Instead of a crowdfunded game, how about acrowdfunded game company?

[maniacalpha1-1]

We've all seen the Kickstarters for individual games, but what we really need is for some folks who would be interested in starting a gaming company that will crowdfund the initial creation of the company, and if successful, everyone who funded it would become stockholders. I would suggest doing a Kickstarter but apparently KS doesn't allow the very thing I am suggesting.

The way this could work is (and this is just an example, come up with a better way if you are interested) like this:

• Multiple groups of companies interested in starting up with this method come up with proposals, and the one who gets the target amount of funding first gets created, the others get nothing. Though there could be an annual funding event of this type.
• Imagine the initial amount of money the funding targets is $15,000,000. Their proposal will thus be the very first game they will develop with that budget, and how they will develop it, etc.
• The winner is the first one to reach the designated amount (if that wasn't clear from the first bullet)
• The proposing groups agree that while they are the ones with the technical programming knowledge to make games, they agree that they will allow stockholder influence on their decisions on a level that exceeds how much other gaming companies listen to players. This, in fact, is THE point of this whole suggestion.

• Potential funders can apply their funds to more than one company, but only the one who reaches the funding goal first will win. (ie you can fund $500 to 3 out of 10 companies to choose from, and if one of those 3 wins, your money is applied, if one of the other 7 wins, you pay nothing - thus you should bid on every company whose proposal you agree with/like)
• (Only a suggestion): At least until the first game is released, in the company charter there would be hard caps on executive pay (say, $250,000 for CEO, and so on). The stockholders could, after the release of the first game, vote to change that.
• The kinds of decisions that stockholders actually vote on would be spelled out in the proposals.

While the stockholders COULD gain dividends and stuff like any other company, remember the primary purpose of this suggestion is to create a company that, in comparison to other gaming companies, listens to its playerbase (though technically they will only be listening to the people who funded them, the rest of the world had a chance to fund it during the initial offering, and if they didn't, that's on them).

What other rules/etc might be needed to make this work? Could it work?

 

[DaveSimmons]

The problem with this is deciding what games they will make.

With a game KS, everyone giving money knows what game they are supposed to receive in return.

With fund-a-game-co, I might want Wasteland 3 while a majority of stockholders vote for a My Little Pony game. I would be disappoint.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

The problem with this is deciding what games they will make.

With a game KS, everyone giving money knows what game they are supposed to receive in return.

With fund-a-game-co, I might want Wasteland 3 while a majority of stockholders vote for a My Little Pony game. I would be disappoint.

The initial game they are going to make would be fully outlined in their proposals. Though I suppose this could be an issue in the subsequent games. Perhaps, at least for the first 3 games, the basic genre/etc would be a stockholder vote?

 

[DaveSimmons]

> the basic genre/etc would be a stockholder vote?

I wouldn't want to fund 3 games and only know 1 of them in advance.

Also, even if you can pick the genre, it could still end up being something you don't want. I've never gotten around to playing the comedy remake of Bard's Tale in my Steam library that I got in some bundle, even though I like RPGs and (for its time) the original Bard's Tale.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

> the basic genre/etc would be a stockholder vote?

I wouldn't want to fund 3 games and only know 1 of them in advance.

Also, even if you can pick the genre, it could still end up being something you don't want. I've never gotten around to playing the comedy remake of Bard's Tale in my Steam library that I got in some bundle, even though I like RPGs and (for its time) the original Bard's Tale.

Technically, you're only funding the first game. But - if that game is successful and the company is financially able to make a second game, then for no extra investment you are still a stockholder with vastly more influence over the company than you have right now with EA, SOE, etc.

For myself, I wouldn't mind if the company had to put complete details of future games up to a vote...but that might scare off potential proposers.

 

[DaveSimmons]

To me it would still not be worth it -- if majority vote rules the company could end up making a racing game, RTS or bullet-hell shmup that I'd never play.

The only way it would work for me is if I had veto power over my share of the company's assets, which doesn't seem practical unless the company raises enough for several games up front, and they make enough to fund several new games in round 2.

If they have funding for (say) 3 new games in the second round, then it's likely that one of them would appeal to me and get my vote to use my share.

 

[Bateluer]

I see a 'too many followers' type of problem. Too many people on the bottom rungs combined with a lack of leadership and organization. A successful company, any company, needs strong, effective leadership, and having a slew of people all trying to steer the helm and argue with the leader will sink the ship before it leaves the port.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I see a 'too many followers' type of problem. Too many people on the bottom rungs combined with a lack of leadership and organization. A successful company, any company, needs strong, effective leadership, and having a slew of people all trying to steer the helm and argue with the leader will sink the ship before it leaves the port.

