Startup money for independent developers.
by Earl Carey · in General Discussion · 03/21/2006 (6:06 am) · 34 replies
In some respects I think that innovation is one of the greatest edges that indie developers have over major game companies. We have the freedom to explore ideas that they will not simply due to the fact that a major publisher will not risk millions of dollars on "experimental Ideas".
In other respects innovation is often hardest to do as an independent developer because to really innovate it often takes a real budget. I do not necessarily mean that you have to spend thousands of dollars on tools and resources to innovate. The budget you need to innovate can might be a few hundred dollars a week so that you and your family dose not have to starve to death and your kids can stay in school while you work on your next great game idea.
We as indie developers find our selves in a catch 22. We have the intestinal fortitude to try new ideas but we do not always have the capitalization that we need to pull off our innovation.
How do we solve this problem?
We need to remember that innovation does not have to be a new graphics technique, or A.I. algorithm. As indie developers we also have the freedom to innovate the way that we fund our games.
Let us take a look at how funding works in the "real world". Company A has a great idea. They have a business plan and a solid model but no cash. Company A will not just quit and go home. Instead company A creates an I.P.O. ( Initial Public Offering.). They go to the stock exchange or to private investors and say I am making this many shares available for sail. If you buy these shares then I will pay you dividends every quarter.
A similar situation occurs with an existing company B that has been in business for years but now needs an infusion of cash. The sell shares and use the money to build the company.
Why can't we as indie developers innovate the way that we fund our projects and build a similar infrastructure for our selves?
Here is what I propose. We have a solid infrastructure here at garage games. Already we have tools for teams to post their plans, progress and sell their wares when they are done.
Let's build on that.
Lets have teams post detailed information about other things; market research that they have done, marketing strategy etc. so that people can get an even better idea of that is going on with the team.
Then we build an infrastructure (for teams who agree to sell their game online at least-) exclusively with garage games.) that would allow for the team to sell shares to others in the community. Other garage game members could say "hey I want to support that team or that guy", or "I think that game is going to be a success and I want to be a part of it".
Either way the net result would be that people buy shares and the team can use the money from those shares to buy the resources that they need.
In the beginning to control issues such as people taking the money and running of we can start with the shares not being directly given to teams as cash but rather as credits that could be used to buy resources from garage games.
This is not to say that I do not trust the GG community but rather we do not want unscrupulous people to hear about what we are doing and try to abuse the system.
Once we have control measures in place to some form of back ground checks and monitor teams and track people who are trying to abuse the system we can evolve it again so that teams can receive actual cash. This way they could pay them selves a salary or buy resources not found at garage games.
Summery
The end result of this idea is that we can take all of the intestinal fortitude of indie developers and combine it with real cash the make their ideas become reality.
In this age when every on is claiming that inde development is dead we could build an infrastructure that would allow us to make 'AAA' games with more heart and more soul and equal or more production values of major game developers.
In other respects innovation is often hardest to do as an independent developer because to really innovate it often takes a real budget. I do not necessarily mean that you have to spend thousands of dollars on tools and resources to innovate. The budget you need to innovate can might be a few hundred dollars a week so that you and your family dose not have to starve to death and your kids can stay in school while you work on your next great game idea.
We as indie developers find our selves in a catch 22. We have the intestinal fortitude to try new ideas but we do not always have the capitalization that we need to pull off our innovation.
How do we solve this problem?
We need to remember that innovation does not have to be a new graphics technique, or A.I. algorithm. As indie developers we also have the freedom to innovate the way that we fund our games.
Let us take a look at how funding works in the "real world". Company A has a great idea. They have a business plan and a solid model but no cash. Company A will not just quit and go home. Instead company A creates an I.P.O. ( Initial Public Offering.). They go to the stock exchange or to private investors and say I am making this many shares available for sail. If you buy these shares then I will pay you dividends every quarter.
A similar situation occurs with an existing company B that has been in business for years but now needs an infusion of cash. The sell shares and use the money to build the company.
Why can't we as indie developers innovate the way that we fund our projects and build a similar infrastructure for our selves?
Here is what I propose. We have a solid infrastructure here at garage games. Already we have tools for teams to post their plans, progress and sell their wares when they are done.
Let's build on that.
Lets have teams post detailed information about other things; market research that they have done, marketing strategy etc. so that people can get an even better idea of that is going on with the team.
Then we build an infrastructure (for teams who agree to sell their game online at least-) exclusively with garage games.) that would allow for the team to sell shares to others in the community. Other garage game members could say "hey I want to support that team or that guy", or "I think that game is going to be a success and I want to be a part of it".
Either way the net result would be that people buy shares and the team can use the money from those shares to buy the resources that they need.
In the beginning to control issues such as people taking the money and running of we can start with the shares not being directly given to teams as cash but rather as credits that could be used to buy resources from garage games.
