Gamers should fund development - Valve

By Ellie Gibson Published 21 July, 2009

Then we'll end up with games we really like.

Valve bigwig Gabe Newell has suggested games might be a bit more interesting if gamers themselves were putting the money up.

"One of the areas that I am super interested in right now is how we can do financing from the community," he told ABC (as spotted by Kotaku).

At present, Newell explained, games require an investment of between USD 10 million and USD 30 million before development can even begin. "There's a huge amount of risk associated with those dollars and decisions have to be incredibly conservative," he said.

"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 other words, Newell wants to do away with the system of working out financial deals between developers and publishers. "Instead have it be something where funding is coming out of community for games and game concepts they really like."

If anyone wants to invest in Eurogamer's concept for a game set in an open-world Lewisham where you get to play as Wesley Snipes or Ben Fogle and train lions to fight Nazis, get in touch.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (117) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Tomo #1 3 years ago

    This is an interesting concept... think I could probably be tempted too. You'd need what... 500k people for a £5m game at a tenner each. That could work.

  • Valver #2 3 years ago

    The issue I can see with this idea, is if I give a game Dev £30 to fund their new idea, it could be 5-10 years before I see the finished product. And by then I could be married with kids and no interest/time for gaming.

  • Tomo #3 3 years ago

    Although I imagine it's immensely hard getting money out of the internets for something they have to wait two years for...

  • bad09 #4 3 years ago

    An interesting idea, kinda like those donations to hackers or webistes. It could work....

  • Max_Powers #5 3 years ago

    In the Netherlands we have a concept like this for music that works similar to what Gabe is suggesting. It's called Sellaband. [link url=http://www.sellaband.com.]http://www.sellaband.com.[/link] Although in the Sellaband concept the amount of money bands need to raise to take an album in production is EU 50.000,-

    I've alway wondered if that could work for games.

  • FireMonkey #6 3 years ago

    So you would end up with 1000's of investors, all of who would have their own thoughts about the game and what they want done with it. It's always hard enough to deal with a single investor / share holder let alone 1000's.

  • Gaol #7 3 years ago

    What a self-evidently stupid idea.

  • El-Dev #8 3 years ago

    Hmmmm, so I invest say £10 then pay £40 for the game and there is a chance at the end the Developer can turn round and say "We didn't make enough on this game, no dividends". I don't think so.

    Gamers do fund development, we pay for the games. If Devs can't make their margins work they need better management.

  • Domovoi #9 3 years ago

    I wonder if this is less about 'funding games so you decide what you want instead of the publisher' and more about 'when they pay in advance then at least those guys won't pirate it.'

  • Dan234 #10 3 years ago

    Valve can't get credit these days?

    The problem is we'll end up with Snakes in a Game.

  • jambii267 #11 3 years ago

    I'm sure lots of people would happily put money down for a Shenmue 3 or and Chrono 3.

  • bad09 #12 3 years ago

    "I'm sure lots of people would happily put money down for a Shenmue 3 or and Chrono 3."

    Exactly, how many games out there you want sequels to but sales etc. means you'll never see one? I know I have loads swimming around in my dreams. If someone said to me "hey bad09 I want to make G-Police 3, help me out" I may just do that.

    On the other hand El-Dev does make a very good argument against such a model, at the end of the day we do invest already.


  • Earlyflash #13 3 years ago

    I'm sure that they wouldn't expect you to pay for the game at the end of this process. If you invest you better see the damn thing for free...

  • bad09 #14 3 years ago

    Mind you it good be very dangerous and lead to worse raping than the current state of affairs in DLC. I can imagine it....

    "yeah, thanks for the investment....one thing though to do this thing we need more cash. You want this, more cash please etc, etc."

  • kangarootoo #15 3 years ago

    "The issue I can see with this idea, is if I give a game Dev £30 to fund their new idea, it could be 5-10 years before I see the finished product. And by then I could be married with kids and no interest/time for gaming."

    Buit isn't the point that you get actual money back on your investment. If all you got was a copy of the game, why take the risk of spending £30 before the game is made? What I read said you would get a copy of the game at the end as well as your return. But a "free" copy of a game alone is hardly the reason for investing in a title.

    And if you are married with kids, you might appreciate a royalty cheque from time to time from a wise investment. I wish I'd had £1000 invested in Half Life 2, or Steam, I'll tell you that for free.


    @Gaol

    "What a self-evidently stupid idea."

    Details man, details. This sort of community investment is by no means new. Quite why you think it can't apply to game development is curious. What makes games so unique in this world? Details.


    @El-Dev

    "Hmmmm, so I invest say £10 then pay £40 for the game and there is a chance at the end the Developer can turn round and say "We didn't make enough on this game, no dividends". I don't think so."

    Again, you might equally say the same thing about investing in stock or investing in a new company (which is really all this is). If that kind of business risk is not for you, or anyone else, then that is absolutely fine. But I think people need to stop acting like this is some kind of new hair brained idea that is full of holes. It is a pretty tried and tested model. The ONLY new thing about this, is its application to game development. Of course there are risks, but risk applies to all investment. If there were no risk, it would just be free money and everyone would do it.


    "Valve can't get credit these days?"

    I think Gabe is speaking rather more broadly than just about Valve's own business. I think he is talking about an industry wide model. I would imagine Valve themselves don't need credit.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 21/07/09 @ 09:04

  • chicknstu #16 3 years ago

    So... gamers give you money... and you give them a game? Sounds familiar... that's what happens in the shops!

    Oh, wait... apart form in the shops you get to play it as soon as you get home!

    I like the concept, but practically... could it ever really work?!?

