Well, sounds kinda under-developed so far. But if Gabe Newell believes in it, I'm sure he of all people could find a way to make it work.

Now if Ken Levine supports the idea, it'll be unstoppable!

If this goes ahead, EA will be bankrupt within a year. =D
I mean, seriously, would you give EA money on the promise of a good game somewhere down the line? Knowing them it would not be finished, horribly unoptimised and probably no fun either.

I don't really see this taking off tbh, so many games sound good on paper, but are at best "meh" in execution.

It sounds like a good idea in theory, but would likely fall apart in practice. Either it would lead to design by committee or people feeling shafted when the game fails to meet expectations. Not that people don't feel shafted when games fail to meet expectations, they will just feel more so.

What would be nice is paying for a demo of the game in alpha stage with the understanding that your money and feedback will be used to further the game, and you will get a full version of the game upon release. Just like Tale Worlds did with Mount and Blade. The main problem with this model was that Mount and Blade was a tremendously repayable game. Most modern games have 10 hours of content and are not repayable. Thus early buyins would get their experiences ruined by multiple iterations of the same thing.

I might be willing to get on board, but first you have to promise not to make a sequel one year later.

I like this idea. He's basically saying let customers be investors, and in return, you get a copy of the game and maybe some of the profits made from said game.

For the gamer, this probably wouldn't mean that much. They may get a say in how the game works, and of course they might make something from it, but nothing more really.

For the developer, this means that not only do they get more money, but they get more time to make the game in question. And, for those games that fall short, this means that they get more of a chance to show off their potential. Wasted potential in games is one of the biggest downfalls, I think, in the gaming markey today. Someone comes along with a great idea and just doesn't have the time/money to fully explore the possibilities of their idea, due to money-hungry publishers that want the games released the second the first level is made.

It sounds good on paper. I've no idea how it'd pan-out, though.

Buying is funding. We pay enough as it is, stop being greedy. I don't like Gabe, even prior to this. Not making me like him now either.

It sounds great but like Keane said who can trust the companys will return on there deal.

If they did too many people would fund the game, therefore getting the money back and the game so in other words. The developers wont make any money.

I thought we funded development by actually BUYING the game?

Very yes.

It sounds a bit like a good game but at the moment. I'm skeptical.

I think this is indeed a good idea, but the problem is it would only work with a few companies as it stands. The issue is every company would want to jump on this bandwagon, and people aren't going to be comfortable with too many investments on incomplete games.

two words... DUKE NUKEM!!! seriously this idea would go up in flames, do you know how many products go belly up before development even gets half way done, this is horrible.

Haha, always the picture of Gabe playing WoW. I can't help but imagine that when he's interviewed, the reporters go to his house and he distractedly answers their questions as he keeps playing.

The only company I would trust is Blizzard, and that's only when it comes to Diablo.

And maybe Bioware. I would also say Ubisoft, but I'm giving them the finger since PoP's "no DLC on PC" bullcrap.

Kiutu:
Buying is funding. We pay enough as it is, stop being greedy.

Well, the news bit says that in the hypothetical situation that such a try a business model be tried, the investing player would get a share of the profits in addition to the game.

I'm not seeing how this'd work in real life but I'm not seeing this comment as Gabe being greedy either. More like utopistic, for two reasons, actually: one is that getting players on board with something like this would be extremely hard and second is that by accepting such money you're basically promising the players both that the game will be done and that it will sell enough to return a profit. Tough sell.

xmetatr0nx:
Holy crap if that picture isnt the "gamer" stereotype incarnate i dont know what is.

Haha...thats what I was thinking when I saw that picture...

Standing close to a screen that big...Gabe Newell must have horrible eyesight without those glasses.

Woe Is You:

Kiutu:
Buying is funding. We pay enough as it is, stop being greedy.

Well, the news bit says that in the hypothetical situation that such a try a business model be tried, the investing player would get a share of the profits in addition to the game.

I'm not seeing how this'd work in real life but I'm not seeing this comment as Gabe being greedy either. More like utopistic, for two reasons, actually: one is that getting players on board with something like this would be extremely hard and second is that by accepting such money you're basically promising the players both that the game will be done and that it will sell enough to return a profit. Tough sell.