This is not to say that I do not trust the GG community but rather we do not want unscrupulous people to hear about what we are doing and try to abuse the system.
Once we have control measures in place to some form of back ground checks and monitor teams and track people who are trying to abuse the system we can evolve it again so that teams can receive actual cash. This way they could pay them selves a salary or buy resources not found at garage games.
Summery
The end result of this idea is that we can take all of the intestinal fortitude of indie developers and combine it with real cash the make their ideas become reality.
In this age when every on is claiming that inde development is dead we could build an infrastructure that would allow us to make 'AAA' games with more heart and more soul and equal or more production values of major game developers.
About the author
#2
03/21/2006 (8:49 am)
Sounds like a solid plan. angel GG investors ;) 
#3
1) Companies who have nothing more than a good idea don't go public. They go to angel/venture capitalists. If you want to go public, you at least need a working product and established customer base (dot com bubble notwithstanding), AND you need a clear path to profitability. Of course that last part is needed to get VC funding as well.
2) Having some sort of private investment circle may prove to be problematic from a regulatory compliance standpoint (even for a privately held company there's still a lot of legal wrangling such as due diligence and the like). At a minimum, SOMEONE (GG, or the company that's being formed) is going to have a LOT of paperwork on their hands every time a new "company" is formed to invest in. Handling that paperwork requires time, energy, and/or money. Thus, you're talking about increasing the overall cost of the game, or decreasing the amount of time spent developing the game.
3) I'm not entirely convinced the economics will work out here. This may result in a few more games getting produced, but unless the average return exceeds the average investment, it's a losing proposition for investors. Thus, eventually the only people left investing will be idealists with money to burn, or people who are willing to throw money at a project just to see a cool game get developed. That's not exactly sustainable, and won't do a lot to grow the marketplace. Unfortunately you face a high hurdle in showing that the economics CAN work out here given the tendency for projects to not get completed, or to wind up being totally unprofitable even if they are completed. I tend to think that the reason most projects wind up being abandoned in the indie scene has more to do with a lack of discipline and lack of willpower than a lack of funding. Making a game is a LOT of work, and most people don't want to spend a lot of time -- especially what little free time they have outside of their day jobs -- doing the hard, boring *work* of making a game so they go at it and do all the "fun" stuff (whatever it is they find fun) and then give up when it gets too hard, or too dull. Until you can overcome THAT (by at least finding an effective way to differentiate between the serious individuals likely to finish a game and the casual individuals unlikely to finish a game) you have a major problem in terms of making the economics work out.
4) In order to overcome investors' skittishness about the prospects of a project, the leaders of the project will need to do a LOT of homework in advance. Market research, project planning and cost analysis, and so forth. Much of this is work that they are probably not qualified to do (meaning that what they produce may be mere wishful thinking and not actually be useful), and even if they are, it's time they AREN'T spending on their game.
I think perhaps a more realistic alternative might be to expand the functionality of the marketplace features GG already has to facilitate barter between individuals with marketable skills -- connecting artists, programmers, designers, marketing folks, etc. I.E. instead of trying to raise cash, why not try to reduce the need for cash?
-JF
03/21/2006 (11:29 am)
Let me offer the pessimistic view on this. Let me be clear: I do not necessarily think this is not worth pursuing, but anyone with any business sense looks at ideas in terms of *risks*, and you need to address and mitigate those risks before the idea will be taken seriously.1) Companies who have nothing more than a good idea don't go public. They go to angel/venture capitalists. If you want to go public, you at least need a working product and established customer base (dot com bubble notwithstanding), AND you need a clear path to profitability. Of course that last part is needed to get VC funding as well.
2) Having some sort of private investment circle may prove to be problematic from a regulatory compliance standpoint (even for a privately held company there's still a lot of legal wrangling such as due diligence and the like). At a minimum, SOMEONE (GG, or the company that's being formed) is going to have a LOT of paperwork on their hands every time a new "company" is formed to invest in. Handling that paperwork requires time, energy, and/or money. Thus, you're talking about increasing the overall cost of the game, or decreasing the amount of time spent developing the game.
3) I'm not entirely convinced the economics will work out here. This may result in a few more games getting produced, but unless the average return exceeds the average investment, it's a losing proposition for investors. Thus, eventually the only people left investing will be idealists with money to burn, or people who are willing to throw money at a project just to see a cool game get developed. That's not exactly sustainable, and won't do a lot to grow the marketplace. Unfortunately you face a high hurdle in showing that the economics CAN work out here given the tendency for projects to not get completed, or to wind up being totally unprofitable even if they are completed. I tend to think that the reason most projects wind up being abandoned in the indie scene has more to do with a lack of discipline and lack of willpower than a lack of funding. Making a game is a LOT of work, and most people don't want to spend a lot of time -- especially what little free time they have outside of their day jobs -- doing the hard, boring *work* of making a game so they go at it and do all the "fun" stuff (whatever it is they find fun) and then give up when it gets too hard, or too dull. Until you can overcome THAT (by at least finding an effective way to differentiate between the serious individuals likely to finish a game and the casual individuals unlikely to finish a game) you have a major problem in terms of making the economics work out.