  • kangarootoo #17 3 years ago

    What is wrong with you people. Read the bloody words!

    "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.'"

    A return on that product AND a copy of the game. A return on the product. Do you hear? A return!! A return on your investment. Investment!!

    Gaaahhhhh!


    "I like the concept, but practically... could it ever really work?!?"

    Well I dunno, how about we ask the guys down at NASDAQ and see what they think?

  • swisstony #18 3 years ago

    gamers do fund development.

  • funkymarlon #19 3 years ago

    Duke Nukem - Forever.

  • El-Dev #20 3 years ago

    "Again, you might equally say the same thing about investing in stock or investing in a new company (which is really all this is). If that kind of business risk is not for you, or anyone else, then that is absolutely fine. But I think people need to stop acting like this is some kind of new hair brained idea that is full of holes. It is a pretty tried and tested model. The ONLY new thing about this, is its application to game development. Of course there are risks, but risk applies to all investment. If there were no risk, it would just be free money and everyone would do it. "

    If I buy stock I may not receive a dividend but I do own shares in the company, if I invest in a new game what really do I get? I can't sell my investment on and as has been said previously what's to stop the developers looking more money every few months.

    If these businesses want to raise finance they could become PLCs, that would be something I could get behind.

    Want better revenue? Maybe stop ignoring 70m customers in the console market would be a good place to start.

  • flaming.carrot #21 3 years ago

    I don't see Valve taking that many development risks anyway, just knock out another counterstrike sequel or Half Life episode every couple of years and the money floods in.

  • Steroyd #22 3 years ago

    I thought we already do that when we buy the game.

  • aliki #23 3 years ago

    Gamers already fund games. We pay for them.

  • roz123 #24 3 years ago

    I doubt i would ever invest in a game this way unless i knew they have a glittering history of top games (also i would need some money). Even then it could turn out to be a big steaming pile of arse like Diakatana. Although i have donated a few quid to mod developers every now and then.

  • Golgo #25 3 years ago

    Crazy Gabe rides again...that guy is still expecting Steam and free DLC to catch on! Ha ha!

  • kangarootoo #26 3 years ago

    I'm not saying I would invest my own money. Games development is too risky :)

    I'm just saying this is neither a new nor an untested method of raising capital.

  • kangarootoo #27 3 years ago

    "that guy is still expecting Steam and free DLC to catch on!"

    Has Steam not caught on?

  • schnide #28 3 years ago

    I think that's the joke, roo.

  • schnide #29 3 years ago

    This is the future. Not every game may be funded this way, but can you imagine relatively small time devs like Jonathan Blow doing this for the next Braid? I can. Investment would be time limited, so if they don't complete the project then you get your money back - potentially with interest.

    It would have to be regulated in some way, but essentially you become a shareholder in a project. The internet makes this possible - just as it has the rampant piracy which helped lead us in this direction in the first place.

  • b00n #30 3 years ago

    I kind of like the idea to be honest. You could imagine some sort of stock market for games.

    First people vote which games they would be interested in (e.g. Psychonauts 2), by which developer, and then developers could propose a deal to which you could write up to. Say you buy a share in the game for 10 euro or something, and when the game comes out, you get it a week early, and with the ten euro as a discount towards the price.

    If the game makes money, you get a percentage based on the amount you signed up for. It's crazy, but who knows, some smarter minds should be able to come up with something workable, and legal. Probably best suited for games with a shorter dev cycle.
    Edited by b00n at 21/07/09 @ 09:50

  • mr_ruberfon #31 3 years ago

    a potential flaw is that gamers are every bit as conservative as publishers. most gamers would want to fund "my favourite game 2", rather than radical new concepts.

  • Brogan #32 3 years ago

    It's not a bad idea. I just think in the case of valve it wouldn't work. Those slackers can't get a third of a game out on time with publishers breathing down their necks.
    The investors would have to club together to employ a rep to pay valve visits to monitor progress and when they didn't like what was going on the investors would begin to demand changes to the game to get it out on time or better fit what the had in mind. The would leave valve in the same boat and the only way to stop it would be to deny you any say in how you money is used.

  • ChrisOTR #33 3 years ago

    Interesting idea - but if it's going to work, gamers will expect some kind of guarantee that the game will include the features that originally inspired their interest and support - they could call this the "Not-Molyneux Guarantee"

    Incidentally, I know it's not exactly the same thing, but many times I've bought a poorly-received or flawed game simply because I supported the concept - one example was "The Ship"...
    Edited by ChrisOTR at 22/07/09 @ 15:16

  • HermitArcader #34 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • kangarootoo #35 3 years ago

    @schnide

    May rage has clearly dulled my sarcasm detection :)

  • BabyJesus #36 3 years ago

    Will I get a share of the profits?

    No?

    I'm out.

  • b00n #37 3 years ago

    @mr_ruberfon: very good point! But you could let developers propose radical new concepts, and make us excited for them. Could produce maybe some insight into how many people DO want new concepts or certain genres.

  • AphoticCosmos #38 3 years ago

    Interesting idea, but unless you're developing the next Call of Duty, you're going to need to subsidise it with stock investment as well. There is no way in hell that Valve would've made enough money from gamers alone in the course of seven years, even, to finish Half-life 2.

    So yes, give gamers a stake in projects, but don't think that we can fund the whole multi-million dollar shebang.

  • RexRunti #39 3 years ago

    Investing in unreleased games is just too risky. Games companies is slightly different though.

    Perhaps a better solution would be a new index service (like FTSE or NASDAQ) aimed at games companies with trading available through XBox Live and PSN. Mind you I would have invested in Valve through the standard sources already if they had floated.

    Of course if Valve floated I bet MS, EA, ActiBlizz (sell, sell, sell), Ubisoft and every other appropriate publisher would try and grab a stake or two, and would probably attract the odd hostile take over too.

  • LOLLERS #40 3 years ago

    I can't imagine the shitstorm that would result from this. Imagine if you'd financed Duke Nukem Forever, which I imagine a lot of people would have ten years ago...

  • schnide #41 3 years ago

    @mr_ruberfon and b00n

    Given that individuals fund a relatively smaller portion of the investment - ie I'll have a £5-10 punt on this one being a success, rather than any one person having to risk £50k - it might be less of a problem. This isn't right for every game, but this is definitely going to happen for some.

  • kangarootoo #42 3 years ago

    On the subject of creative control, to my mind it could only work if the investors had no say whatsoever in the path the game took. It is one thing to invest funds in something, it is another to start assuming executive roles for which you are not qualified.

    I've seen the damage that can be done when a publisher employee that controls the purse strings starts telling everyone what to do. There is enough of that is the business already.

    The key thing is that we should treat this the way we SHOULD treat democratic elections. We don't (shouldn't) elect somebody to do what we say, we should elect the person we feel is best equipped to do the job and then let them get on with it.

    Likewise, if you invest in a game it should not be on the basis that you get to tell the dev what to do, it should be partly on the basis that you trust the dev to make a good game that you will probably like. And if you don't trust them, you simply shouldn't invest.

  • kangarootoo #43 3 years ago

    @LOLLERS

    There will always be exceptions. That is why investment is a risk model. Like I said, if it were risk free it would just be free money.

  • HermitArcader #44 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • menschenfracht #45 3 years ago

    i think i would support it with cash if it is done properly.

  • Xeopuppy #46 3 years ago

    I'd put money down just to get Half Life 2: Episode 3 out the door, if that would make them get it out.

  • PlugMonkey #47 3 years ago

    Gamers already fund games. We pay for them.

    There are a disturbing number of people on this forum who can't identify the difference between investing money to fund a venture up front, and forking over money for the end product once a venture has been successfully completed.

    Would it help if I explained it very slowly, using cuddly animals to act out the complicated parts?

  • neorapsta #48 3 years ago

    it'll probably be something like £50 per peep, and you get a game + thank you at the end.

    Would be interesting to see if they do anything with this concept though.

  • photoboy #49 3 years ago

    I've got £50 here for you Sega, I'd like Shenmue III now please. Oh and make it for the Dreamcast would you?

  • Goffee #50 3 years ago

    Question is what percentage of games actually make a profit, at least a profit worth sharing among tens of thousands of investors. Everyone will plump to fund Halo 4, but it'd be a brave dragon to put their cash on Fluffy Acrobat Hamster 0.2

  • menschenfracht #51 3 years ago

    @photoboy

    i think you should find another 999999 people who would join you in your venture. Then talk directly to Sega.

    also, the game might be shite even if you sell your pants to fund it.

  • rhubarbandcustard #52 3 years ago

    The fact that sooo many games get released each year (too many games?) suggests there is no problem with getting funding for games development by traditional means.

    Gabe Newell just wants more money for pie.

  • HermitArcader #53 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • schnide #54 3 years ago

    Would a game have to turn a profit for this to work? I don't see why. It'd just be the reverse - you'd pay up front and have the game you want made, rather than paying at the end for a game you later find out wasn't what you expected.

    It's not a perfect model, but it's a new one with promise.

  • kangarootoo #55 3 years ago

    "The fact that sooo many games get released each year (too many games?) suggests there is no problem with getting funding for games"

    Tosh. Getting funding for games is extremely difficult, and it usually comes with all sorts of caveats and conditions. And it is those caveats and conditions that sometimes account for why so many games turn out badly.

    Lets not be mistaken, many games turn out badly because the devs that made them aren't very good. But for some devs, this model will allow them to release quality titles that would otherwise not be deemed saleable by one marketing department or another.

    One of Gabe's key points (I'm sure you read the article throughly, right) was that investment from outside the normal channels would allow less mainstream ideas to get funding. Any casual glance at the release lists and charts will show that sequels and associated IPs are the sorts of games that have "no problems getting funding". Gamers on here always say they want something unique, so here is one way of maybe achieving that.

  • sneetch #56 3 years ago

    Hey, we already do fund development whenever we buy games! (I just want to see if I can make Kanga explode!!! ;) )

    It's an interesting idea and could be very workable but I don't think that saying "then we'll end up with games we really like" is really valid (or particularly smart to suggest). A few hundred thousand, internet-based "project owners" who know exactly how the game should be made and exactly where you're going wrong won't be all that beneficial to a project.

    Handling the expectations of that kind of community would be a nightmare; some people think that putting in a few quid entitles you to direct the exact direction a game should go in. Just check any MMO forum. :)

    Dan234 put it best: Snakes in a Game.

  • rhubarbandcustard #57 3 years ago

    Kangarootoo: (I'm sure you read the article throughly, right)

    No. This is the freaking internet, dude.

  • kangarootoo #58 3 years ago

    @schnide

    It depends on what you want in return for your investment. If you want to see a return, then profit is mandatory.

    If however, a gamer was to say "well normally I'd pay £40 for a game, but I will happily put £60 in the pot if someone would just make Steel Battalion 2" then that could work equally well.

    Any scheme can "work" so long as the definition of success is achievable.

  • kangarootoo #59 3 years ago

    @rhubarbandcustard

    Touche :)

  • Ranger101 #60 3 years ago

    Independant films.

  • schnide #61 3 years ago

    @roo

    Er yes, obviously profit would be necessary for that kind of return ;)

    But I read this whole idea as the second prospect you've proposed. Imagine for a second, if you will, that x number of people have all contributed £20 to developing a game they really want and have waited a year for it to come out. When finished, the only way you can get it is by downloading from a secure site with a password and login as an investor.

    How many of those patient investors are likely to then upload that game to a torrent?

    I know it only takes one person to do that, but then even if they did.. the buyers would have their game, the development costs would automatically already be recouped - so would the damage be as much as piracy does at the moment?

  • Dan234 #62 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "Valve can't get credit these days?"

    I think Gabe is speaking rather more broadly than just about Valve's own business. I think he is talking about an industry wide model. I would imagine Valve themselves don't need credit.

    However when developers speak for the industry they often draw on their own experience and games from bigger publishers (e.g. EA) have been pulled because of credit problems so I don't believe Valve's immune. I guess where're just going to have to get used to more XBLA/PSN/WiiWare games...

  • j1m.ch053n #63 3 years ago

    I like it - i pay for the game to be developed then i pay again to buy a copy - and lets face it this is valve so there will probably be a subscription fee too - i think valve should also apply for some lottery funding and maybe ask the government for tax relief - beyond that i cant think of any more sensible ways for valve to gain funds beyond branching out and cross selling insurance on said game!

  • kingmong #64 3 years ago

    hmm. I think one major point has been missed in the comments so far. the point to me would seem to be cutting publishers out of the loop (or at least reducing their hand).

    if devs don't have to work out deals with publishers to get funding it could mean more creative freedom, less of a cut for publishers, and potential savings for the gamer.

    I suspect the real reason is "less of a cut for publishers" though

  • schnide #65 3 years ago

    "I like it - i pay for the game to be developed then i pay again to buy a copy"

    Perhaps when signing up to this, there could be a qualifier to say that any investor should be able to read a standard news article and actually understand what it means.

  • j1m.ch053n #66 3 years ago

    schnide

    read the article???? no time

    (just get to the rating out of ten and then do something else)

    but i admit having been forced to read the article i acknowledge i rather spoke out of tone

    praise be to valve!

  • el_pollo_diablo #67 3 years ago

    GREAT IDEA.

    I invest £50 in a game Valve says they're going to make.
    It'll be like Half Life crossed with GTA they say.
    6 months later they can it ("We tried but it just wasn't going to work";), and ask me for another £50.
    Their next game is, they say, like GTA crossed with Portal.

    What is this, some pyramid scheme?

  • Rubarack #68 3 years ago

    I can't help but think investing in Shenmue 3 is a great way to lose money, while investing in GTA ripoff 1023647 would be pretty meaningless.

  • kangarootoo #69 3 years ago

    @kingmong

    Well you would likely still need a publisher in the very traditional, i.e. someone to publish your game in the market place. However, what we have in games is a relatively unique situation (same in films, but not many other businesses) where the publisher is also the investor.

    What we could use in the games business is a situation where the publisher is paid a fee to publish, market and distribute the game (could be a different company for each of those). The dev still retains control, but they hire in companies to do the jobs they can't do themselves.

    In Valve's own case, they don't need a distributor unless they want to put discs on shelves because they have Steam. And they can self publish, though they usually get someone else in (again, only if they are doing a disc publication). I guess they always need a good marketing company, as word of mouth and press releases can only go so far. But they pay the fees and tell the companies what they want, not the other way around (ask pretty much any dev about having to make a game that "marketing can sell", instead of finding a marketing team that can sell the game they are paid to sell, and you will likely see a sad face).

  • kangarootoo #70 3 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo

    Oh come on, this is kind of becoming farcical.

    Either read the article, or read the thread, preferably both. This system works in other businesses, and companies that have been invested in can't just can their projects and walk off with the money, so what makes you think that would happen here. This stuff won't just be agreed over a cup of tea you know.

    /sigh

    Everytime someone shoots this idea down, in an "obviously its crap" two sentence kind of way, they just make themselves look a bit foolish. Thus far without exception.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 21/07/09 @ 13:27

  • el_pollo_diablo #71 3 years ago

    I did!

  • kangarootoo #72 3 years ago

    "I did!"

    That makes it worse, not better.

  • el_pollo_diablo #73 3 years ago

    What are you on about? The scenario I mentioned is entirely plausible.

    edit: and don't be so pompous. :p
    Edited by el_pollo_diablo at 21/07/09 @ 13:31

  • MaxiSleep #74 3 years ago

    There are a disturbing number of people on this forum who can't identify the difference between investing money to fund a venture up front, and forking over money for the end product once a venture has been successfully completed.

    Actually from an economics point of view its the same thing, with the community paying a risk premium as well as the end price.

    It is obvious that there is a liquidity problem at present with a number of development houses. Asking the consumer to pre-fund the game and then pay for it in due course however is a receipy for disaster. DNF, Daikitana? You will see this type of thing increase radically if games gurus get access to cash from the consumer up front. Investment needs to be done by independent parties or by the software houses. It is ridiculous to ask the man in the street to bear this risk.

  • kangarootoo #75 3 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo

    1. Its only plausible if no legal paperwork is written up to protect investors, and the likelyhood of that is almost zero (whatever that measurement really means).

    2. It is utterly impossible for me not to be pompous at least some of the time. That is like asking a hummingbird to take it easy.

  • kangarootoo #76 3 years ago

    "Actually from an economics point of view its the same thing, with the community paying a risk premium as well as the end price."

    Well, not quite. Surely cashflow is a core part of economics, and paying for a product after it has been made creates no cashflow before the product is ready to be bought. Economics isn't concerned only with the value that ends up after the = at the end, it is all concerned with the detail of how = is arrived at.

    Secondly, an investment is supposed to make you money. Investing in a game is not the same as buying the game, because if the investment is wise you expect to get back more money than you put in. Exchanging money for more money if you will. Buying a product is simple exchanging money for a product.

  • kangarootoo #77 3 years ago

    /will shut up and stop being pompous... for a bit... or will at least try.

  • JensonJet #78 3 years ago

    I've got a better idea...

    How about Valve put up the money, while I produce the game!

    I have absolutely no doubt, the majority of gamers could create better games than most game developers. I don't think I've played a single game where I've not thought of several ideas that would improve the game. I assume every gamer has these moments.

    For example, take Gabe's Left 4 Dead. In the hands of Valve, it has four chapters (of which we have a small collection of locations), a few types of 'monster', and a small selection of weapons. I'm sure every gamer on the planet could come up with a dozen ideas to improve this game given just a couple of hours of thought!!!

    A better idea for the industry, as someone else has also mentioned, is the industry needs to change internally. The managers and producers, on the whole, need to change. These guys are directly responsible for every decision that goes into a game – from bad voice acting to poor controls, boring missions to sudden difficulty spikes halfway through a game... every little decision is their responsibility. The industry has enough money, it's just short on ideas and to put it bluntly, balls!

    So, no thank you Gabe, while your industry continues to spew out formulaic game after formulaic game, if I care to invest my money anywhere (which like 99% of the population, I don't care to do), it'll be in an industry or business that's better organised and proved itself more competent than the games industry!!!

  • Arwin #79 3 years ago

    Actually, that model exists for providing micro-credit to people in third world countries, see http://www.kiva.org . You'd loan a certain amount (max 100$) to someone who's advertised their plans on the site. It works really well. That may not be a bad idea for software development at all, though considering the much larger budgets involved, it may need a much higher level of policing.

    You'd not have to worry too much about everyone wanting different things during the development process, because you put your plan online beforehand and people vote for your plan with their dollars/euros. It's not like you give money first and then argue about the game shoudl become later.

  • Buran #80 3 years ago

    Pathetic. If a fan want a game and is creativa and has initiative the way to go is modding: this is how Red Orchestra, Counter Strike, Enemy Territory and some other great games came.

    A company with the size and huge economic power as Valve asking for foundings to the fans? No way dude. If I want a game, I'll enter in a mod team. I'll keep my money to make donations to Red Cross or similar NGOs, not to finance absurd megalomaniac projects from people as Newell.

  • kangarootoo #81 3 years ago

    "I have absolutely no doubt, the majority of gamers could create better games than most game developers"

    Dammit! There is me trying to shutup and not be pompous, and then someone waves a stupid red rag right in front of my eyes. A STUPID red rag I say.

    As I have said so many times before, if the solution seems obvious, the observer usually doesn't understand the problem. Designing good games is not trivial, and most of the people who think it is are able to demonstrate just how appalling they are at it with just a handful of ill advised sentences (one of which is to assume that "more of everything" is always better).

    I just hope you were sitting up to your neck in a bath of sarcasm when you wrote that, that is all.

  • Gaol #82 3 years ago

    "Everytime someone shoots this idea down, in an "obviously its crap" two sentence kind of way"

    That's because it is. To anyone with even an ounce of economic savvy, saying this idea is stupid is like saying "the Tower of Pisa leans", or "London Buses are Red". Explaining why would feel like teaching small children the alphabet.

  • kangarootoo #83 3 years ago

    @JensonJet

    /breaths in for a second rant

    And what is more, you talk as if devs are a different species of person to gamers. Devs are just people, same as gamers. HOwever, anyone who spends a fair amount of time as a dev is tested on their ability to do the job they do. Back seat drivers (you see, a cliche even exists ffs) on the other hand are never tested and thus their ability or lack thereof can remain hidden.

    Again, if you were being sarcastic, none of this ranting applies.

    /kicks kitten... and then feels bad

  • kangarootoo #84 3 years ago

    I didn't really kick a kitten...

  • Silvervein #85 3 years ago

    And here I thought that by buying games, I fund the developers. Retroactively of course, since the money goes (backwards) through publisher who forks it out to start with.

    To mr. gabe, I have a counter idea: let them find their own jobs unrelated to games industry, that will support them on daily basis. And afterwards, they can make any games they want in their free time, free of the shackles of the extremely conservative decisions forced on them by publishers.

    Games made by *TWO* people can be better than the ones made by humongous teams that get 30 millions to start. Examples include avernum by spiderweb software and mount and blade. Compare that to command and conquer 3 or even prototype.

    By the way, if there is anyone here that knows how development of games work, could they explain to me how is it that game requires 30 million bucks even before it's made? What are they using that money for? I always thought that a paper notebook, a pencil and couple computers to start the work would cost way less than that.

  • romelpotter #86 3 years ago

    hmmm, i am sure this has been said already but I haven't read the comments but.....

    I see a game I like, I buy it.

    wow earth shatteringly simple but a concept that obviously some people seem to think needs changing to...

    Someone else thinks of a game, I pay (along with 5000000 others) to develop it, then I pay again to buy it....hang on............ I don't even like this game...damn.

  • Gaol #87 3 years ago

    Also, anyone who likes Gabe's idea should look into buying a Pandora. That machine is right up your street!

  • schnide #88 3 years ago

    @roo

    We are trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble here. PM me and we'll set this thing up for Gabe.

    51% of shares to me, 49% to you - obviously.

  • kangarootoo #89 3 years ago

    "That's because it is"

    Sheesh.

    "To anyone with even an ounce of economic savvy..."

    But that there is the problem, people are seemingly demonstrating a lack of exactly that. And then trying to pretend it is present by saying things like "its self evident" and "because it is".

    What is being discussed here is simply not new, it exists in other businesses, so why couldn't it work in game develepment? You still haven;t answered that question, instead relying on stating that its so simple it would pain you to explain it. I don't buy it.

  • kangarootoo #90 3 years ago

    "And here I thought that by buying games, I fund the developers. Retroactively of course, since the money goes (backwards) through publisher who forks it out to start with."

    Oh my life! Its its "retroactive", its not investment. Money doesn't "go backwards", what madness IS this. You can't invest in something that had already been made. You can only invest in future things. That is what investment is.

    And people talk about economic savy.


    @schnide

    You are quite right. The cause is lost. Its a deal, though I think I might apply a bit of Gaol's economy savvy to the numbers on my bit of the contract before we both sign it :)

  • schnide #91 3 years ago

    @rommel

    You're an idiot, back to wizard school for you.

    That isn't the model as it stands. The model as it stands is that a developer thinks of a game, they go through a hell of time trying to find investment, if they do and it gets made, odds are that no-one's going to buy it because the market's overcrowded. So most of the games that do get investment are the ones that are guaranteed to sell, and they are usually shit.

    edit: and I didn't even mention that you managed to be yet another monumental fuckwit who thinks you'd have to pay twice. Why do you comment before reading what you're commenting on?
    Edited by schnide at 21/07/09 @ 14:30

  • HenryFitz #92 3 years ago

    Because any large group of people is naturally conservative, I think this idea would work better with bundled investment offerings, i.e. you spend €60 on two games, one being a sequel of some established IP and the other being something more experimental. The contracts would be tricky, and the distribution of funding might be contentious, but these difficulties would not be insurmountable.

  • sneetch #93 3 years ago

    @JensonJet
    I have absolutely no doubt, the majority of gamers could create better games than most game developers. I don't think I've played a single game where I've not thought of several ideas that would improve the game. I assume every gamer has these moments.

    You don't think that developers play games? You don't think they go through that exact process a thousand times while playtesting their game? You're really displaying profound levels of cluelessness there.

    Also, your ideas to improve the game have probably been thought of and decided against for a variety of reasons. Possibly because they are technically infeasible, would require too much work or refactoring to implement or would simply put the game outside its budget.

    Or they just wouldn't improve it.

  • LOLLERS #94 3 years ago

    Also, I dispute "At present, Newell explained, games require an investment of between USD 10 million and USD 30 million before development can even begin."

    To put that in real terms I reckon that, at the minimum of $10 million, that's funding for around 20 (experienced) developers for a year. You do not need that kind of funding to begin development. Maybe you need that to begin development on Half-Life 3, but to say that you need that for all games is very wrong and misleading. Did they have that kind of funding when they started developing Portal? No, clearly not.

    The problem seems to me to not be where the funding comes from, but in allowing developers the freedom to come up with and prototype game ideas that are fun first and foremost. I've not worked in a company yet where this has happened even half as well as it does when small groups of amateurs come together and make something 'just for fun', Portal being a good example again.

    Make a fun game and people will buy it. Make it fun before you go round asking for tens of million sof dollars and you might even make a profit.
    Edited by LOLLERS at 21/07/09 @ 15:01

  • JensonJet #95 3 years ago

    Sarcastic, no. Overractionary, perhaps. I make no secret of the fact I don't have that much respect for the guys at the top of the game industry. And I make no secret of the fact the comment about gamers funding games is outrageous. Can you imagine Warner Bros suggesting movie watchers should give them money in advance so they can make a movie you like? Or McDonalds suggest if you give them money up front they'll create a menu you'd love? Or how about Ford ask us to pay for the development of a car we'd all want to drive?

    As has been mentioned time and time again here, we buy the games, that's our 'investment' in the industry. There are games we all like and want to play, and those are the ones we purchase. The games industry is lucky eough to have a captive and loyal market and on occasions presents us with some outstanding games. But it's their business to fund the games from their own profits. And if a games developer is struggling or goes under then it's the direct fault of the people at the top of that business, the decision makers. If Valve have an issue with large budget games and are getting cold feet about funding them, then perhaps they should work on cheap, small games. I've never heard, and doubt I ever will hear a developer suggest gamers should invest in them like this.

    Perhaps the idea that most gamers could design a better game than those inside the industry was a little over the top. What I should have said was the basic concepts, features and details that make a game are hardly ever ground-breaking or clever and anyone who's ever played a game could up with them. I have little sympathy for the industry and find the idea that the owner of a games developer feels we, as gamers, should give them money, beyond the purchase of games, so we can have the games we want absolutely astonishing.

  • teabagger #96 3 years ago

    It's bad enough trying to make something out of the endlessly conflicting and poorly thought out ideas from within the studio itself so I'm a bit sceptical that adding another few thousand individuals all with their two pence worth is going to help. If there is money involved then there will also the expectation that their will is carried out by the dev team. Sounds like a recipe for chaos.

    (edit)

    I'm not adverse to the idea of exploring other funding channels though. I'm just not convinced this model can successfully be applied to the games industry.
    Edited by teabagger at 21/07/09 @ 16:12

  • Spekingur #97 3 years ago

    To those who say "gamers already fund games" - no we don't. We make a return on someone elses investment. The developement team has already been funded.

    Putting this in relation with MMO's, a monthly subscription is basically funding a continual development and running of the MMO.

    They should just put up a donation form for games people might want, known publishers/developers, with the clause that if the decision is taken that the game won't be made your money will be returned. The risk factor still remains, early development is always the decision maker of how the future for said game will be. The Firefly community did similar for the Serenity movie. It would never have seen the light of day had there not been for the Firefly community and the pressure (and money gathered) they provided.

    Heck, I would donate money (invest) towards a new Carmageddon. Or a new Dungeon Keeper.

  • kangarootoo #98 3 years ago

    @JensonJet

    "I make no secret of the fact I don't have that much respect for the guys at the top of the game industry"

    Well you already seem to have made clear that your view is based on a simplistic and wholly uninformed view of how hard the business of making games actually is. Perhaps if your idea of what is was based in reality, you might not feel that way.


    "Can you imagine Warner Bros suggesting movie watchers should give them money in advance so they can make a movie you like"

    The words "independant films" have already appeared in this thread. And also Warner I believe are a floated comany, in which you can buy shares, so they kind of already do give you that option if you want to take it. Ford may do as well.


    "As has been mentioned time and time again here, we buy the games, that's our 'investment' in the industry"

    And all that has been discussed here is ANOTHER way that would allow you to invest, in a specific title no less. So you might have greater control over the product being made, because you can vote in advance rather than just voting with your wallet on whatever limited range of games is presented to you. AND you might make some money by way of a return on your investment. Choice is good, yes?


    "But it's their business to fund the games from their own profits. And if a games developer is struggling or goes under then it's the direct fault of the people at the top of that business, the decision makers"

    No man is an island, and no company is either. All sorts of factors can affect company stability and quality of product. Again, if you had any clue about how the industry actually works, you might know this (or at least know enough to realise you don't know everything).


    "If Valve have an issue with large budget games and are getting cold feet about funding them, then perhaps they should work on cheap, small games"

    You see, you and others seem to be thinking this is Valve talking about their future. I read it as Gabe Newell waxing lyrical about different models for the industry as a whole. Valve may or may not be interested in doing such a thing themselves. And yet again it is naive to think thhat companies do this sort of thing for emotive reasons like "getting cold feet". Its all business, and as I tire of saying, this is not a new concept outside of games dev.


    "What I should have said was the basic concepts, features and details that make a game are hardly ever ground-breaking or clever and anyone who's ever played a game could up with them"

    And again, as I say far too often, "having ideas" is absolutely the easiest part of making games BY FAR. It is the actual MAKING of games that is the tough part. Everything looks awesome on paper, because at that stage it is untested and appears perfect.

    Seriously, how many times have you seen an original idea turned into a total arse of a game? Do you think the devs wrote "must control like a dead frog dipped in lead" on their initial concept knapkin? Again, if you had any experience at all of making games, you would know this.


    ...and I'm done :)

  • kangarootoo #99 3 years ago

    @JensonJet

    I don't mean to be so hard on you dude. You just present a bit of a target to my previously mentioned pompous side :)

  • El-Dev #100 3 years ago

    For this to even become more than a possibility Valve would need to release their financials to anyone interested in the "investment".

    Then we could really see what the cost vs profit is for a game. I would be interested in seeing that. I would put the revenue for a game that sells one million copies between £25m-£35m, and the dev costs maybe about £14m-£20m depending on the game. Though I have a suspicion the Dev costs would be less for Valve, as their games, as quality as they are, aren't exactly the cutting edge of technology.

  • kangarootoo #101 3 years ago

    @El-Dev

    I know that any publicly owned (as in floated on a stock exchange) company has to make its accounts public record. Whether something like this would qualify I don't know, but I agree they would have to do it by the numbers or varioous consumer watchdogs would be all over them (even if the investing public didn't know what questions to ask).

  • JensonJet #102 3 years ago

    No, I'm not a target for you Kangerootoo... the fact is you seem to totally approve of the idea of gamers putting up their money to invest in a new project, I don't. At least I don't agree with the idea of giving money to Valve, EA or anyone else for that matter to develop a game I might like.

    I understand when you put a comment or opinion on a forum there'll always be one or two who don't agree and will let you know. You're just agreeing with the man from Valve as have others. I expected that but I happen to agree with the general consensus that I would not care to invest in the development of a game. If I cared that much about games or the industry I'd work in it. Games are a cheap, throw-away form of entertainment. I don't care how much a game costs to develop and I don't care what happens to any particular games developer. There are enough developers doing very well, making very enjoyable games without my investment. I'd no sooner give Microsoft or Sony money to develop their next generation consoles than I would give Valve money to make another first person shooter.

    The examples you give about Ford and buying shares are whole different subject. Newell wasn't talking about buying shares in the company. He's talking about actually giving a game-maker money in advance to finance the development of a game. Which is like Ford suggesting we give them money to develop a car we might want to purchase. My response to any business, to any industry would be the same.

  • kangarootoo #103 3 years ago

    @JensonJet

    "the fact is you seem to totally approve of the idea of gamers putting up their money to invest in a new project, I don't"

    Previously in this thread, I have stated I wouldn't put my own money into games. You assume because I disagree with you that I approve of this sort of scheme, but that isn't what I disagree with.

    What I disagree with is the inaccurate statements you have made about the industry and about this proposed investment idea. The number one thing that gets a bee in my bonnet on here is people dismissing ideas or points of view, not because there is anything factually wrong with them, but because they simply don't understand them.

