What is Digg?189 Comments
- Aroundtown27, on 07/21/2009, -3/+240Don't gamers pay for development already by buying the game?
- Exhibitionist, on 07/21/2009, -8/+137Jesus, Gabe needs to lay off the twinkies.
- newman328, on 07/21/2009, -1/+93Boomer!
- Phocion55, on 07/21/2009, -1/+69At this point, anything that gets another HL2 episode out the door in less than 5 years.
- Ryanman7, on 07/21/2009, -2/+69They do, but indirectly. The game they "fund" could be really *****, something that doesn't appeal to them. For instance I bought Homeworld in 1999. Relic made a mediocre sequel, which I still purchased because "mediocre" for Relic is something different from any other dev.
Now, I've been waiting for Homeworld 3 for 5 years. I funded development for Dawn of War and a couple other games I don't give a ***** about.
Imagine if I gave Relic 200 bucks to develop Homeworld 3 with a profit sharing program for copies sold. Chances are even if it sold poorly I'd make 150 back and get the game to boot. And I'd be funding specifically for a game I've lusted after for years.
I'd pour money into HL2 ep3. You know Valve would get 20 million dollars instantly if they just announced a pre order for that damn game. - wisedude, on 07/21/2009, -0/+48So he's turning game development into an investment vehicle? That could be interesting. Honestly, just think if you'd invested in Orange Box the massive returns you would have made on that.... Definitely an investment to consider
- jer2eydevil88, on 07/21/2009, -3/+36Interesting concept but probably not the best idea to test in a global recession...
- ResonantToe, on 07/21/2009, -3/+28AWESOME! I'm going to invest in Duke Nukem Forever
That provide good returns.
Seriously though, its not the worst idea. But would never work in practice. - inactive, on 07/21/2009, -1/+25Selective funding sounds good. I'd finance HL3 and a proper HL1 remake. But I don't give a ***** about counterstrike.
- ghaltmann, on 07/21/2009, -0/+21This is actually a very cool idea. I mean, how many times have you said "man, I wish they'd make a game like X". Well now you can contribute.
Also, it would really help Indy devs who can say, make a demo or concept and then get funding for the whole thing. I like it. - smokeydbear, on 07/21/2009, -0/+20They wouldn't be donors, they'd be investors. Publishers don't just give developers money with no expectation of making that money back ... this would be the same thing, you'd get a copy of the game and then a return based on how well the game sold amongst non-investors.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/21/2009, -0/+18Then don't....
Wait for the game to come out and buy it then. - rjc5056, on 07/21/2009, -1/+19RTFA. Your investment is your paying for the game (a pre-order). And if the game does well you could even make money back. Not at all like paying for it twice.
- nepidae, on 07/21/2009, -1/+16Kinda like L4D!
- dn11, on 07/21/2009, -2/+16
*cough* get a job *cough* leach bastard *cough* - chpipes, on 07/21/2009, -0/+13i think it would only work with large companies that already have established reputations. the only two game companies i would give my money to and be confident i would make it back would be valve or blizzard. but then again, why would they need the money? they already have millions. i definitely do not think this will work for the smaller game companies. too much of a risk for too many people
- sinrtb, on 07/21/2009, -0/+11Ya we all know we pay for car development through taxes.
- bram, on 07/21/2009, -0/+11Someone get him a Sandvich!
- cquilliam, on 07/21/2009, -0/+11Another issue with this approach is that you'd have 50,000+ people out there with financial ties to a game. People will be out praising the game even if it sucked. Its bad enough that some review sites are already partial, imagine how much worse it could be in this kind of setup. You wouldn't be able to trust any source until you went out and bought the game and tried it yourself. This will more than likely lead to even more piracy as people will have less idea how good a game is.
- Crana, on 07/21/2009, -0/+10You must be new here... Digg loves Valve seeing as their the only company who listens to their users. Enjoy being buried for stealing Valve's hardwork.
- emjaymj, on 07/21/2009, -0/+10"Why would you invest in a company who is lacking the capital it requires for production?"
lol? This is how financing works you dolt - Solkre, on 07/21/2009, -2/+11Because it's not worth the investment right now. The super majority of people who want their games either have Windows, or emulate it .
The server makes sense, it doesn't require all the graphics ***** that the game itself would, and there are more Linux servers than Linux gamers. - ParappaDaCrappa, on 07/21/2009, -1/+10People are cheap in weird ways, they'll spend 9 bucks a beer at a sporting event or buy some useless $10 foam finger but they would never consider spending $5 to fund a game and get a copy when it was out.
- NJank, on 07/21/2009, -0/+8"with a profit sharing program for copies sold. Chances are even if it sold poorly I'd make 150 back"
game development has been looking more and more like major film production as the years have gone by. With that in mind, you might want to get a guarantee of gross profits lest Hollywood Accounting set in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting - lewystud, on 07/21/2009, -0/+8Episode 3 in 2013
- inactive, on 07/21/2009, -3/+11But this way you get to pay twice, its win-win!
- Midnitte, on 07/21/2009, -1/+9silly... the world ends in 2012.
