Valve: Let the Community Finance Games

[downer88]

I could see a cult classic asking their fans for support, but not the game advertisement and online pain that is Steam.

 

[methal]

Game sales have dropped because more and more people are getting addicted to crap games like world of warcraft. Then stop buying games that rock.

 

[vertigo_2000]

I can't remember the last game I've bought that didn't require a patch the minute after I installed. That tells me devleopers are rushing games out the door before they are finished. I understand that they need to recoup their costs, but I miss the days when you bought a games and it worked. Period.

It's an interesting idea, but unless the consumer is given guarantees that their money is safe, I don't think this will reach fruition.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[bounty]

You mean the recession is what is causing games sales to drop? All this time I thought it was pirates. I suddenly feel the urge to donate money to some open source game project.

 

[Guest]

This will never work. This would be like the movie industry expecting fans to finance a movie up front. We'd all say "no way". Even if a studio came to me and asked me for money for a sweet "enter comic book hero" movie I'd still say "no way" just because in the back of my mind I know they'll screw it up anyway. Why would Valve think this would work with video games? Your publisher is like a bank, they loan you the money. Then the sales of your games allows you to pay back the loan...with interest of course. This is how things work. You would think though, some of these monster companies would have gained enough profits to fund their own games. Might make them think twice about what we, the consumers, actually want to play.

 

[Ambictus]

Wait... you mean Gabe Newell is saying there's risk in business???? WHAT? NEVER! This is perhaps the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. Why shift the financial burden of potentially pure crap to your consumers? Just another way for the people with money to walk away from a disaster without consequence.

I saw someone compare this to stocks, the difference is when something hits the public markets it's already a fairly established company, the product is essentially proven. Here this wouldn't be the case, you'd be investing in someone's ideas. Leave that to the venture capitalists and publishers. This is just another way to make people lose money. No thanks.

 

[Guest]

i agree with zodiacfml

there's no way the upsurge in the gaming market could last forever. people only have enough time to play so many games along with all the other media to mess around with. and you take a look at the older systems (aka PS2, Gamecube, etc.) and see that alot of people are still playing these older games and actually *prefer* them to alot of the newer stuff released now and are finding they can get their gaming itch fixed very cheaply.

i'm still looking forward to playing Baldur's Gate 2 and its addon (the original PC release) believe it or not!

 

[leo2kp]

I don't think it would be a good idea, and the first thing that came to my mind was that game ideas and development plans, including enough detail in the beginning and during development to get people interested, would make it hard to keep things secret, and sadly secrecy is a powerful strategy. Too much secrecy and you can't attract investors. Too little secrecy and, well, you know what happens.

BUT it would be cool to see what would happen, so maybe a couple titles could be developed that way.

 

[leo2kp]

[citation][nom]methal[/nom]Game sales have dropped because more and more people are getting addicted to crap games like world of warcraft. Then stop buying games that rock.[/citation]

That all depends on your list of games that "rock" lol. Apparently millions of people think WoW rocks :-/

 

[leo2kp]

...furthermore, people WILL lose interest after a few years.

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

[citation][nom]Thurin[/nom]no offense intended, but the only thing that will fix the gaming industry is to stop producing "shit games" and start producing great games again.I remember that pre-turn of the century we had at the very very least 1 genuinely interesting and great game release per year.Now well... let's just say that I have not seen a genuinely awesome game in years....Take a bit longer if you have to, but don't expect a game that smells like shit and looks like it to pay off big once it's done and polished.After all, a polished turd is still a turd.(point here being that they would not need the consumer to pay for development if they would only come up with better games.)[/citation]

Well lets see

Left4Dead
COD4 Modern Warfare
Wrath of the Lich King (I know its not a new game but a great expansion to a great franchise)
ArmA2 (still needs bugs worked out, but rocks when you find a good server)

This year titles I am looking forward to
Moder Warfare 2
Battlefield 1943
Street Fighter 4 ( think it just came out, I better go buy it and try it)
Wolfenstien

 

[cracklint]

it's simple, how many good games launched in 2008 compared to the first half of this year. At this time last year better games were out. While there have been some quality games launched, there are fewer and not of the same production value as last year.

 

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]Open Source Engine Development.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.[/citation]

Note: GPL allows a company to sell the product for profit, BUT it also forces the company to give away the source and prevents the company from not allowing the user to mod the content of the source.

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

http/www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

 

[Guest]

Basically, the consumer takes on the risk and maybe gets some of the reward. Lame. Every other industry takes a risk on their new products. It's the motivation to not suck.

 

[downer88]

[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]Note: GPL allows a company to sell the product for profit, BUT it also forces the company to give away the source and prevents the company from not allowing the user to mod the content of the source.http/www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-fa [...] AllowMoney[/citation]
Valve already releases code for mods of HL and HL2--if you can get the code to compile, and then work around their unreleased game code. I think a released source code would only extend the life of the game, not get most people to put up money before they can play. But I still hope this pay in advance thing works for a few good games.

 

[jwl3]

PC game producers have been losing money because their offerings have been terrible. Show me the next Modern Warfare or Monkey Island and I'll show you a cash cow.

