next »

[Martoon]

This is one of those way-out-there thought experiments that I thought might make an interesting discussion.

I know several indie developers are offering a discount for pre-ordering a game (usually 50% off) to help fund development, often including access to alpha or beta builds.  This also gets the customers invested in giving lots of feedback during development.

What if someone were to do an experimental agile development process, where at each major step in design, prototype, and development, the developer presented a few options, and let people pay to vote on the option they preferred?  Users could buy as many votes as they wanted (at, say, $1.00 per vote) so the larger someone's donation, they more they influence the outcome.  A vote would go for a few days, with live stats shown (so people could see the current percentages) giving people the opportunity to up their donation (if their preferred option was losing).  I realize this would take a lot of the design of the game out of the developer's hands, but like I said, this would be a very experimental development process.

Here's a couple initial observations.

If someone paid $100 to vote for an option they felt strongly about, then lost, they're going to be unhappy about this (I know I would be).  So instead of paying per vote, they would buy "voting stock" that could be used on all future votes (so even if their $100 didn't tip the balance on this one thing up for vote, they'd still have that $100 worth of voting stock in the bank for every upcoming vote).  While a particular decision was up for vote, though, with live stats, they could still buy more voting stock which would immediately go into effect and up the weight of their vote.

Strategic voters would be inclined to snipe, putting their vote in at the last second so opposing voters wouldn't have a chance to increase their vote.  To combat this, the weight of a vote could be given a bonus proportional to how early the vote was submitted (larger bonus when the voting first opens decreasing to no bonus near the time voting closes).

Has any developer done anything similar to this?

[Evan Balster]

Huh.  That's an interesting approach to fundraising.

I've never heard of anything like it (unless you count boards of investors) so I say give it a shot and tell us how it goes.

[PompiPompi]

That sound a bad idea to me(for the game design).
There could be a very devoted fan who has been following your game since day one, and knows everything about your game, but he doesn't have a lot of money. Then some rich guy who is bored comes to your site and donates 1337$ for the most funny feature in the list so he could add LOLZ to his post.
Calling it experimental make it sound more cool and indie, but I wouldn't make a game this way, unless all I cared about was money. Sorry if I sound harsh, but that's my opinion.

[speeder]

I tought of doing this, but it only work if  you are already popular or have a marketing team.

[Chromanoid]

i think something like this works (and is used) for (mmo) games that are already alpha or beyond. especially for prioritization of features in the development process.

[LemonScented]

I couldn't face doing something like this. If I'm wearing my indie hat, I don't think the alternative revenue stream could be anything like enough compensation for the loss of my artistic control. If I'm wearing my professional hat, I'm being paid to have (supposedly!) enough experience with game design and development to make better, more well-informed decisions about the creative and technical direction of a game than the customers. I appreciate a good piece of architecture as much as the next guy, but that doesn't qualify me to vote on the structual layout of a new skyscraper.

[ANtY]

FAN SERVICE

[tergem]

I think it would only really work if you had plenty of people on board, following the development of the game. In order to prevent the 'scale tipping' effects we see above.

However if you have few people following your game, I would expect the artistic control to go more to one person or another. One more thing to think about is how bad you would look provided you didn't go with what your people wanted. Which would result in I think.

[Evan Balster]

Regarding artistic control, users vote within a designer-defined set of choices.  One could be defined such that it gets the design process guided by players rather than controlled by them, and getting the community involved in development is a good thing.

Regarding the whole scheme, I abstain from saying it is or isn't a good idea.  I'd be interested to see it tried out and to see the results.  And I would expect a strange idea like this to get at least a little press, whether positive or negative.

[krasimir]

Well, if you are an avid comic book reader (online comics), you'll see some of them operate on a donation principle. You donate $100 and it covers the next 2 episodes. So that works. However, if you are able to pay $100 to kill the main char... well, no more comics.

[SaturnineGames]

I think you'd have to tread very, very carefully to get good results with something like this.

Remember, most people aren't game designers. Lots of people think they can do it but are terrible at it. Those who are good at it are most likely going to be designing their own games rather than paying you money to help design yours.

Another catch - you may have people pay to vote on something early on, then some later design decision causes you to scrap/change the earlier decision. You'll get angry people when that happens.

If you're going to try this, I would think things like the art or music style would be better choices to try it on. It's going to be far easier to get meaningful feedback from gamers on than on game design choices. It would probably also give you a good feel for how people will like the final product.

[tzachs]

It's an interesting concept, and like Cellulose I'm also not sure if it's a good or bad idea and would like to see you try it out.