4) In order to overcome investors' skittishness about the prospects of a project, the leaders of the project will need to do a LOT of homework in advance. Market research, project planning and cost analysis, and so forth. Much of this is work that they are probably not qualified to do (meaning that what they produce may be mere wishful thinking and not actually be useful), and even if they are, it's time they AREN'T spending on their game.
I think perhaps a more realistic alternative might be to expand the functionality of the marketplace features GG already has to facilitate barter between individuals with marketable skills -- connecting artists, programmers, designers, marketing folks, etc. I.E. instead of trying to raise cash, why not try to reduce the need for cash?
-JF
#4
03/21/2006 (12:07 pm)
I will be honest in general we could never as a new / small publisher fund other teams , it is hard enough funding our internal stuff , but in terms of publishing new games we are going to have real good go , (see our thread here - http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=40089) so yes I think PC games are a long way from being dead , its just for the bulk of them to compete against the real big titles they have to be cheaper , and good quality , so we are going to do our best to get these out. Plus one of the first is a GG torque game as well.
#5
Also, it is my personal belief, especially in the case of a small businesses (like an indie) that issueing dividends is a bad idea, especially with a low profitability. You'd be much better off retaining the earnings and putting it towards expanding in the next year. And your investors would probably be just as pleased as the value of the stock would also go up (idealy).
03/21/2006 (12:27 pm)
I agree with Jon on all his remarks. Additionally, you'd need to take into consideration how much you're going to be diluting your inital share base as well as who holds the primary control of the company by giving out those shares- IE, another problem in itself.Also, it is my personal belief, especially in the case of a small businesses (like an indie) that issueing dividends is a bad idea, especially with a low profitability. You'd be much better off retaining the earnings and putting it towards expanding in the next year. And your investors would probably be just as pleased as the value of the stock would also go up (idealy).
#6
I agree with you on many levels. It is for the reasons that you specify it will take many of us putting our heads together to work every thing out.
1.
You are quite right. People who only have good ideas to not go public and that is for good reason. No one would be willing to invest in some company if they do not have confidence that the company will be able to create a profit.
In essence the burden of proof is on the team to prove that their project is worth investing in and it is the choice of the community if they will invest in a project. Both proving the viability of a project and choosing which projects are viable are probably more art than science. This is the case even in the "real world" of fiancés. I has just started studying computational finace and believe be the level of art and science that goes into choosing a stock in today's world is mind boggling.
There would probable end up being a few innate criteria's that people look for when in vesting in a game. For example a potential investor may be more likely to invest in a team who has already created a successful game.
No matter what though just like in the real stock exchange there will never be any guaranties. You may make a profit or you may not.
All that we can do with risk is mitigating it. Perhaps when the system first starts people could sell shares to license tools and content packs from garage games only. The actual fund that are paid for the shares could be held in escrow.
If the team finishes the title on time then the money for the shares will be paid to garage games to pay for the resources. If the team fails to produce a game with in a set time period then their license would be rescinded, all moneys minus processing fees would be returned to the investor. We could also track a teams success rate for completing games and making hit games.
2.
Yes a great deal of due diligence and compliance has to be done to make this work. This does not mean that the wheel has to be invented every time we want to build a car however. Tremendous work and research should go into building the I.T. infrastructure that would be used to mange this work. If we can stream line the process and take much of the paper out of the paper work we may be able to make this work.
3.
There is an old boxing movie I think it was called notorious. They said something to the effect that out of a thousand boxers only 100 have heart and only 10 are worth watching and only one is special. Perhaps that applies here when we talk about the number of game ideas verses games that are actually produced.
Many games idea will be thought up. Many will not be completed. Some will be finished. A few will be good and a small few will be block busters.
As XBOX live exposes more and more casual gamers to the indie world more and more people will be paying attention to what we are doing. If we have our act together and should people that we have a serious well thought out plan I thin that many people would in vest. Do not underestimate the amount of people out there who would love a safe way to contribute and make sure that good games see the light of day. Many people who are passionate about games but do not have the skill or the time to make their own would contribute as a way to become a part of the vision of a good game.
Keep in mind everything is optional. A team has a choice as to wither they will go public or not. They can choose how many shares they want to sell and for which price and for what returns. Finally investor can choose how many shares they want as well as if they want to buy any shares at all.
4.
The barter idea is a great one and I think that is the foundation of the open source community of which we are defiantly apart. I think that if people see that the stock market that millions of people trade on every day is full of risk yet they still trade then if we can create a viable infrastructure for the gaming public to contribute to the development of games and accept the risk that goes along with it then. We ill be surprised at how many people participate.
03/21/2006 (1:58 pm)
[Jon Frisby]I agree with you on many levels. It is for the reasons that you specify it will take many of us putting our heads together to work every thing out.
1.
You are quite right. People who only have good ideas to not go public and that is for good reason. No one would be willing to invest in some company if they do not have confidence that the company will be able to create a profit.
In essence the burden of proof is on the team to prove that their project is worth investing in and it is the choice of the community if they will invest in a project. Both proving the viability of a project and choosing which projects are viable are probably more art than science. This is the case even in the "real world" of fiancés. I has just started studying computational finace and believe be the level of art and science that goes into choosing a stock in today's world is mind boggling.
There would probable end up being a few innate criteria's that people look for when in vesting in a game. For example a potential investor may be more likely to invest in a team who has already created a successful game.
No matter what though just like in the real stock exchange there will never be any guaranties. You may make a profit or you may not.
All that we can do with risk is mitigating it. Perhaps when the system first starts people could sell shares to license tools and content packs from garage games only. The actual fund that are paid for the shares could be held in escrow.
If the team finishes the title on time then the money for the shares will be paid to garage games to pay for the resources. If the team fails to produce a game with in a set time period then their license would be rescinded, all moneys minus processing fees would be returned to the investor. We could also track a teams success rate for completing games and making hit games.
2.
Yes a great deal of due diligence and compliance has to be done to make this work. This does not mean that the wheel has to be invented every time we want to build a car however. Tremendous work and research should go into building the I.T. infrastructure that would be used to mange this work. If we can stream line the process and take much of the paper out of the paper work we may be able to make this work.
3.
There is an old boxing movie I think it was called notorious. They said something to the effect that out of a thousand boxers only 100 have heart and only 10 are worth watching and only one is special. Perhaps that applies here when we talk about the number of game ideas verses games that are actually produced.
Many games idea will be thought up. Many will not be completed. Some will be finished. A few will be good and a small few will be block busters.
As XBOX live exposes more and more casual gamers to the indie world more and more people will be paying attention to what we are doing. If we have our act together and should people that we have a serious well thought out plan I thin that many people would in vest. Do not underestimate the amount of people out there who would love a safe way to contribute and make sure that good games see the light of day. Many people who are passionate about games but do not have the skill or the time to make their own would contribute as a way to become a part of the vision of a good game.
Keep in mind everything is optional. A team has a choice as to wither they will go public or not. They can choose how many shares they want to sell and for which price and for what returns. Finally investor can choose how many shares they want as well as if they want to buy any shares at all.
4.
The barter idea is a great one and I think that is the foundation of the open source community of which we are defiantly apart. I think that if people see that the stock market that millions of people trade on every day is full of risk yet they still trade then if we can create a viable infrastructure for the gaming public to contribute to the development of games and accept the risk that goes along with it then. We ill be surprised at how many people participate.
#7
What you're essentially talking about is making a micro-market for extremely high risk stocks whose potential is at BEST mediocre. It's fine if 9/10 stocks fail, if that 10th stock gets a better than 10x return (!!), but what you're talking about is a situation where it's more like 900/1000 stocks will fail outright, 99/1000 will at least make it to market but not become profitable and that 1/1000 may become modestly successful -- but it would be pretty unprecedented for it to do 1000x return.
As for "streamlining" the due-diligence process: Can't be done, because the problem isn't about filling out a bunch of forms. There's no TurboTax to be had here. The problem is doing *real* market research, and coming up with a compelling business model based on that research, and then showing that you haven't completely missed something incredibly obvious in your research. The research alone is a full time job for a non-trivial amount of time, and building a solid business plan that isn't total wishful thinking takes even more time (although there are at least program that claim to guide you through the process).
Your whole premise boils down to one in-passing comment you made: "If we have our act together..." Never count on a crowd behaving in an unusual manner, even if it's a small crowd. There might be a dozen or so people in this community who really have what it takes to build a business, and if they are so motivated they can do the work, put together a plan, and use the forums to seek out individuals willing to invest. But for the vast majority of us who just want to make a nifty game, the barter system is still a far more practical option and I think we'd really rather see GG invest it's limited resources in improving the tools that are the core of their business and upon which we depend.
-JF
03/21/2006 (6:42 pm)
The stock market works because in the long-term, it's pretty easy to make money. The "science" behind it is codified in the heavy regulations concerning what has to be disclosed, to whom, how, and when -- all of it designed to make sure that investors have the information they need to make an informed decision (Enron-style accounting fraud notwithstanding). It's only "risky" when you bet on it like a horse race (I.E. short-term). If you want to make money in the market, just buy an index fund and forget about it for 20 years. It's really that simple.What you're essentially talking about is making a micro-market for extremely high risk stocks whose potential is at BEST mediocre. It's fine if 9/10 stocks fail, if that 10th stock gets a better than 10x return (!!), but what you're talking about is a situation where it's more like 900/1000 stocks will fail outright, 99/1000 will at least make it to market but not become profitable and that 1/1000 may become modestly successful -- but it would be pretty unprecedented for it to do 1000x return.
As for "streamlining" the due-diligence process: Can't be done, because the problem isn't about filling out a bunch of forms. There's no TurboTax to be had here. The problem is doing *real* market research, and coming up with a compelling business model based on that research, and then showing that you haven't completely missed something incredibly obvious in your research. The research alone is a full time job for a non-trivial amount of time, and building a solid business plan that isn't total wishful thinking takes even more time (although there are at least program that claim to guide you through the process).
Your whole premise boils down to one in-passing comment you made: "If we have our act together..." Never count on a crowd behaving in an unusual manner, even if it's a small crowd. There might be a dozen or so people in this community who really have what it takes to build a business, and if they are so motivated they can do the work, put together a plan, and use the forums to seek out individuals willing to invest. But for the vast majority of us who just want to make a nifty game, the barter system is still a far more practical option and I think we'd really rather see GG invest it's limited resources in improving the tools that are the core of their business and upon which we depend.
-JF
#8
1) More content packs of all stripes. Models, textures, levels, sprites, particles, etc.
2) More starter kits. Falling blocks, bubble popping, RPG, god sim, platformer, flight sim, etc.
3) More modular, reusable code resources.
4) More high-level in-game tools.
GarageGames already publishes a TON of incredibly useful resources: Male and female models, medieval weapons, tanks, soldiers, buildings, castles, car, jetbike, terrains, lighting kit, ragdoll animation, etc.
Many of these can also be accomplished by community members! If you're a modeler, make a bunch of models, bundle them up, and talk to GG about publishing it. If you texture, make a texture pack, and talk to GG. If you're a coder, look on the forums and see what people are trying to accomplish frequently, then whip up an easy way for them to accomplish it and either submit the resource, talk to GG about including it, or talk to GG about publishing a "code pack" containing a bunch of those things.
This creates a natural, scalable system where we can leverage one-another's talents by making the fruits of our labors available to anyone for a reasonable price -- much cheaper for game developers than doing custom, one-off proprietary work for everything, and if you're not happy with it for the "final" look for your game, you're in a better position to get funding if you have a working, playable game and all you need is to spruce up the art, tweak a few game mechanics, or whatnot.
-JF
03/21/2006 (7:01 pm)
On a more positive note, here are a few things I think would result in more games getting finished on lower budgets and in less time:1) More content packs of all stripes. Models, textures, levels, sprites, particles, etc.
2) More starter kits. Falling blocks, bubble popping, RPG, god sim, platformer, flight sim, etc.
3) More modular, reusable code resources.
4) More high-level in-game tools.
GarageGames already publishes a TON of incredibly useful resources: Male and female models, medieval weapons, tanks, soldiers, buildings, castles, car, jetbike, terrains, lighting kit, ragdoll animation, etc.
Many of these can also be accomplished by community members! If you're a modeler, make a bunch of models, bundle them up, and talk to GG about publishing it. If you texture, make a texture pack, and talk to GG. If you're a coder, look on the forums and see what people are trying to accomplish frequently, then whip up an easy way for them to accomplish it and either submit the resource, talk to GG about including it, or talk to GG about publishing a "code pack" containing a bunch of those things.
This creates a natural, scalable system where we can leverage one-another's talents by making the fruits of our labors available to anyone for a reasonable price -- much cheaper for game developers than doing custom, one-off proprietary work for everything, and if you're not happy with it for the "final" look for your game, you're in a better position to get funding if you have a working, playable game and all you need is to spruce up the art, tweak a few game mechanics, or whatnot.
-JF
#9
There are few enough real teams on GarageGames that if left to an open market, the good teams would get the lions share of the investment. The good teams usually don't need the money.. and the good teams probably don't want to trade off large amounts of the back end of the product..
there is a danger that 'investors' will feel entitled to give feedback on the game design and/or the development process of the game, or at least have some sort of oversight. I don't think this is a good idea for small independent teams.
This is not to say that there are not a few individuals or teams that could not use some 'real' money to keep them working full time on a game for a year, but even with experienced developers, you have no assurance the game will be good, or that it will make money. If the goal is to make money funding games, then I personally don't think it would be a wise thing. If the goal is to get some philanthropy going and just getting people throwing in small amounts of money to increase the level of money changing hands in the indie game dev world, then it might prove viable, but it is more like a gift, or a lottery system.
actually, a lottery system might make more sense.. small amounts of a collected pool that everyone tries to get access to by making a demo that really rocks..
I would actually advise people to take some initiative and make some $$$ to fund their game through contracting and/or content packs.
If you are a coder, by the content packs from artists.. prototype the game to attract a team. If you are an artist, make content to attract coders and/or attract a team. If you have your work out there, it proves you can complete something, and it gives people a visual calling card of what you can do for them (and can produce some income as well)
use the tools that exist to find team members you like working with. I think that the no-cash forced bootstrapping leads to better results in the long run for everyone.. the dedicated survive, and the 'I want to make a game but I have no funding or I have no team or insert excuse here' crowd falls away.
take someone like Todd Pickens.. relative newcomer to the community.. I single him out because I am staring at the banner for his content pack at the bottom of the page. He is not waiting for funding.. he is creating it for himself by doing some work.
so, not trying to throw cold water on anything.. I have to agree with everyone who has posted with opinions regarding that this is probably not going to work, or at least, not going to work using the stock market as a model..
03/21/2006 (7:52 pm)
Just want to throw some comments into the mix. I don't want to discourage anyone from thinking outside the box in terms of alternative models for making and funding games. I would say that it is probably unwise to pursue this in too much detail.. and here is why.There are few enough real teams on GarageGames that if left to an open market, the good teams would get the lions share of the investment. The good teams usually don't need the money.. and the good teams probably don't want to trade off large amounts of the back end of the product..
there is a danger that 'investors' will feel entitled to give feedback on the game design and/or the development process of the game, or at least have some sort of oversight. I don't think this is a good idea for small independent teams.
This is not to say that there are not a few individuals or teams that could not use some 'real' money to keep them working full time on a game for a year, but even with experienced developers, you have no assurance the game will be good, or that it will make money. If the goal is to make money funding games, then I personally don't think it would be a wise thing. If the goal is to get some philanthropy going and just getting people throwing in small amounts of money to increase the level of money changing hands in the indie game dev world, then it might prove viable, but it is more like a gift, or a lottery system.
actually, a lottery system might make more sense.. small amounts of a collected pool that everyone tries to get access to by making a demo that really rocks..
I would actually advise people to take some initiative and make some $$$ to fund their game through contracting and/or content packs.
If you are a coder, by the content packs from artists.. prototype the game to attract a team. If you are an artist, make content to attract coders and/or attract a team. If you have your work out there, it proves you can complete something, and it gives people a visual calling card of what you can do for them (and can produce some income as well)
use the tools that exist to find team members you like working with. I think that the no-cash forced bootstrapping leads to better results in the long run for everyone.. the dedicated survive, and the 'I want to make a game but I have no funding or I have no team or insert excuse here' crowd falls away.
take someone like Todd Pickens.. relative newcomer to the community.. I single him out because I am staring at the banner for his content pack at the bottom of the page. He is not waiting for funding.. he is creating it for himself by doing some work.
so, not trying to throw cold water on anything.. I have to agree with everyone who has posted with opinions regarding that this is probably not going to work, or at least, not going to work using the stock market as a model..
#10
1: Ask Parents for money
2: Release Royalty-Free Content Packs for various engines, based off assets already created for own game
3: Use that money to fund the development of the game, which we
4: Release Royalty-Free Content Packs for various engines, based off assets of game
5: Use that money to fund the development of the game, which we
6: Release Royalty-Free Content Packs for various engines, based off assets of game
7: Use that money to fund the development of the game, which we
8: Release Royalty-Free Content Packs for various engines, based off assets of game
Etc, until I can find a big company with big pockets :)
03/21/2006 (10:09 pm)
I've got my funding plan sorted:1: Ask Parents for money
2: Release Royalty-Free Content Packs for various engines, based off assets already created for own game
3: Use that money to fund the development of the game, which we
4: Release Royalty-Free Content Packs for various engines, based off assets of game
5: Use that money to fund the development of the game, which we
6: Release Royalty-Free Content Packs for various engines, based off assets of game
7: Use that money to fund the development of the game, which we
8: Release Royalty-Free Content Packs for various engines, based off assets of game
Etc, until I can find a big company with big pockets :)
#11
But
I once herd some one say "I may not change to world but perhaps I can influence the mind of the person or persons who will change the world"
At the very least even if my idea does not or even cannot work, this discussion about raising funds will I am sure prove useful to others out their who are excellent coders or artist but have to idea how to find money for this game. If one such person reads this forum thread and is inspired and uses the suggestions posted here to complete their game I will be happy.
Every thing that we see before us that was created by man was once an idea, a though in someone's mind.
The first step to creating any thing is to have an idea and put it out there to face the criticism of others. Those constructive criticisms form the fires which purify the idea.
If you keep an idea in your head and it is never vetted and beaten by the thoughts of others then that idea will never reach its true potential.
If you put out an idea and every one says yes you are smart that is a great idea then once again the idea can never reach its true potential.
Democracy was once just an idea in someone's mind. The idea that all men are equal and should have a say in their own affairs.
