I regard Gabe Newell with a sense of awe because when it comes to game designers, he ranks up there with some of the best in my humble opinion. However, he recently postulated on the future of the game industry as well as theorized on the possibility of games financed by their respective fan bases stating, "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." In essence, while this may not immediately be feasible, it does pose a refreshing prospect and concurrently proposing a troubling conundrum.
When all is said and done all gamers want at the end of the day is a great game to play. The problem however is it can be incessantly difficult to create an incentive, let alone a working build of a title that would make a fan base finance to see the game through to completion. Take for instance Left 4 Dead 2, the sequel to Valve's runaway apocalyptic hit Left 4 Dead. When the title first appeared at E3 this year, internet petitions and message boards were immediately aflame with insults and aggravations. People felt that Valve was betraying them, that Valve was abandoning support for the original, that the amount of people available to play would be too small when split between the two titles and that Left 4 Dead 2 should simply be released as an add-on or expansion for Left 4 Dead if Valve knew what was good for them. Eventually, Valve is seems satiated a certain amount of that population of their fan base by promising to continue support for L4D. However, Gamers feeling betrayed by Valve is a bit asinine and odds are some wouldn't have paid for Left 4 Dead 2 were it up for debate pre-development. Ultimately, and I'm looking in the direction of Activision here, if a company wants to produce a title and has the financial backing from a publisher as well as developers willing to continue creating then they can really do whatever they want. As a gamer, the loudest voice has and always will be the dollars and credit cards in our pockets.
To a different degree, Starcraft II has had LAN support removed from the title. This may not be important to some who don't mind playing over Battle.net, but to the 100,000 who have signed the petition to try and get it back into the game prior to it shipping (hopefully) in 2010, it's pretty important. Again though, it goes back to the very simple principle that it's a Blizzard title and while they have listened and done the best they can to appeal to their communities, they don't give them free run of the design process. That's simply not how it works. If you were trying to draw a picture and you had a crowd of 100k standing behind you screaming that the kitty's whiskers you were drawing are lopsided, it would get very hard to get anything done, let alone finish that drawing. Same basic principle here. Yes, I'm excited for Starcraft II and I will decisively pick up the game when it is released, despite having signed the petition asking for LAN not because I'm upset about a lack of LAN but because I don't want to miss out on what the rest of the package has to offer. But it boils down to financing. I didn't finance Blizzard or Starcraft II so the way I see it, in regards to signing the petition, I'm merely requesting that Blizzard takes a step back in the final stages of development and if they can eke LAN into there, then I'll be all the more happy. But if not, it won't rain on my parade. And even if it does, it's not like they're twisting my arm to buy it.
So what's the solution?
Community financed titles could work, if they have the financial support they need. If they don't, then they just end up a failed pipe dream or get picked up by a publisher who may demand to change the prospective game from its original incarnation. What's the average budget of most titles currently? Gabe Newell stated between 10 and 30 million dollars, so we'll use that figure. Hypothetically, let's say that the game is well thought out and has the possibility of being a really great title, something you, mom, grandma and all the neighborhood kids believe is really worthwhile. It would take 6 million gamers investing 5 dollars each to get the 30 million start up cost. However, I admit, that is at the far end of the spectrum. But how do developers appeal to gamers so they can share the potential financial burden and go from simple end-user to investor?
Zero Point Software showed off proof of concept in 2006 for Interstellar Marines. The game was supposedly going to be a completely community financed product. They sold memberships on their page and offered incentives to those who gave more money such as avatars, customizable properties in-game such as special patches / armor, as well as first dibs, so to speak, on demos, playable builds and free copies of the game in the proposed trilogy of titles which I further discussed here. While the trailers, teasers and then remastered works were something interesting to see, the problem became a lack of funds. Devoid of the money to pay the licensing fees for the engines they proposed to use for the games, ZPS was forced to file for bankruptcy per the last post on their website dated about a month ago. But what fascinates me is that those gamers who have invested their money and time in the community, when offered a refund for the money they had invested many, if not all, declined a refund. Personally, I think it was because they believe in the product they had been shown as many investors would. More cynically though, maybe they just didn't see a sinking ship. But recently on the ZPS twitter feed, there is supposedly an impending site update - perhaps bringing the lauded title back from the dead once more. It seems the Interstellar Marine community is waiting with baited breath. Here's hoping they aren't disappointed.