- Xzelick, on 07/21/2009, -0/+7I'm down with it especially if they used titles that were well known. For instance if I had the opportunity to invest $100 in starcraft2 and then get a return back on the profits I would do it in a heartbeat.
- videogamechamp, on 07/21/2009, -0/+7No it isn't like that. It isn't like that at all. You have to read the article first.
- NJank, on 07/21/2009, -0/+7and when the project gets scrapped?
- dn11, on 07/21/2009, -1/+8because you represent less than 1% of the market and it would be a waste of time and money
- 2Bnor2B, on 07/21/2009, -0/+7"....and a proper HL1 remake"
Black Mesa is doing a pretty good job at this, albeit a little slowly.
I just wish they would give more status updates. They are beginning to become the Duke Nukem Forever of the modding community.I also lost a little confidence in the group when the forum's hard drive crashed and no one thought of backing it up. If it ever does get finished, it will be awesome. - EricOfTheJames, on 07/21/2009, -1/+7 I see no problem with this idea provided it's a trusted company doing the development. Your risk is lessened and chance of return greater. Offering the option doesn't mean that people can't just buy the game when it's released. Lighten up Diggers . . or just lite up.
- rjc5056, on 07/21/2009, -0/+6For existing IPs. This would be more like venture capital. So basically, instead of pre-ordering a game at Gamestop, you'd send that order to the devs way earlier.
- emjaymj, on 07/21/2009, -0/+5Where did I say that what Newell was suggesting is the exact same as current financing models? I didn't.
I was referring to your comment about the company needing investors in order to raise capital. That is how the business world works.
I wasn't sure if it was possible, but apparently you're even dumber than I thought. - cJw314, on 07/21/2009, -1/+6***** Gamestop.
- manitoba98xp, on 07/21/2009, -0/+5No, all he's suggesting is that customers could become investors as well. If you invest $100 in Valve's work on Portal 2, and Valve makes a profit on Portal 2, you'd receive the appropriate proportion of the profits. It's in investment, not a donation.
- BigEasy, on 07/21/2009, -3/+8Great, because gamers don't ALREADY have a huge sense of entitlement when it comes to their games, now we're going to make them shareholders.
- dn11, on 07/21/2009, -1/+6no. because the general public who invest in publicly traded companies rarely care about the actual quality or attributes of the products - they care about the bottom line. I think Gabe is trying to make a point to the complainers and the haters of the world: making great games, regularly and consistently for a core audience of hardcore fans and balancing that out with financial and business considerations isn't the easiest task.
- lukeatron, on 07/21/2009, -1/+6You, like many other of the younger idiots in these comments have completely missed the point of the article. What Gabe is proposing is specifically what Octoberlull is saying he would like to do, put his money where his interest is.
- killdashnine, on 07/21/2009, -1/+6At first I scoffed, but then I thought about this from a different perspective ...
Some kind of "gamer equity" where a number of gamers are given a stake in the development and become a more integral part of the process might be useful. Let's face it, there's a hell of a lot of crap out there ... I'd say most of it is because game developers are quite often more concerned with getting a product out the door than perfecting it.
Go for it Valve ... let's see what happens. - Rikkochet, on 07/21/2009, -0/+5Yes, they're asking for funding.
Put another way, they want people to prepurchase their games years early instead of the already dubious months early for prerelease. - sinrtb, on 07/21/2009, -0/+5If its worth buying, buy it. If its nothing more then a rootkit with a game attached torrrent on brotha.
- Networktwenty3, on 07/21/2009, -0/+5Looks like Gabe want's us to fund him another chillicheese tripple burger with bacon and a 72oz diet Coke.
- Perk, on 07/21/2009, -0/+4I'd buy $500 of Lucasarts stock if it would get Tie-Fighter remade...
- shredswithpiks, on 07/21/2009, -0/+4Yeah, paying money for development on a game and hoping it sells so you get most back sounds way too complicated. to me. I just want good games to come out so I can go to the store, hand a guy some money, and go play my game.
Lets keep it simple. Please. - inactive, on 07/21/2009, -1/+5I love how people are taking this way out of context.
- DankJemo, on 07/21/2009, -3/+7so... you don't just because they are releasing L4D2 a year after the first L4D? Wow, you're easily swayed aren't you, Fence post sitter.
- cryonix, on 07/21/2009, -0/+4I think this is more of a social statement on the industry than an actual plan. He's showing the consuming public why there are so many ***** games on the market by making you decide what to invest in. We all know the space marine shooter is the safe bet since the frat boys love'em. But the one about a summer camp for psychics? eeehh not so sure now are we?
People always say why don't investors, invest in "Good" games... when the "good" games don't sell, they instead invest in the "Safe" game and stay that way. I think this little experiment will go the same direction. - feezus, on 07/21/2009, -0/+4People also assumed that Radiohead wouldn't make much off of their In Rainbows voluntary payment idea scored them an esitmated $9 million within a week of release. If people respect an artist (or a quality developer, in this case) I'm willing to bet that a lot will chip in a few bucks. That will add up.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 192 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is