By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Valve: Let the gamers be the investors

I don't know why I didn't clue in earlier, but he's basically talking about applying the co-op business model to game development. I



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network

If ever I was going to pay someone up front for a product, it would be Valve.



In other words, he couldn't find any real investors to fund his idea so he wants to sucker some gamers into doing it. ;)



silicon said:
Akvod said:

This is stupid:

You buy a game based on its final form, not how it sounds on paper or its potentials. Games like Assassin's Creed and Fry Cry 2, games that sound great on paper, emphasizing freedom and a world filled with smart AI And unique situations, fall flat. We all know how "hyped games" can turn out. And at least for those we get to see some sort of glimpse at what the final product is like.

We don't, or at least shouldn't, just blindly buy a game out of trust. Developers should be expected to convince us to buy each new game, and as responsible consumers we should do our research and find out about the final product as much as possible.

With this investing we can't do any research whatsoever. We have no screenshot, no gameplay footage, no reviews, no demoes, etc. We pay our money right at the drawing board, and like I said before, things can sound good on paper, but screw up in execution.

I know that every purchase is technically a risk. But this is like playing Russian roullete. You have absolutely no idea what the product is like, whereas when we buy games normally we have a lot of sources we can reserach from.

 

There is other kinds of research you can do. If a certain developer says they're going to make a game, you can find what games they made previously, who's on their staff and what games they made before.Also, they should mention what engine they're going to use, along with the story and art work.


They also mentioned you could potentially earn money on the investment. Which would mean you would get a copy of the game as well as earn money from the investment. Which is different then playing a fun game.


You could just do research on which developers are great at making games, and invest in them regardless of whether you're actually interested in the game or not. You mentioned Assassin's Creed, which sold millions... you could have gotten the game plus earned some money for choosing to invest in the developer beforehand.

Ubisoft was awesome last gen, this gen? Eh. Square Soft/Enix? Lost of great games in the past, now? John Romero and the old developers are now hit or miss with games like Deus Ex and then countless other failures after that.

And when the fuck did gamers become businessmen. I know in this forum, sales are relevant, but talking out of a pure gamer's perspective, why the fuck do we care about the profits of strangers? About the successes and failures of others, when as a consumers we should only be interested in our own interests.

 

It's like the fucking ridiculous attitude Wii owners are being bullied into accepting by analysts and commentators like Adam Sessler. NO BODY IS OBLIGATED TO BUY A GAME. Nobody is obligated to "support the industry". The only obligation I can only think about is being smart and trying to serve your interest to the best of your own ability by doing research. It only helps you get the best product for yourself by doing research.

If you don't want a game like Mad World, then don't get it. The developers failed to attract you, and so they should be punished despite their efforts. Buy the games you trully want, not what everyone's getting or what's "hot", and then you make the market cater to more of your own needs.



Well, I have had similar system in mind(for my own game). However I wouldn't invest on games before getting anything in return. What if there isn't enough funds to make a game etc.?



Around the Network

Partly a good idea, partly a bad one. Its a good idea since its very consumer-centric (radically consumer-centric, even), but its a bad idea because the consumers often don't really know what they want. Imagine a world without Wind Waker, which is what you would get if this kind of idea prevailed. Very few people knew they wanted Wind Waker when it was originally shown, many very loudly stated their desire for it to go away.

 

In short, this idea could lead to tremendous creative stagnation, since most only want to invest in what they know.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Ha, nice joke.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

How much profit could I make from Half Life 3?

1 Million people pay $30 upfront for HL3 = $30 Million

HL3 sells 5 Million @ $30 = $150 Million

$150 a "share".

Where do I sign up? I'll buy 100 shares please.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

It won't work.



 

   PROUD MEMBER OF THE PLAYSTATION 3 : RPG FAN CLUB