Maybe Zero Point Software was dreaming too big, maybe the team needs to be smaller and the project smaller or is it really so impossible to defeat the beasts that are the publishers? Cave Story was an independently developed title that is one of the few free games I have played that I would have honestly paid for and had I seen a proof of concept or had it pitched to me, odds are I could have seen my way clear to throw whatever money I could to invest. World of Goo is another independent title that had I seen on the PC though, I would have passed on, but on the Wii I still believe it was worth every point and penny. So maybe it is time for the developers to appeal to their fan base or potential fan base and ask for a donation if not a flat out investment. After all, if the game is a success I wouldn't mind a bit of a return on top of knowing that game sitting on my shelf was possible because of a bit of the money I threw into it. But it all boils down to a different kind of choice and that is what separates gamers from investors.
Gamers do invest in games whenever they shell out money for a title, a final product after it has been created, Investors do it based on what the game could be. But if a gamer chooses to invest their money into a game during the pre-production and development cycle, then do gamers get more of a say in what they see in their titles? I hope so because woe befall the developer that bites the hand that feeds them, so to speak. I'm not talking about financing another Ion Storm, I'm talking about one day a site posts a proof of concept, storyboards and the forms to make me, as a gamer, a fully-fledged investor so that if I put money into that game, I've just become apart of that titles creative process, albeit in some small way. But, who knows how long until we see a model that truly works.
In the meantime, what would you as a gamer like to invest in? What games would to play more of if you invested in it? Would you invest? Would you not? What games in recent memory can you think of that you would have paid to help be developed?
Every little bit does count and if a game is good enough, I have a feeling the gaming community would pay to see it completed. But, they won't just pay for anything - I have a feeling the world doesn't need another Army Men title.
--Andrew
good as gold.
Gaming Community Financing Future Titles?
I regard Gabe Newell with a sense of awe because when it comes to game designers, he ranks up there with some of the best in my humble opinion. However, he recently postulated on the future of the game industry as well as theorized on the possibility of games financed by their respective fan bases stating, "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." In essence, while this may not immediately be feasible, it does pose a refreshing prospect and concurrently proposing a troubling conundrum.
When all is said and done all gamers want at the end of the day is a great game to play. The problem however is it can be incessantly difficult to create an incentive, let alone a working build of a title that would make a fan base finance to see the game through to completion. Take for instance Left 4 Dead 2, the sequel to Valve's runaway apocalyptic hit Left 4 Dead. When the title first appeared at E3 this year, internet petitions and message boards were immediately aflame with insults and aggravations. People felt that Valve was betraying them, that Valve was abandoning support for the original, that the amount of people available to play would be too small when split between the two titles and that Left 4 Dead 2 should simply be released as an add-on or expansion for Left 4 Dead if Valve knew what was good for them. Eventually, Valve is seems satiated a certain amount of that population of their fan base by promising to continue support for L4D. However, Gamers feeling betrayed by Valve is a bit asinine and odds are some wouldn't have paid for Left 4 Dead 2 were it up for debate pre-development. Ultimately, and I'm looking in the direction of Activision here, if a company wants to produce a title and has the financial backing from a publisher as well as developers willing to continue creating then they can really do whatever they want. As a gamer, the loudest voice has and always will be the dollars and credit cards in our pockets.
