People Voting & Shaping, together with Devs, the video game they IMAGINE to be INteresting !

News & General Discussion
1

Hi All,
please read the title again & well:
it’s all about a new kind of website, where anyone can register in order to give birth to an original video game - by participating all together - only by doing the following:

-people VOTE among a wide list of features, characteristics etc…
-people often get the ability to submit their own suggestions & ideas to the community, in order to let anyone interested to VOTE such idea;

The website is administrated by the Devs, they still have a strong voice, a veto right, only to ensure the project stay feasible to them.
-the website IS the core of the process, its goal is to provide a way to easily conduct the process of voting, and to avoid a list of issues related to the principle of “voting future game’s features”, itself; So the website has to be really ergonomic ;
*Participants receive a copy, a license, of the final game :
__-implies that participants pays a fee to Devs/Website__ from nearly the beginning of the process, and even during it, in order to, for example, submit important suggestions or changes requests.
EDIT: I know, the monetization part has to be well thought; probably people should pay a tiny one time fee but also they should be able to get refund if they want to leave because the project changed in a way they don’t want… etc… but developers will need funds too… so let’s say the question can be solved elegantly for everyone… (or let’s find suggestions) -

in a first phase, people are only shaping & designing -by voting-, the “typical profile” of a future video game.
gradually characteristics are locked: these features will be kept, because the majority voted them;

in the second phase, when the general features of the video game are chosen and are defined (the type & genre of game. could be even hybrid), Then:
-community vote for more specific, precise features; they can sometime submit ideas also, to be voted, like in the first phase;
-Devs starts to design a raw, rough prototype showing the wanted gameplay mechanics;
-Community can test the prototype, criticize, ask for changes, tweaks, features removal, just by voting; in the most methodical manner possible in order to speed things up, and reduce lost time/work;

during the process, people may leave because things turned out in the way they didn’t wanted nor voted, while new people still can arrive in; (as there’s a fee to enter probably the leavers will be refund…)
but still the majority might be satisfied and kept active;

Next, by the same methods, artistic direction is defined, (with the less lost work, no final asset is done, just ideas or concept art), and once approved by the majority:
-realization process starts;
-community can see, test, the results;

story, if any, is also voted, suggested, wrote:
-community can decide a lot of things for storytelling;

finally, the game grows up near completion, then released when finished to common games stores ; participants gets their copy, license…
people who didn’t participated still can buy it;

the process is well designed to:
-avoid too much work for Devs, (less canceling, aborted features, no extra features that are unfeasible…)
-avoid flooding by ideas and contradictions,
-keep community active, INterested,
-cheap enough for participants;

this idea, addresses the problem of making the game most people dreams to play, at a certain period of time. the game they would buy because that’s what trending in their minds.
a kind of way to get closer to the ideal of many. (but not EVERYbody).

if you have questions, I can reply; did you get the concept well ?; I had this idea today, I hope its a good idea ;
this might sounds to be unrealistic, so what’s your opinion about it ?

  • I see crowd funding trending these times, maybe my idea is not so different from what people use to know nowadays… think about it…

PS : when I use the word “Devs” I mean a real development studio, a structure, or a team. implying that the Devs tries to monetize the process. participants would pay a fee mainly when registering but the final product is then delivered to them without additional cost…

2

Sounds like an Amazon Studios idea, but for video games instead.

1 Like
3

You will get a game that has everything that everyone wants but nothing that isn’t already out there, basically, the same thing the AAA game companies offer. They do the same thing through market research and focus groups.

With this sort of “vote to design game” you will have a majority rules type of game but miss out on the fringes. And the fringes will feel left out, ignored. You would be surprised how many fringes there are out there, but they won’t vote as a block.

As one who worked as one member of a very large team in the past, it is very difficult to make decisions with dozens of team members. I cannot imagine trying it with tens of thousands of fan opinions. I don’t see how the game will become anything but a mish mash of ideas, no cohesion and since so many gamers simply want improvements on the games they already play, no originality.

However, if you can make it work, more power to you.

2 Likes
4

I agree with Teila on this. A mish mash of ideas that try to please everybody will often result in a generic lowest common denominator style game. At best, the crowd will push for a clone of well known AAA titles. A more exciting tactic is to pick a specific niche and try to build the ultimate game for that well defined group instead of trying build something bland and generic enough to appeal to a very wide group.