I agree there are issues...but it would be better than the status quo of game companies developing to satisfy stockholders who only care about profit. A game company developing for stockholders who care about the game itself would be a welcome change!

Perhaps part of the process and proposal would be that the company who has the best idea for dealing with these issues would be the one selected!

 

[shortylickens]

thats a corporation.
We would be shareholders.

 

[greenhawk]

there are already people that invest money into start up companies, they are called venture capitalist. There are even some around IIRC that take people's money (as not everyone has enough to fund one personally) and sell shares for a set price. Not sure about the ability to have a say at the shareholder level as too many cooks have killed off ideas before they have left the ground. Besides, the shareholder venture capitalist setup works better as your one share could be in several companies.

Personally, any company I would buy into (there is no "given shares if it takes off" rubbish as that never works), having anyone at the CEO limit of $x will not happen, they initial workers will be working for a share in the company, not $.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The problem with this is deciding what games they will make.

With a game KS, everyone giving money knows what game they are supposed to receive in return.

With fund-a-game-co, I might want Wasteland 3 while a majority of stockholders vote for a My Little Pony game. I would be disappoint.

Or worst yet another COD franchise fps game. /puke.

Because there are a hell of a lot more fans of that genre of games then there are of turn based post apocalyptic RPG games.

 

[gorcorps]

I agree there are issues...but it would be better than the status quo of game companies developing to satisfy stockholders who only care about profit. A game company developing for stockholders who care about the game itself would be a welcome change!

Perhaps part of the process and proposal would be that the company who has the best idea for dealing with these issues would be the one selected!

The problem with this is that you DO need profits to keep a company running. You need a certain amount of commercial success to keep going, otherwise you're not going to get more than a game out of it.

I just don't understand how this is going to end up any different than companies do now. Just because the money came from gamers doesn't magically make the company immune from typical business decisions that all companies face. If your first game doesn't end up as a hit with the public, you're done after one game. I'd much rather fund a game than be a part of a company funded by a bunch of fickle gamers who don't know diddly poo about business.

 

[Red Storm]

thats a corporation.
We would be shareholders.

Except crowd funding gets you no shares.

 

[Crusty]

This is still illegal. The JOBS act of 2012 introduced new rules for equity based crowdfunding, but the SEC hasn't finalized the regulations yet.

In the near future you will be able to fund companies this way, crowdfunders getting equity, but not right now.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

This is still illegal. The JOBS act of 2012 introduced new rules for equity based crowdfunding, but the SEC hasn't finalized the regulations yet.

In the near future you will be able to fund companies this way, crowdfunders getting equity, but not right now.

So in order to do it right now, you can only crowdfund a game, and due to the lack of of equity, it would basically be entrusting to the honor system as to whether or not they will actually stick to their proposals...

OK...how about a slightly different approach; where an individual or group comes up with an idea for a game (preferably after consulting a large cross-section of players) and the commissions a crowdfunding project. If funded, that individual or group who initially funded it then acts not as the developer, but as a trustee of sorts...they will do two things - one, hire a programming team to make the game, and continually audit them to make sure they are proceeding to specification. Two, they will contract with someone to publish the game. Thus the people who physically make the game are never in control of the money (except to the extent the trustees grant control).

An example would be a proposal to make a modern themed MMO first person shooter (and I picked this example because in my opinion the only real MMOFPS in operation right now is Planetside 2). So, it gets funded, the trustees hire a programming team, and then offer, say, EA(just an example!) the rights to publish the game, bill the players for the subscription or, if free 2 play, run the cash shop.

That example doesn't address a lot of specifics but there you go.

And of course, for a single player game the funders would get a copy of the finished game in exchange for their funding, for an MMO, at least a year's access or X dollars of store-cash, or whatever.

 

[DaveSimmons]

A "kickstarter escrow" service might be attractive to some funders,, but then you add overhead that would make many small projects cost too much.

Most of the big projects are from established developers like InXile, Obsidian, Chris Roberts where escrow isn't really needed. Osidian is not going to run off to Mexico with their KS funds.

The possible, alleged, KS-fraud has been in smaller projects under $100K. The escrow service might not be able to afford to offer much oversight if it's only being paid (say) $1K for a $40K project.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

My concern was never about running off with the money but simply keeping the design of the game, and sequels that follow it (if fortunate to be successful), true to the playerbase desires, with no compromising purely for sales (since it's already paid for).

How many times do we have discussions about "what EA did with Bioware and DA2" and any number of similar examples? And I know many people may not agree with that specific example, but it's only an example.

Here's a question...so it's currently illegal for crowdfunding to sell company entity equity, but what about intellectual property equity? Can the conglomerate of funders own the IP?