Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quote:
Valve founder Gabe Newell has spoken out about a radical new idea which could fundamentally change the way that computer and video games are developed and sold - the idea that gamers pay for them.

More specifically, Newell's idea is that gamers as a group consider funding development of a title before release in the same way that a publisher might - effectively creating community-published games.

Speaking to ABC, Newell suggested that community-funded games may be a great way to offset the huge costs and risks that developers and publishers face when creating a new title, saying that it may be a good way for gamers to get more involved in the way a game develops too.

"Right now, what typically happens is you have this budget - it needs to be huge, it has to be $10m - $30m, and it has to be all available at the beginning of the project. There's a huge amount of risk associated with those dollars and decisions have to be incredibly conservative," said Newell.

"What I think would be much better would be if the community could finance the games. In other words, ‘Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game.'"

"So move financing from something that occurs between a publisher and a developer… Instead have it be something where funding is coming out of community for games and game concepts they really like."

Hmm. It's an interesting idea, sure - but for AAA titles we're not sure it would ever take off to be honest. Plus, it all sounds a bit too hippy-ish for us, so we might have to consider taking some anti-hippy action as a result. You tell us what you think in the forums and, in the mean time, we'll get our guns and pepper-spray ready.
Man I was actually the guy who posted the video.


http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/54...be-newell.html

He talks about his view on piracy and stuff, its an extended interview if any of you are interested. I am surprised no one responded.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/...funded-games/1

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,219 Posts
I don't think it could work. Usually investment returns are so low, you have to invest alot of money to get any amount of value. So you prepay for the game and then get what...$3? That would be a decent rate of return on your money. Plus so many games today are overhyped garbage (Except valve, they are one of the few good developers)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The way I see it is that, they are being cheap lol. No I am joking. In order for gamers to fund such a large scale project you need to pump a bucket load of money. You honestly, need a gamer who is a venture captalist lol. And I don't believe there are any out there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,312 Posts
Usually when you put your money with a company, money for them to make their product, it is called owning stock.

This sounds more like "Give us money or we won't make games for you to buy!"

"... because we don't really need to make games anymore, we sell everybody else's. But please don't take it the wrong way, we really need to get some of your money upfront to offset the risk of not being able to recoup the cost of new any HL2 [or even HL3] and Left4Dead entries.
"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
I'm not sure I really understood this, but If I did that'd mean games would be developed only if gamers decided they would like the game and payed for it to be created.
Since investing in something you don't know is a rather risky business, that means people would most likely only support sequels and mainstream games, so the whole "unknown wonder game no one gave a damn for before it was realeased and it was great later" thing would probably disappear.
I'll have to say NO to this. Developers need to lose that fear of opening their wallets, and stop trying to open ours at every chance...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,312 Posts
To sum it up: With this, Valve has entered the realm of "EA-ness".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by JTD92
View Post

A 10 year old engines that supports HDR support and multithreaded and that can be run on a 6 years old computer?

Go away troll.

I aint a troll mate.

I aknowledge that the source engine is a great engine but it has had its day.

left for dead was a complete flop, has given me nothing but problems, from audio bugs to major graphical issues and BSOD's on an otherwise 100% stable computer.

If ANY other developer kept releasing games on a 10 year old engine, released a sequel when they promised major DLC's everone would completely reject them- EA for example. But valve it is somehow frowned upon but people "will buy it anyway" despite the fact that Valve's support is piss poor with any of the issues I have had.

And dont get me started on steam's hormonal nuances.

I am not a troll, arguably those who refuse to see the endless road valve is profit gouging the community down and continue to support valve wholeheartedly are the trolls.

/end of my arguement with you people. We will never agree
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Honestly, this will just put gamers on the bad side of the deal.

They claim that gamers will get a return on investment, but I'm willing to bet anything that the amount they're willing to pay gamer-investors back for their investment will be much lower than a proper investor. All they want is a investor that can offset the risk in the same way that a normal investor can, and at the same time accept a lower return on investment, AND also have a group of gamers that will definitely buy the game when it comes out (the investors).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,410 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by SharkFin
View Post

I aint a troll mate.