4 Likes
5

well, I did not see things like that at first, I agree there’s a risk to only build a mish mash of ideas were originality and fun might be at their lowest;
So considering that: the system may be a bit more supervised by the Devs, these would try to be more creative and original:
then these devs would throw in some particular concepts, ideas supposed to be good, original and somewhat risky … we would then see if these new ideas are supported…
in the same idea, devs, because they hold responsibility, would be obliged to step back to see the whole thing, were and how it’s going on, and then advise the participants, so that everyone put an effort to leverage the thing, its quality and originality up…

I see the communication has to be a masterpiece in the process, very important.
beside voting, chat and discuss ; many valuable members could be counted in the process : from fans, gamers to some people in the game industry, and even artists that would speak their mind, bring their experience and then give advice. these notable people might be part of the community and recognized by the others.

in the best situation, the “fringe” and specific niche would be considered a little more:
In favor of the principle to listen to everyone specially minority… and so if the things that they bring in are good then the Devs (or anyone) could put an emphasis on it to help the mass change their mind if needed and take into account these good ideas…

but still I agree that the hardest part would be to make good decisions with a huge and varied community; …risky concept certainly…

@lastprogrammer , your comment made me think of an aspect that would consist in letting participants submit their own “art” and assets, if they will…

6

An interesting experiment, and would love to see how it actually plays out.

From experience, the main challenge is that usually the most vocal players usually don’t represent the largest and core segment. And also, as players aren’t developers, and have a narrow perspective, what they communicate they believe they ‘want’, may not be in sync with what actually engages them to play. A simple example is if you talk to a player they may say the want a game to be easier, but making the game easier may quell their interest because the challenge is what was actually engaging them. Typically good analytics and player testing is more useful because seeing how a player interacts, is more telling.

Additionally, most of the best games usually come from an individual or small group with a very clear vision. Design by committee is usually mediocre at best. If that committee is now several thousand people, I would envision a train wreck. Also, steam/kickstarter has shown that often even just engaging the community creates unrealistic expectations and backlash.

That said, I don’t think there any examples of a project being fully or heavily driven to the degree you are proposing. It might be possible that would work if transparent and fully embraced. Dunno, it might be community engagement becomes effective if you go all in and other attempts failed because they didn’t lean hard enough into it.

Or it could be a complete disaster. :wink: I hope you are able to do it with a couple of projects. Either result would provide valuable insights.

3 Likes
7

First of all, you are asking people to pay to have the ability to vote for a game that isn’t even past the design development. Yes, design is what you are going to put in the game and you won’t know that until you close voting. Personally, I would not pay to do this.

Second, there are plenty of games already on Kickstarter, on forums all over the place, and on websites/Twitter/Facebook that do this for free. You can express your opinion and influence many indie games that are in development. Developers do usually listen.

If the developers are going to control it as tightly as you say, and even listen to the minorities/fringe, then it is not a pure voting system. You are just going to make people angry when they realize that even though “Feature A” did not win in votes, it is being implemented, especially if it impacts “Feature B” which received a majority of the votes. I can’t even imagine your forums…LOL…although I would love to be a fly on that wall. :slight_smile:

Feature creep will be horrendous. Starting a game with no solid design, letting votes determine what you do next, basically tying your hands or making folks angry when you can’t do what they want. Having experience this, I can tell you, it is not fun. AND you are taking money from them.

The word scam will show up on every game forum in the Universe, not because you are really scamming them, but because you are making promises you can’t keep. A voting system makes people feel powerful and you take away any of that power, after they paid for it, your “investors” will not be happy. Sort of like the politicians taking money from special interest groups and then being unable to make something happen…not a pleasant situation to be in.

Definitely! Although…I suggest you not use it as funding ruse. Pull together a basic design, do a prototype, and then do funding through Kickstarter, allow Kickstarter contributors to make suggestions on the forum.

2 Likes
8

Bad idea…inconsistent art will be not help. Instead, show them your art designs and ask them what they think.

2 Likes
9

yeah the money question has to be thought in a good manner, I was seeing things in a particular angle were participants would pay something, simply because the developers are in need of funds.

so effectively such an experience should be the more convivial possible, and money is not the “good ingredient” for this.
maybe by giving people the possibility to “crowd fund” the whole thing, only if they will…
but it will certainly fail if it’s optional;

yeah, the ugly shadow of Scam could finally fly above a system poorly conceived or presented. well many reasons to leave the idea finally - (the risk to not keep promises, as you said, I think is one of the reasons)

well I realize that basically I woke up with an “emerging idea” but tonight, same day, I’m rather going to sleep and let the “idea sink to were it came from” lol… hum… in other words I’ve just attempted to bring something new once again… still I’d like to find solutions to the nowadays situation about video games and their perception… :slight_smile:

ps: i’ve made a small edit to the main post but it was because I didn’t read late posts before…

10

Emerging ideas are fine. :slight_smile: Good in fact.

However, funding games is already getting very controversial and as indies, we are hurting because of those that came before us who failed to deliver. Gamers are getting more saavy and more apt to only fund games by former AAA developers and more often, ignore new indies.

Even then, they want a complete design and prototype, preferably some art and graphics that they can see. They want a product that is on it’s way to being finished, hopefully in alpha and one that doesn’t appear to be desperate for money, meaning the developers have self-funded some of the work so have invested enough to show they mean to finish the project.

1 Like