Imagine what the world would be like to day if not one person spoke about that Idea and then worked to ward making it happen!
I am greatly encourage that a debate of this type could take place in this community and that all of you have participated. That in it self is a victory. I am going to take some time to think about all that was posted here over the past few days. Then I will post an updated model and I invite you to provide you opinions. I promise you that I will incorporate all of the ideas posted on this thread.
When the model is done and we have a consensus I will build the model as my contribution to the community.
Also please take a look at my game demo that will be released tomorrow.
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=41469
Tell me what you think about the idea in general and also let me know if those screen shoots are TRON enough ;-).
03/22/2006 (5:27 am)
I want you all to know that I have enjoyed this discourse greatly. Trust me I am a very cynical person and I know intimately how much Murphy 's Law effects every thing that we try to do.But
I once herd some one say "I may not change to world but perhaps I can influence the mind of the person or persons who will change the world"
At the very least even if my idea does not or even cannot work, this discussion about raising funds will I am sure prove useful to others out their who are excellent coders or artist but have to idea how to find money for this game. If one such person reads this forum thread and is inspired and uses the suggestions posted here to complete their game I will be happy.
Every thing that we see before us that was created by man was once an idea, a though in someone's mind.
The first step to creating any thing is to have an idea and put it out there to face the criticism of others. Those constructive criticisms form the fires which purify the idea.
If you keep an idea in your head and it is never vetted and beaten by the thoughts of others then that idea will never reach its true potential.
If you put out an idea and every one says yes you are smart that is a great idea then once again the idea can never reach its true potential.
Democracy was once just an idea in someone's mind. The idea that all men are equal and should have a say in their own affairs.
Imagine what the world would be like to day if not one person spoke about that Idea and then worked to ward making it happen!
I am greatly encourage that a debate of this type could take place in this community and that all of you have participated. That in it self is a victory. I am going to take some time to think about all that was posted here over the past few days. Then I will post an updated model and I invite you to provide you opinions. I promise you that I will incorporate all of the ideas posted on this thread.
When the model is done and we have a consensus I will build the model as my contribution to the community.
Also please take a look at my game demo that will be released tomorrow.
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=41469
Tell me what you think about the idea in general and also let me know if those screen shoots are TRON enough ;-).
#12
One thing to consider though, seeing as it's an option we are taking ourselves, is a percentage based shared cut of any future profits, both long-term and short-term options, in return for key investment funding. Considering our business is also an LLC, this can be determined in legal fashion as a share of the company (we will have 2 kinds of shares, actually).
As an example, say five people wish to make an investment on our current project. There are options available that accomidate any investors, from Bill Gates and a $1 Mil. investment to little Billy and his $5 a week allowance. In exchange they recieve a perportionate cut of any future income for a certain length of time - something like a promissary note or trust fund of sorts. In the end, when we've established ourselves, our investors will be more than satisfied with an on-going return, and we'll both make it ahead!
This does have to include the fact that our business isn't just for game development, but it could prove reasonable for any indie team that has the determination to make it work and the will to achieve a positive outcome. Heck, once we are situated, we'll be investing in indie projects ourselves (yes, you guys at GG, too) in much the same fashion as we are persuing now.
I'm more than willing to go into further discussion on this strategy if requested.
Untill later,
- Ronixus
03/23/2006 (3:09 pm)
Nice thread! Those are some very interesting options for finding funding, something I've been researching for the past few months. Ironicly, angel investors appear to be the most likely source of funding for indie teams outside of providing content packs or services.One thing to consider though, seeing as it's an option we are taking ourselves, is a percentage based shared cut of any future profits, both long-term and short-term options, in return for key investment funding. Considering our business is also an LLC, this can be determined in legal fashion as a share of the company (we will have 2 kinds of shares, actually).
As an example, say five people wish to make an investment on our current project. There are options available that accomidate any investors, from Bill Gates and a $1 Mil. investment to little Billy and his $5 a week allowance. In exchange they recieve a perportionate cut of any future income for a certain length of time - something like a promissary note or trust fund of sorts. In the end, when we've established ourselves, our investors will be more than satisfied with an on-going return, and we'll both make it ahead!
This does have to include the fact that our business isn't just for game development, but it could prove reasonable for any indie team that has the determination to make it work and the will to achieve a positive outcome. Heck, once we are situated, we'll be investing in indie projects ourselves (yes, you guys at GG, too) in much the same fashion as we are persuing now.
I'm more than willing to go into further discussion on this strategy if requested.
Untill later,
- Ronixus
#13
03/23/2006 (11:00 pm)
That sounds like those charity foundation plans where they hand you a cataloge with "you 15 bucks buys a goat for this family", "your 500 bucks pays this teacher salary for a year" :)
#14
1. Beg wife to let me spend money.
2. Secretly spend money in small amounts after wife says "NO!" to stay under radar.
3. Repeat.
04/03/2006 (12:31 pm)
My strategy is this:1. Beg wife to let me spend money.