I aknowledge that the source engine is a great engine but it has had its day.

left for dead was a complete flop, has given me nothing but problems, from audio bugs to major graphical issues and BSOD's on an otherwise 100% stable computer.

If ANY other developer kept releasing games on a 10 year old engine, released a sequel when they promised major DLC's everone would completely reject them- EA for example. But valve it is somehow frowned upon but people "will buy it anyway" despite the fact that Valve's support is piss poor with any of the issues I have had.

And dont get me started on steam's hormonal nuances.

I am not a troll, arguably those who refuse to see the endless road valve is profit gouging the community down and continue to support valve wholeheartedly are the trolls.

/end of my arguement with you people. We will never agree

So Valve are not entitle to make profits to help pay for their programmers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,301 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by thegreatsquare
View Post

To sum it up: With this, Valve has entered the realm of "EA-ness".

Actually they've been smoking from the same stack as EA for a while as well so go figure, but really Valve has made some amazing games. The only thing I don't like that they've done so far is rushed L4D2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by JTD92
View Post

So Valve are not entitle to make profits to help pay for their programmers?

Of course valve is allowed to make profits. Where did I say that?

I stated that they are now profit gouging in an EA like manner, and as a previous poster has said, this "idea" is to offset the risk of new game making at a lower cost and guarantee sales.

Valve can make profits, ofcourse they can, but when they gouge in an EA like manner and get off with it because "its valve they are awesome" then that is wrong.

Valve are taking advantage of the fanbase to act in rediculous ways and get off with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by thegreatsquare
View Post

Usually when you put your money with a company, money for them to make their product, it is called owning stock.

This sounds more like "Give us money or we won't make games for you to buy!"

"... because we don't really need to make games anymore, we sell everybody else's. But please don't take it the wrong way, we really need to get some of your money upfront to offset the risk of not being able to recoup the cost of new any HL2 [or even HL3] and Left4Dead entries.
"

Exactly. This is Valve trying to find some way to be a publicly traded company without actually being a public company, because they want to keep getting money from their big publishers also.
 

·
OG OC
Joined
·
2,231 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by HowHardCanItBeView Post
Man I was actually the guy who posted the video.


http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/54...be-newell.html

He talks about his view on piracy and stuff, its an extended interview if any of you are interested. I am surprised no one responded.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/...funded-games/1

Never going to happen. They can want all kinds of things, but this isn't EVER going to happen. Can you imagine pre-ordering a game 2 years before it comes out? I'm not going to, not in this lifetime.

Why is he talking like this is a radical idea? Is there something preventing people from buying stock now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharkFin View Post
I aint a troll mate.

I aknowledge that the source engine is a great engine but it has had its day.

left for dead was a complete flop, has given me nothing but problems, from audio bugs to major graphical issues and BSOD's on an otherwise 100% stable computer.

If ANY other developer kept releasing games on a 10 year old engine, released a sequel when they promised major DLC's everone would completely reject them- EA for example. But valve it is somehow frowned upon but people "will buy it anyway" despite the fact that Valve's support is piss poor with any of the issues I have had.

And dont get me started on steam's hormonal nuances.

I am not a troll, arguably those who refuse to see the endless road valve is profit gouging the community down and continue to support valve wholeheartedly are the trolls.

/end of my arguement with you people. We will never agree

Funny how the game was such a flop that it has a Game of the Year edition now.

This is the first time I've heard of the game giving people this many problems, and I've been playing it for a long time. I have two servers running it too. I'm not saying you're making anything up, but you're the only person I've ever heard of that's having your problems. Still, I have a hard time believing that this game is giving you a BSOD and nothing else is. It runs on DX9 for **** sake. I can run it on my laptop.

I can't think of a single game company that has good support anyway, so saying that their support isn't the greatest isn't much of a detriment to Valve. For a "10 year old" engine to still be able to be as versatile as this one is, how is that a bad thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
All I see in this thread is a bunch of people who aren't thinking Gabe's idea through to the logical conclusion, which is probably why none of you run a AAA game company.

I'm not going to help, either. Actually think about what he's saying, not just on the surface where you all panick at that thought of spending money, and then post again. I'll check back later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
This man needs to look up the definition of buying a stock... If I finance a game's creation I want a share of the profits...
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top