    You have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge in this thread, so we haven't even really got as far as discussing tyhe pros and cons of this kind of investment on a level playing field.


    "My response to any business, to any industry would be the same."

    Like I said before, your choice is your own. Again, whether you would want to invest or not isn't my problem or concern. It is the WHY I am griping about.


    Regardless, this all harks back to your "any gamer could make a good game" comment, which was obviously rubbish but you have since retracted. So I should just probably shut up now :)

  • JensonJet #104 3 years ago

    Kangarootoo, the only 'statement' about the games industry that I have made is: "The managers and producers, on the whole, need to change. These guys are directly responsible for every decision that goes into a game – from bad voice acting to poor controls, boring missions to sudden difficulty spikes halfway through a game... every little decision is their responsibility." If it's not the game's producer or the managers overseeing a game, who else is coming up with these decisions? Perhaps I'm don't know the game's industry inside out, like yourself, so please inform me who's directly responsible for these decisions?

  • HermitArcader #105 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • el_pollo_diablo #106 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Sorry for calling you pompous. I didn't really mean it.

  • ForburyLion #107 3 years ago

    Instead of having gamers invest, How about gamers group together to form a company and employ the developer to make the game.... They can then sue the developer if they fail to deliver.

  • THATinkjar #108 3 years ago

    An idea like this might have brought back Monkey Island far sooner.

  • sarcasmoidosis #109 3 years ago

    I haven't read all the comments, but here's the part I don't really get. If a game is announced as a concept, you usually get a general idea if there's a market for it or not. If there is, someone's gonna back you up with the money so that you release that game. If there's no market, there's nobody to finance the project. What would the difference be with this concept?

    As for the "games we really like" part... I doubt the quality would get better. You'd still wanna sell the game to as many people, so you wouldn't take bigger risks and the problems with the quality of most games comes from lack of talent or lack of hardware capabilities (on consoles) rather than lack of money.

    Damned typos :)
    Edited by sarcasmoidosis at 21/07/09 @ 19:47

  • niteninja #110 3 years ago

    So Im supposed to invest 10 million quid of my hard earned money to develop a game that I will have no say in whatsoever?
    Gabes smoking crack.
    Gamers investing to develop games is a shit idea,can you even begin to imagine how many arguments over a games direction there would be.
    Edited by niteninja at 21/07/09 @ 19:53

  • El-Dev #111 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo,

    The simple fact is to invest in anything without knowing the potential returns and the likelihood of these returns would be foolish. Also what will the money be used for? Actual development of tech, wages, capital expenditure, advertising or something else?

    In reality there is a much easier way for Valve to get money. Go to MS and tell them you are thinking of making L4D3 a PS3 exclusive, MS will open the cheque book and problem solved. I'd be a great management consultant.

  • Rack #112 3 years ago

    Seriously, how many times have you seen an original idea turned into a total arse of a game? Do you think the devs wrote "must control like a dead frog dipped in lead" on their initial concept knapkin? Again, if you had any experience at all of making games, you would know this.

    This is another reson why this really isn't going to work. You can look at an independent film and if it's got an interesting hook take a guess a few people will see it. Games design is littered with promising failures, and I wouldn't feel safe investing in anything that isn't likely to get funding by another source anyway.

    And again, as I say far too often, "having ideas" is absolutely the easiest part of making games BY FAR. It is the actual MAKING of games that is the tough part. Everything looks awesome on paper, because at that stage it is untested and appears perfect.

    Maybe this is true, particularly of complex 3D games, but it does seem strange that the average ratio of ideas to games is something on the region of 1/100,000. I suspect good workable ideas are somewhat rarer than you may think.

  • Sar #113 3 years ago

    Here's a crazy thought.

    Use the metric fucktons of money made off your previous games to fund future development mayhaps?

    There are only so many Ferrari's you can buy before you only have a shitload of money left.

  • Darkjinxter #114 3 years ago

    Chrisotr - "Not-Molyneux Guarantee"
    best post i've seen since my molyneux post, :D

  • JensonJet #115 3 years ago

    Some very good points. I like the idea that if a whole bunch of gamers are going to invest in a game, they'd choose the developer, and I personally wouldn't want Valve anywhere near a game I was involved in... unless I wanted a retro 90s look, or 5 weapons!

    What an extraordinary business game developers would have if their customers financed their work... I bet the guys who attempted to make Duke Nukem Forever wished they'd thought of that one.

    In fact, if anyone's got an idea for a game they want to see, and care to pay me, I'll get working on it immediately! I can handle all the artistic and creative stuff, and for coding and all the technical side, I hear there's quite few unemployed in the industry at the moment!!! How about a game with frying pans and zombies?

  • kangarootoo #116 3 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo

    I am pompous sometimes though. And it is good to be called out from time to time. Otherwise I might think its ok.


    Sorry JensonJet , I was being a bit of a hot head yesterday. Still don't think we agree, but I could have been a little less surgical in attacking everything you said.

  • avoozl #117 3 years ago

    I can't see any reason why this is stupid or can't work. There seems to be an increasing flavour of youtube comments section on eurogamer. Maybe it's because this article relates to console games as well. There could be some problems but there's more potential up-side. Games made like this could be open source too. I wonder if investors would support that, or if they would like games to have no copy protection. It would be funny if those problems still existed and we'd all look like hypocrites.

    Not that those piracy issues matter. The main reason for doing this would be to get more cool and interesting ideas. For me I wonder if I even like games any more until a really good one comes along. I know I'm part of a minority there though. All these games that seem boring still do well. Seeing as most people in this forum are reacting to this idea negatively confirms that the majority of gamers are happy with the way things are going.