I don't think that they are promising anything. Essentially, they are asking gamers to act as venture capitalists and bet on games to 1) get made and 2) be good. The problem that I forsee is that if they take money from us, then we are suddenly Valve shareholders. That means that we could have very real input on the direction of the game.

I'm sure there will be people lining up the street to fund 3D Realms next game....NOT!

Sounds like he is suggesting that we buy videogame bonds like when people (actually nameless,unspeakable, shambling corporate evil) buy Municipal Bonds in hopes that the State doesn't go belly up like Iceland and receive in exchange for interest payments and public infrastructure like roads to the governor's brother in law's car dealership.

What he describes is called "capital investment". Most gamers are not in that business. Most gamers seem to prefer to be on the consumer side of investing, not the capital side. The least reason of all, I'm sure, is the lack of a stack of money even remotely describable as "capital". A condition which Gabe seems to have forgotten exists for most of the world not named "Gabe Newell".

Is Gabe trying to invent new ways to wave his wad of cash as a proxy penis, or what? Will his next suggestion be that we should all eat cake? As usual, my advice for him, should he ever slow down to even read it, is to buy another Frappuchino, quit whining, quit blue skying in front of press about BS only he could participate in, and learn to program for the PS3. I'm sure he'll make more money at that than stoking platform wars or showing a total lack of empathy for what everyone else is going through right now.

Call me slow, but I don't get it. Gabe needs to elaborate on what decisions game companies are acting conservatively. Why is $30million not enough to alleviate at least most of the financial burden? I'm always a little skeptical of putting blind faith (and money) into a company when I won't be there on site to make sure my money is spent properly. That's one of the reasons I stopped buying music CDs without first previewing them. I have gotten burned way too many times.

This is the kind of concept that would work great for niche games -- a true sim city 5 (the simcity4 ppl are still making new buildings for the 7 year old game...), for instance, a civilization 5, those games have a devoted (rabid) fan base, but the mass market appeal for such niche games often does not exist. (simcity 4 and civ 4 are both highly successful games, i know)

I would not pay money to assist in the development of a shooter. There are hundreds of shooters to play, why should I care for any one in particular? But little niche games... i want an evil genius sequel too...

I'd pay money for a real sequal to star control 2.

ACTIVISION

SELL THE RIGHTS BACK TO TOYS FOR BOB WTFFFFZ

Basically buying the games themselves isn't good enough anymore. I spend enough of games and surely that money helps finance the developers for future games. At least that way I am investing in a good game and would want to see more.

Great idea. Capitalism at its best.

I suppose a type of pre-pre-order would give them a certain amount of guaranteed return to work with. There are a lot of games that get kicked out the door before their time because the developers don't have the cash to hand.
The sense of entitlement such a scheme would generate would be almost unbearable though.

Hmm, I could buy that. One condition. Everybodies "When its done" mentality, better get thrown right out the door. If Im paying for a game to be made(and yes I think we should fund specific projects and not the company in general) I want it worked on like two rat bastards outta hell.

Or else get it from wherever you did before.

I don't know what everyone else thinks, but I think that's a brilliant idea.
Fans are always complaining about ways their favorite games could have been improved, and given real say in its development would really remedy that.
Of course, there needs to be professional supervision (referring the the veteran dev's and not the publisher killjoys, of course).

Also, paying to help in a game's fruition and getting a free copy to boot sure beats any preorders.

I would most definitively spend a few dollars now rather than a bunch of dollars later.

Even if later it turns out to be a piece of crap. Usually, even if a game is overall bad, I'll still like it if it has an alluring concept. The only way I'd lose would be if the game didn't actually come out (which is possible, after all, and I don't think getting a refund is a possibility...)

The most interest result of such a thing would be that there could be a nice point between the mainstream games and the indie games. It'd still have enough money for it to be a A quality game (modern graphics, tight programming) but it could thread new ground without the weight of investors (or, at any rate, a bazillionš investors of a few dollars, who would be a lot less angry if the project failed than a few investors of a bazillion dollars).

šA bazillion, if you don't know, is a blillion blillions.