2. Secretly spend money in small amounts after wife says "NO!" to stay under radar.
3. Repeat.
#15
1. Beg wife to let me spend money.
2. Secretly spend money in small amounts after wife says "NO!" to stay under radar.
3. Wife sneaks a peek over my shoulder as I balance my account and sees the deposits for PokerStars.
4. Wife makes me show her my latest statement.
5. Wife beats the crap out of me and grounds me for a month
6. Repeat.
04/03/2006 (12:42 pm)
Mine goes along this lines:1. Beg wife to let me spend money.
2. Secretly spend money in small amounts after wife says "NO!" to stay under radar.
3. Wife sneaks a peek over my shoulder as I balance my account and sees the deposits for PokerStars.
4. Wife makes me show her my latest statement.
5. Wife beats the crap out of me and grounds me for a month
6. Repeat.
#16
Mine used to go along like these lines:
1. Don't buy anything for myself that isn't for game development.
2. Tell wife that I'm doing the Seattle grunge thing.
3. Repeat.
Now that it's my job to do game development, it goes something like this.
1. It's for work now, so, it's ok to spend the money since it makes us more money.
2. Wife reminds me that she expects my income rate to increase exponetialy until I makes up for first 5 years of starving lifestyle.
3. I agree and work my ass off night and day while spending my free time with her.
Ahhhhh... I like this way better.
04/03/2006 (1:57 pm)
LOL!!Mine used to go along like these lines:
1. Don't buy anything for myself that isn't for game development.
2. Tell wife that I'm doing the Seattle grunge thing.
3. Repeat.
Now that it's my job to do game development, it goes something like this.
1. It's for work now, so, it's ok to spend the money since it makes us more money.
2. Wife reminds me that she expects my income rate to increase exponetialy until I makes up for first 5 years of starving lifestyle.
3. I agree and work my ass off night and day while spending my free time with her.
Ahhhhh... I like this way better.
#17
My time is still limited so I just want to post two things.
One, I actually developer real world financial software everyday as my day job so this idea of a virtual Games stock market kind of came from that.
Two, what is ok to put in a content pack and when is it ok to do it.
In other words, I have received a lot of help from people in the forums. In my heart I feel duty bound to release my first works to the public domain to give back to the community.
That is good social sense but not good business sense. How do I draw the line between what I should sell for profit and what I should just give to the community?
04/06/2006 (1:45 pm)
High guys its been awhile since I could post. The real world called me away for a while.My time is still limited so I just want to post two things.
One, I actually developer real world financial software everyday as my day job so this idea of a virtual Games stock market kind of came from that.
Two, what is ok to put in a content pack and when is it ok to do it.
In other words, I have received a lot of help from people in the forums. In my heart I feel duty bound to release my first works to the public domain to give back to the community.
That is good social sense but not good business sense. How do I draw the line between what I should sell for profit and what I should just give to the community?
#18
If your giving things away for free, people don't usually deem it nessesary to include animation/sounds or scripts, as its a 'Get what you pay for' thing, and they dont expect a high quality of work.
Basically, If its good and complete, sell it, if its incomplete and not so good, don't.
I think theres a market for code content packs aswell.
04/06/2006 (4:55 pm)
Well, if you put anything in a content pack, as long as it is quality work, people will buy it. They prefer things they can drop into their game with little to no changes to anything, that come with pre-written code to accomodate the content pack (if you sell weapon models, you should include the scripts/sounds/etc. with it aswell)If your giving things away for free, people don't usually deem it nessesary to include animation/sounds or scripts, as its a 'Get what you pay for' thing, and they dont expect a high quality of work.
Basically, If its good and complete, sell it, if its incomplete and not so good, don't.
I think theres a market for code content packs aswell.
#19
If you add one thing, you screw up another one etc.
04/07/2006 (9:26 am)
Code content packs could make a big hassle.If you add one thing, you screw up another one etc.
#20
1) Right-size your game.
2) Right-size your life.
Funding helps, but it will not replace either of the two. Besides, people have a tendency to grow their game once they get any sort of funding... putting them back to the same problem they were at before they had funding.
So I'll repeat it -
1) Right-size your game.
2) Right-size your life.
Everything else is a red-herring, IMO.
04/09/2006 (3:37 am)
You want to get a game done? You don't need external funding, you only need to do two things -1) Right-size your game.
2) Right-size your life.
Funding helps, but it will not replace either of the two. Besides, people have a tendency to grow their game once they get any sort of funding... putting them back to the same problem they were at before they had funding.
So I'll repeat it -
1) Right-size your game.
2) Right-size your life.
Everything else is a red-herring, IMO.
Torque Owner Earl Carey
Default Studio Name
Perhaps we can have other people in the comunity come on board and we can really make this happen.