Add to that DRM and pissing off legitimate consumers with buggy games (GTA IV anyone???) and you have a bunch of pissed off PC gamers.

I personally have not bought a single video game in 2 months and before that 6 months. There is absolutely nothing out there today that is appealing. Look at the game benchmarks on THG - Far Cry 2? - Sucked. Crysis? - old.

 

[azxcvbnm321]

This idea would put a reality check on all the people here with their fanciful ideas and complaints. See, there's no return without risk, there's no guarantee you'll ever see your money again or even receive a good game. Sometimes ideas aren't translated well into the actual game, or the interface is terrible like with Master of Orion 3 which was a great idea. It took another game to successfully execute the great ideas of Master of Orion 3. If you were an investor in Master of Orion 3, you'd lost all your money and received a terrible game, but that's how the real world operates and why developers need to make profits from their hits. Not all games can be hits even if they have innovative ideas.

Furthermore, as an investor, would you rather invest in Sims 4 or some new game based on an unproven idea? Humm, Sims 4 is going to sell a good number of titles no matter what so you immediately have an advantage and less risk. A lot of great games are never fully embraced by the consumer for some reason, maybe they are too new or not perfectly executed. Dune II was a great game that all modern RTS are based upon, but I don't think it did very well.

So for those complaining about lack of new ideas, what would you rather invest your hard earned money in? A proven winner or a shot in the dark? I'm guessing most would invest in Sims 4, which is why you see so many of the same type games and sequels, it makes sense from an investment point of view. If you want a game, then the most effective way to voice your opinionn is to buy the game. Nothing influences more than sales, nothing. That's why pirates who claim to buy nothing but perfect, legendary games, are destroying the gaming community. It's hard to make a legendary game like Civilizations or Starcraft. Most games are decent and playable, and if you're just going to steal those games, well, then that's the end of gaming. No one wants to put out a crappy game or even decent game, but it takes time and maybe more than one shot to make a perfect game. Starcraft took Dune II to another level, but they built their game upon others who came before them. Those others have to be supported too or else we just get Starcraft II, Starcraft III, etc.

 

[jerreece]

According to NPD, total sales were $1.17 billion in June, dropping 31-percent when compared to the $1.7 billion earned in June 2008.

"This is one of the first months where I think the impact of the economy is clearly reflected in the sales numbers

How about the fact that nobody is releasing GOOD games lately? I speak primarily of PC since I don't play consoles. But seriously, don't blame it all on the economy. Even in a poor economy, people will spend money on something if they really want or need it. First you have to come up with a good product though.

Let's face it, even if we ever got to the point of being able to privately invest into games you'd make nearly nothing for it. Unless you donated a substantial amount (say $10,000+ privately) how could you possibly make profit for yourself? If you gave them $50 to $100, all you'd be doing is essentially paying for the finished product, which is what we already do when we shell out $50 to buy the game.

If everyone that liked the idea of the game donated $50 to $100, you'd have thousands of "share holders" to give percentages of the game revenue. I can't imagine it'd be to much for profits privately. *shrugs*

 

[azxcvbnm321]

Maybe it'll click for Jerreece and he'll be able to put what he said together. Yes it's costly to make a game, and yes it's very hard to make a profit. Now why does he blame the developers/publishers for the lack of releases? Console releaes are continuing as usual, what could be the difference between PC and console? Humm, piracy anyone?


console games aren't any better than PC, personally I find most worse, yet even average games can still make money on console, but only blockbuster, perfectly made legendary games can do so on PC. Now why is that, console gamers are the same segment as PC gamers, actually most are both so what is the difference? Piracy, it makes it impossible to make games for PC, which is a shame. Easy to say, just make a lengendary game, but it's hard. No one goes out and tries to make a crappy game, but not all games will be legendary, that's just a fact. So if you can't make money on anything other than a legendary game, then the best thing to do aaybe is to stop making games period.

We all know GT4 for PC was an afterthought. But why when they tried so hard for console? Piracy anyone? If Take Two thought they could make good money on PC sales, they wouldn't have waited, what, 6 months and released something with minimal effort put in. They put in minimal effort because they need to make a profit and anything more would not pay off for them thanks to what? Yup, piracy. If a good portion of your sales are going to end up being free due to theft, why bother? Why take the risk of making a game when the potential for returns are limited? Think about it, $40 per copy or so, that's enough to pay one programmer to do one hour of work if benefits are included. You need to sell a lot of copies just to get your money back, and every sale counts. When pirates are able to cut sales, it's all over, you still have to pay that damned programmer. Face it folks, piracy is destroying the industry, we're finally seeing the results. Thanks to the a-hole thieves out there for denying the rest of us good games.

 

[doomsdaydave11]

[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]Hey Valve, we do finance your games. Who the hell do you think pays the $50 price tag????????[/citation]
Valve is also one of the very few remaining decent companies. Relic no longer cares about its community, and Blizzard is starting to piss me off.

They're even still releasing FREE upgrades to Team Fortress 2, which was released 2 years ago. They're not small updates either, they really change the game.