I didn't think it through, but one gripe I immediately had while reading this, is:
What if I feel so strongly about a decision that I would not want to play the game at all if I don't like the results?
Putting my money in the "voting stock" would do me no good unless I can get a refund.
But if I could get a refund, then everybody would ask for a refund for every decision they voted on that didn't win...
And it can get even worse, I can vote on a lot of decisions, and already pay for them, and then reach that super important decision that kills my desire to play the game.
The disappointment will be huge and I'll probably take it out on you...  
So I would probably not vote at all, due to fear that my money will go to waste.

[ink.inc]

I can't see something like this ending well.

[bateleur]

To quote Han Solo: No amount of money is worth this.

[studioslug]

the problem is if this idea were to evolve, someone could take the money for personal gain, not caring which idea was voted for the most

[LemonScented]

I just remembered the name for people who pay you money in exchange for having creative control during a game's development: they're called publishers, and they're not really the Done Thing in indie circles. Also, they tend to have deeper pockets and (at least in theory, although possibly not in practise) a deeper knowledge of game design/development than the public.

Martoon, it's an interesting thought experiment, and I admire your enthusiasm for trying to find new ways to make money from games, but I think this idea is probably a non-starter. If you're willing to give up that much creative control for money, you'd be better off starting up one of those cheap&cheerful, work-for-hire code shops that tend to do stuff like "Mediocre TV Show: The Game". If the amount of creative control you want to give up is more limited (e.g. "We've prototyped two camera control schemes - play them both and vote on your favourite") then you might as well make the voting free and use it as an exercise in fostering a better relationship with your player community. You'll probably make more money from extra sales in the long run than by charging. Look at something like the Wolfire blog to see how they maintain a devoted audience by soliciting their opinions on certain things (whilst making no commitment to do exactly what they're told to do).

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think this would take the fun out of game development for me -- i'd be creating someone else's game for them. that's not really what indie game development is about for me; like the robot says on the front page "make the games YOU want to make!" -- that means you don't make the games publishers want, but it *also* means you don't make the games your audience wants.

that said, i can think of a way in which this could work: let's say you have a to-do list of things you already want to add to the game, and plan to. you could then let people vote on what part of the to-do list you should do next.

for instance, here's a short list of things that i still have to add to SD:

- weather effects (that's what i'm working on now)
- putting my father's sheet music that he wrote for the game into midi format so that they can then be arranged into .ogg for the game
- "ring cave" mode where you fly through a shmup-like series of obstacles
- options screen (game resolution, particle density, game difficulty, and other options)
- the ability to steal some of the abilities of creatures and use them yourself
- (etc. etc.)

and then have users vote on which of those i should do next. *that* i'm not against. but i'm totally against the idea of users paying me to add things to the game that i don't really think should be in the game, wouldn't have added myself, and don't think are good ideas at all.

[FrankieSmileShow]

I think you guys forget the developer would still have complete control on the choices available to begin with, and on what these choices are about. Its not like the entire development process was steered by unknown investors, the developper still has complete control and chooses what to let his fans decide on, and what the possible choices are. If its presented well and done carefully, I think it could work.

Also, no refunds. I would make it clear that, you are not paying to vote; you are paying because you want to support the project; the vote is a bonus. If you establish this from the getgo and are honest about what you want and what this is about, then I don't really see any inherent problems with this. I think it is an excellent idea to raise funds for a project and to involve your public in the development, but it kind of requires you to have an existing fanbase to make it work.

[Christian Knudsen]

If you want people to vote, it has to be a design choice that has considerable impact on the game, otherwise people won't care (at least not enough to pay to vote). I personally wouldn't want important design decisions like that left to a vote -- if I'm making the game, I want to make the game that I have in mind and make the choices that I believe will be best for the game.

[Evan Balster]

I think you guys forget the developer would still have complete control on the choices available to begin with, and on what these choices are about. Its not like the entire development process was steered by unknown investors, the developper still has complete control and chooses what to let his fans decide on, and what the possible choices are. If its presented well and done carefully, I think it could work.

Also, no refunds. I would make it clear that, you are not paying to vote; you are paying because you want to support the project; the vote is a bonus. If you establish this from the getgo and are honest about what you want and what this is about, then I don't really see any inherent problems with this. I think it is an excellent idea to raise funds for a project and to involve your public in the development, but it kind of requires you to have an existing fanbase to make it work.

I'd like to reaffirm what's being said in the first paragraph and disagree with the second; at the end of the vote only the winners should be charged, Kickstarter-style.  The 'carry-over' credit could still work in this system, only being applicable if the voter was on the winning side on a previous issue.

And also, the game *will* need an audience (and a big one) for this to work.