next »

[Sharkoss]

So I just had a shower, and came up with this:

A freeware game that has a 'fund my next game' button, with a few details about the game above it.  It's basically a built-in kickstarter for the next project.  It has the goal and current funding (which is updated via the internet).  There'd be different payment options that are essentially votes for the way you want the game to turn out - smaller sums are a vote for the less ambitious pitch, larger sums are for the more ambitious pitch.
When the next game is released, with its own attendant fund-the-next-game-button, it's freeware too.
Strictly speaking it's kind of a jumbled-together mix of a bunch of existing trendy ideas, but it seems to embody the best of it all, at least for me.

Does anybody know of any games that do something like that?

[AeornFlippout]

Sounds pretty interesting! I guess one potential challenge there, is that if the two games had vastly different styles, you might have a hard time reaching an audience from within the first game that would be interested in the second.

But it seems like a cool way to get people's attention, and remind them that you're not made of money

[Lynx]

If the next game is free, what's the motivation for people to put money in?

[Wilson Saunders]

My main worry is that it would be difficult for that first game to reach enough people to get the funding you need for the second game. Unlike videos or news stories video games take much more time and effort to interact with. Using one as your sole advertizing draw to do a kick starter might be hard. If you were already well known, you could probably use that in conjunction with this idea to get a kick starter off the ground.

[Sharkoss]

If the next game is free, what's the motivation for people to put money in?

There's no motivation so much as there is a threat - 'give me money or I won't make anymore games'.  I think this is a pretty terrible idea honestly - I intended it as a sop towards pirates who don't think they owe anybody anything and think everything should be free.  But yeah, it would probably be improved if the game wasn't actually freeware and the money down was basically a preorder for a for-money product.  So skip the 'freeware' part - there's no point in bargaining with people who can't be bargained with.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't think deciding on your monetization method based on piracy is a good idea. it might be an interesting experiment but my first thought is that it will not work very well and maybe you'll get $20 in donations, and that it'll lead players of your game to feel you are money-hungry

(the strange thing is that people won't think you are money hungry if you simply sell your game to them like most games do. but if you give the game to them free and ask them in-game for money, they'll see it as being greedy, even though it is a much better and more generous deal for the consumer to make payment optional rather than mandatory)

[Muz]

Sounds no different than typical donationware, except in this case, you actually have to make a game.

A better way would be to actually do a kickstarter and showcase that old game as part of your portfolio. Assuming you don't have money.

My business model when I go back to doing games would be to make a free game, then make the sequel pay to play. And then when I make a Cool Game III, I release Cool Game II for free or half price. It also keeps you on your toes to keep adding new things to every version, instead of following the Spiderweb Software trap of releasing the same game over and over again with just a different storyline.

On the downside, if your new game is worse than your old one, people will be very pissed off. And since a lot of people expect something similar to the game they played earlier, any change will piss off someone. The money makes them entitled to complain louder about it.

[RudyTheDev]

I have to agree that this method has a few (subjectivelly) large flaws to it. First and foremost, if I was to fund a game I would want to fund more of the same -- either a sequel, a spiritual sequel, a spinoff, or just a similar enough game to the one I'm playing. I wouldn't want to fund just "anything". That would be a donation.

I also agree that video games are much "tougher" to interract with than direct promotion/video. Far fewer people will see your fund button. Granted, you will have a higher clicks-to-views ratio than on any kickstarter project. But any kickstarter project will have far more views to begin with (and from an audience not necessarilly tied to your specific game).

Finally, I belong to the "gets annoyed quick by in-game promotion" crowd. I like the conventional "try product, give money, receive full product" routine. If I want to support you, I will buy your game. But I will stay away from any kickstarter-ish capmpaigns unless I know you well. But that's just me and my 2c.

[Wilson Saunders]

This might work with an episodic game. Release the first part of the story for free, and say the next installment will be released for free when the donation meter is filled up. Basically you hold the next part of the game hostage until your community pays up. Unfortunately this places your development scheduled in other people's hands. You may end up sitting on deployable content, or charging people for content that does not exist.

[Skull]

It would be nice seeing this fully integrated into the game's world. Like, if it's an RPG, and there's a village which was destroyed by war, maybe the in-game context suggests that those real-cash donations will help rebuild this said village, and that village is where your next funded game takes place.

But still, it seems like, as others said, it will be nearly impossible reaching out to an audience as huge as kickstarter's, unless we have a REALLY well established player community.

I'd suggest giving it a shot, but not placing the entire fate of your next games on the hands of this experiment.

[Muz]

Like, if it's an RPG, and there's a village which was destroyed by war, maybe the in-game context suggests that those real-cash donations will help rebuild this said village, and that village is where your next funded game takes place.

Lol, immersion at its most profitable.

[aptanor]

This might work with an episodic game. Release the first part of the story for free, and say the next installment will be released for free when the donation meter is filled up. Basically you hold the next part of the game hostage until your community pays up. Unfortunately this places your development scheduled in other people's hands. You may end up sitting on deployable content, or charging people for content that does not exist.

This I like. I think people would definitely be willing to shell out a few bucks expedite the next part of something they really enjoyed, as oppose to just "another game," and you could probably ensure people not complain about having to wait if the minimum has already been met with some careful wording about when the next episode is going to be released. Don't say it will be released when you have enough donations, be clear that it needs to be finished first.

[ludist]

It would be nice seeing this fully integrated into the game's world. Like, if it's an RPG, and there's a village which was destroyed by war, maybe the in-game context suggests that those real-cash donations will help rebuild this said village, and that village is where your next funded game takes place.

This is a really awesome idea for an experimental game project. The money crossing the magic circle thing is a little weird; prolly be kinda tough for people to get over that hurdle.  I think with the right fiction it could lead to a bad ass game.