather they'd see the pitch from the devs - design docs, tech demos, presentations or whatever - and then decide whether or not to contribute based on its strength, leaving the devs to do whatever they want.

Which is where most of the problems lie. On the developers' part, I'm sure a large part of the appeal of this idea would be that they become less answerable to their investors. What recourse would we have if the game doesn't even get released? Or if it's nothing like what was promised? Then there's the question of what games would this model be suitable for, and what companies? This kind of thing is a bit pointless for a company like Valve, who clearly don't NEED us to invest in order for them to be able to produce quality games - but if the people were to be investing in games from smaller, less established companies then how are they supposed to ensure that due diligence is done on their money? Blind faith?

All in all, an intriguing concept but it just seems like there would be far too much trust involved on the part of the small-time community investors. Sadly, I suspect that developers would end up wanting to get the benefits they get from investors while taking the shortcuts they're used to taking with customers.

 

[Lobster]

I can certainly think of a couple of cases where this sort of thing would work, take the recent release of the remade Monkey Island for instance, alot of people started asking for other lucasarts titles, such as Day of the Tentacle to have the same treatment, pehaps a system for sort of Preordering a game that doesnt exist yet, and if enough do it, it gets made, and if you preorder and it doesnt get made, the preorder simply gets cancelled and you dont lose anything.

It would take alot of logistical stuff though, i mean i could see alot of whining from people who didnt really get the idea. And if the system was faulty, you could end up with a serious problem on your hands.

 

[Paulaner]

pehaps a system for sort of Preordering a game that doesnt exist yet, and if enough do it, it gets made, and if you preorder and it doesnt get made, the preorder simply gets cancelled and you dont lose anything.

OtherWorld Creations did this sort of thing with Chill RPG. Too bad they failed.

 

[NeoNight]

Sounds like an ingenious idea on valves part, with players world wide helping fund the game, they could potentially have no financial issues when it comes to making new and great titles!

 

[dfc05]

I don't know, this seems strange. I just keep imagining people throwing money at 12 more years of non-development of Duke Nukem Forever .

 

[BlueWolf72]

I don't know, this seems strange. I just keep imagining people throwing money at 12 more years of non-development of Duke Nukem Forever .

That game wont be made via valve so you have nothing to worry about.

 

[dfc05]

That game wont be made via valve so you have nothing to worry about.

True, but still, I'd personally prefer to pay for product after it's finished. I don't mind other people investing in games that I might buy in the future though .

 

[Absinthe]

It's all well and good to say "Valve would be a safe investment!", but what about other developers? Upstarts, time-takers, those with rocky game histories. How does this kind of system play out with those companies?

It all seems rather pie-in-the-sky to me.

 

[63]

That game wont be made via valve so you have nothing to worry about.

I seriously doubt that Gabe intends Valve to be funded by the community...

 

[BlueWolf72]

I seriously doubt that Gabe intends Valve to be funded by the community...

Well lets hope Gabe tells us what his plans are. I might have an update soon!

 

[hool10]

Are they asking the community for donations and, I quote Doug Lombardi here, "just trusting them" to create a Valve product? They didn't say donations rather but "investing". I think Valve is hurting for money because I can't think of anything else.

If Valve wants "investors" then they need to go from a privately held corporation to a public corp and then the shareholders would have some say over the future of Valve.

The entire interview was good but I can't believe what has been going on at Valve lately.

*Well with the way the stock market is doing, not such a great idea. This is absurd though. They make the game, we buy the game, not in reverse order.

 

[QUINTIX256]

DEBT IS DUMB

I'm a Dave Ramsey nut. I am against lending/borrowing money, no matter how small. I am also ambivalent when it comes to preorders, especially preorders for before the game is even in development. However, I am all for donations.

I will use closure as an example.
http://www.closuregame.com/​

Very promising title. If, say, 10,000 people got behind it, I'm sure it will do great.

 

[63]

I'm a Dave Ramsey nut. I am against lending/borrowing money, no matter how small. I am also ambivalent when it comes to preorders, especially preorders for before the game is even in development. However, I am all for donations.

I will use closure as an example.
http://www.closuregame.com/​

Very promising title. If, say, 10,000 people got behind it, I'm sure it will do great.

I couldn't play the game, the 'Begin' button didn't work.