Gabe Newell on consumers rather than publishers investing in production of games.

[werdd]

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Valve-Ga...,news-4277.htm

According to Valve Software's Gabe Newell, the gaming community should finance games, not publishers. His comment stems from a recent video interview with Good Game (FLV), citing that funding and concepts--those that gamers really like--should occur between developers and consumers, not developers and publishers.

To reiterate his point, Newell briefly describes the current development process from a financial standpoint: $10 million to $30 million dollars are allocated at the beginning of each project. This means that there's a "huge amount of risk" associated with this fund. He also said that decisions have to be incredibly conservative.

"What I think would be much better would be if the community could finance the games," he said in the interview. "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.'"

Consumers making money off games? That sounds like a great plan, but ultimately would it work? Additionally, if projects don't receive enough money upfront, what then? And what about those Duke Nukem Forever projects that remain in limbo for years and years?

Naturally, the idea raises a lot of questions. However, it's not surprising that developers--and even publishers--are looking for ways to reverse the industry's plummeting revenue. 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," said NPD's Anita Frazier. "This level of decline is certainly going to cause some pain and reflection in the industry."

I think it is a great idea and i would probably participate if there was an open market on developing games. The liberal fools over at Toms of course do not understand.

Overinvestment actually has the potential to drive the prices of games down rather than up. Quality games would be better funded, and would sell more copys. Poor games with little production investment would likely fail or alter development significantly if no one is interested in the idea and investing.

Of course i would like to see this in addition to the traditional publishing companys. Im sick of companys like EA buying up small developers (bioware) and ruining their company. If EA had some competition, and no one invested in their bloatware DRM ridden crap, i believe the consumer would see a huge benefit.

[acptulsa]

I never watched the new The Ladykillers. Why would I? The original has Herbert Lom, Peter Sellers and Sir Alec Guiness. Who would be stupid enough to try to remake that?! Besides, I saw the new Italian Job, and it sucked. It didn't just suck, it put me to sleep.

So, I'm not inclined to trade in my copy of Diablo for a new dungeon adventure that may have better this or new that, but doesn't play as well. But you know what? I'd run out and pay full retail for a good World War I dogfight simulator. In a heartbeat.

Yes, conservatism is killing the gaming industry. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only recent major winner in the whole industry is the company that decided to throw away the pushbutton controller in favor of a motion sensor. Gutsy, but successful? How about gutsy and successful!

But no--most are just trying to create Final Fantasy XXXVIII...