Nice idea in theory but in practice I don't think it'll work.
I would love to see the publishers taken out of the equation, but the odds that the community would back any company other than Valve or Stardock is unlikely.
Now I'm not saying to GPL the thing, but if several studios were to split the cost of developing and engine and possibly have an open source community around it, then I could see how that would significantly lower the cost. If they used a BSD style licence then they could have a base which anyone could advance and work on, but when it came time to develop a commercial product a company would not be required to release the source code.
They could also do it phpFox style where you still have to pay to use it, but those paying developers can collaborate and give code into the main project.
Will they give you a "prospectus" about the game before development begins? Then if i decide to invest/pre-order I'll have to wait 3-5 years until the game sells before I get my return? Or will I be able to cash out before the project is done? How will the price be determined then? Will it be like a closed-end fund or will it be open?
Then they have to figure out the regulatory regime behind it, including investor protections.
I don't think this will ever happen at least not in the near term. Of course if it does happen the people who will make the most money are the dealers and the underwriters.
modding communities are full of extremely talented people, who devote endless hours into the development of something they love. its admirable. the results are often phenomenal. add some corporate sponsorship and they may have the potential to become much more involved in the development of what we play. not to mention the media backing of being under valves wing.
cheers to valve. truely one of people oriented gaming companies.
I think the best way to go about this would actually be a company or association of gamers, who invest money into this association (as members), which in turn invests into projects/developers the gamers like.
The devs then return the investment to the association, which then either pays back its members/investors or reinvests that money into more developers.
"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 get store credits, and I might get a discount on a copy of that game.'"
Mmm sounds a lot like stocks. Really that's all stocks are investing in companys *although tech. actually owning a piece albiet small piece*, and if it works you get paid... But I'd like to know how the profit works...
There would diffently have to be some fraud prevention. And the what if they don't get enough money up front. Well that's a tough one, but if they set a reasonable amount saying, "hey we need this". If they don't get it they simply send the money back. Doesn't cost anybody anything..
although its an interesting concept, i think a better idea would be to get the consumer to get their vote in instead of their money... i.e. have a poll and see if they like it or not, then continue with either developing it or not.
this way, devs and publishers should see how good a game CAN be, and put the appropriate amount of funding, and get appropriate returns/profit.
valve is pretty good at listening to their consumers, unlike other publishers/developers[im looking at you ea and activision]
my idea isn't all that great, but neither is this one. no consumer would put their money in something that 'can be'... they want to put their money in something that WILL be.
I don't think gamers trust software companies enough. Very often a good idea goes bad (ala Star Wars Galaxies) or any dozen of other highly anticipated games that simply fall flat.
Such a business model would require much more feedback to the community, playable early stage demos, and an initial unveiling of a new idea in development at a time when most game companies are very closed lipped about the dev processes.
Well i kinda like the idea i have been looking forward for Homeworld 3 & so have a lot of others but it has been years.Maybe they should have a interest Poll to see if it's viable to make another episode then if there is enough interest let the funding begin.At least that way we might see games we so badly wanted go to the next episode.'m shure it would need some thought put into it but it could work i mean the players know what games they want & like.
This is much like the stock market really. If I, the investor, see a potential hit on a developers hands, I can help push some funding it's way to help finance and get it off the ground. If it flops, take forever to materialize, or ends up being scrapped, well then it's my bad judgment that lost my money. If my intuition pays off, and the game is a success, well then congratulations on a gamble that paid off. I see no problem with it and wouldn't mind supporting it. However, if a company is already on the stock exchange, such as Electronic Arts, and I just think the next big thing coming out of their studio will be an instant classic, then what's the difference in this and just buying company stock?
Again with the NPD. Those numbers are useless coz they don't take into account online sales from steam etc. The reason sales appear to be "plumeting" is because of massive uptake of online distribution.
Hey Gabe, how about you get your collective Valve asses back to work on Half-Life 2 Episode THREE?! You wasted all that damn time on that Left 4 Dead garbage as well as all those damn class updates for Team Fortress 2! Multi-player games are such repetitively shallow activities populated mostly by all those dimwitted clantards who excel solely at bitching and whining anyway. Finish the damn HL2 story, dummy! As is any single player game, it's a far more interesting investment of time.