To a different degree, Starcraft II has had LAN support removed from the title. This may not be important to some who don't mind playing over Battle.net, but to the 100,000 who have signed the petition to try and get it back into the game prior to it shipping (hopefully) in 2010, it's pretty important. Again though, it goes back to the very simple principle that it's a Blizzard title and while they have listened and done the best they can to appeal to their communities, they don't give them free run of the design process. That's simply not how it works. If you were trying to draw a picture and you had a crowd of 100k standing behind you screaming that the kitty's whiskers you were drawing are lopsided, it would get very hard to get anything done, let alone finish that drawing. Same basic principle here. Yes, I'm excited for Starcraft II and I will decisively pick up the game when it is released, despite having signed the petition asking for LAN not because I'm upset about a lack of LAN but because I don't want to miss out on what the rest of the package has to offer. But it boils down to financing. I didn't finance Blizzard or Starcraft II so the way I see it, in regards to signing the petition, I'm merely requesting that Blizzard takes a step back in the final stages of development and if they can eke LAN into there, then I'll be all the more happy. But if not, it won't rain on my parade. And even if it does, it's not like they're twisting my arm to buy it.
So what's the solution?
Community financed titles could work, if they have the financial support they need. If they don't, then they just end up a failed pipe dream or get picked up by a publisher who may demand to change the prospective game from its original incarnation. What's the average budget of most titles currently? Gabe Newell stated between 10 and 30 million dollars, so we'll use that figure. Hypothetically, let's say that the game is well thought out and has the possibility of being a really great title, something you, mom, grandma and all the neighborhood kids believe is really worthwhile. It would take 6 million gamers investing 5 dollars each to get the 30 million start up cost. However, I admit, that is at the far end of the spectrum. But how do developers appeal to gamers so they can share the potential financial burden and go from simple end-user to investor?
Zero Point Software showed off proof of concept in 2006 for Interstellar Marines. The game was supposedly going to be a completely community financed product. They sold memberships on their page and offered incentives to those who gave more money such as avatars, customizable properties in-game such as special patches / armor, as well as first dibs, so to speak, on demos, playable builds and free copies of the game in the proposed trilogy of titles which I further discussed here. While the trailers, teasers and then remastered works were something interesting to see, the problem became a lack of funds. Devoid of the money to pay the licensing fees for the engines they proposed to use for the games, ZPS was forced to file for bankruptcy per the last post on their website dated about a month ago. But what fascinates me is that those gamers who have invested their money and time in the community, when offered a refund for the money they had invested many, if not all, declined a refund. Personally, I think it was because they believe in the product they had been shown as many investors would. More cynically though, maybe they just didn't see a sinking ship. But recently on the ZPS twitter feed, there is supposedly an impending site update - perhaps bringing the lauded title back from the dead once more. It seems the Interstellar Marine community is waiting with baited breath. Here's hoping they aren't disappointed.
Maybe Zero Point Software was dreaming too big, maybe the team needs to be smaller and the project smaller or is it really so impossible to defeat the beasts that are the publishers? Cave Story was an independently developed title that is one of the few free games I have played that I would have honestly paid for and had I seen a proof of concept or had it pitched to me, odds are I could have seen my way clear to throw whatever money I could to invest. World of Goo is another independent title that had I seen on the PC though, I would have passed on, but on the Wii I still believe it was worth every point and penny. So maybe it is time for the developers to appeal to their fan base or potential fan base and ask for a donation if not a flat out investment. After all, if the game is a success I wouldn't mind a bit of a return on top of knowing that game sitting on my shelf was possible because of a bit of the money I threw into it. But it all boils down to a different kind of choice and that is what separates gamers from investors.
Gamers do invest in games whenever they shell out money for a title, a final product after it has been created, Investors do it based on what the game could be. But if a gamer chooses to invest their money into a game during the pre-production and development cycle, then do gamers get more of a say in what they see in their titles? I hope so because woe befall the developer that bites the hand that feeds them, so to speak. I'm not talking about financing another Ion Storm, I'm talking about one day a site posts a proof of concept, storyboards and the forms to make me, as a gamer, a fully-fledged investor so that if I put money into that game, I've just become apart of that titles creative process, albeit in some small way. But, who knows how long until we see a model that truly works.
In the meantime, what would you as a gamer like to invest in? What games would to play more of if you invested in it? Would you invest? Would you not? What games in recent memory can you think of that you would have paid to help be developed?
Every little bit does count and if a game is good enough, I have a feeling the gaming community would pay to see it completed. But, they won't just pay for anything - I have a feeling the world doesn't need another Army Men title.
--Andrew
good as gold.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment