Video games and the crowdfunding ideology: From the gamer-buyer to the prosumer-investor

The game industry situation: Hegemony of play and the mainstream versus indies debate

The video games business is one of the most successful entertainment markets worldwide, with a US$75 billion revenue in 2015 and an expected US$100 billion in 2019 (DFC Intelligence, 2015). Moreover, mobile market, the next-gen digital contents, and the emergent markets (for instance, Brazil and India) can boost these results (PwC, 2014).

However, these commercial results cannot avoid the fact that the industry is still an oligopolistic business (Ip, 2008: 215; Johns, 2006) determined by the asymmetry of the different actors in the value chain: creators of consoles, publishers, and developers, among others (Parker et al., 2014). In this sense, the few creators of “hardware” (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) receive royalties for development in their own systems, whereas publishers are the key system that provide both funding and distribution of video games to small design studios (Laramee, 2005: 15–30). Therefore, developers are faced with a complex picture. On one hand, access to the most popular gaming platforms is controlled by publishers. On the other hand, the vertical integration that has allowed the industry to bring together publishers and distributors has an impact on the small development studios provoking a lack of funding and denying the efficient and capable promotion of their games to different markets, unless these small video game development studios accept contractual relations in unfavorable situations (Gil and Warzynski, 2014; Kerr and Flynn, 2003: 108–109). Therefore, the game industry provides a double filter when developing a game: the approval of gaming platforms in relation to the typical contents and the conditions set by the publisher to financially support the creation of the product. In this sense, this negatively affects the developers not only in their contribution to the value chain (authorship and intellectual property, autonomy, submission deadlines) but also in the creative perspective when these games are designed to homogenize genres into a mercantilist conformity and make the creation of more risky products difficult. In this sense, Tschang (2007) has showed that video games business, as a creative industry, is suffering a negative influence based on the constant tension between creativity and rationalization. This tension has a decisive impact on the game production because it establishes an asymmetry between companies that have the power to decide whether games can be published on certain platforms or gaming systems and those without it. Thus, the controllability of a minority group on most industrial gaming process was conceived by Fron et al. (2007) as the “Hegemony of Play”:

The way in which the digital game industry has influenced the global culture of play in much the same way that hegemonic nations […] have, in their times of influence, dominated global culture. Today’s hegemonic game industry has infused both individuals’ and societies’ experiences of games with values and norms that reinforce that industry’s technological, commercial, and cultural investments in a particular definition of games and play, creating a cyclical system of supply and demand in which alternate products of play are marginalized and devalued. (p. 1)

This cultural conception of the hegemony in the global video game industry is also outlined by the constitution of a hegemonic elite of White men leaders of large corporations that determine both the technologies used and what games should be designed as the entire process of promotion and distribution of titles (Fron et al. 2007: 1, 2). But how is this Hegemony of Play configured and maintained? Robert Cassar (2013) has seen in Gramsci and Althusser a suitable framework for further defining the characteristics of the genesis and reproduction of the concept of hegemony in the video game industry. Cassar (2013), following Gramsci, believes that ideology (the set of ideas or beliefs that represent a reflection of social reality) is not neutral, but its influence is determined by the power structures of a ruling class that is capable, in turn, of controlling the means of production (pp. 333–335). Once ideological control has been achieved by controlling the means of production, the system needs to be maintained and reproduced. In this sense, and considering the contributions of Althusser (Cassar, 2013: 336), hegemony in the gaming industry would be determined by a dominant group that holds both the means of production as the systemic ability to maintain and reproduce an ideological framework that defines what to play or how to play (i.e. the Hegemony of Play).

However, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony does not provide an immobile and unchanging dominant group but considers that its survival goes necessarily through the integration of elements and values that are outside the hegemonic ideological framework (Cassar, 2013: 345). The necessary co-opting of ideas is given by a discourse of resistance that can have an impact on how the hegemonic works as “ideas generated and divulged through media can and will be scrutinized and (if necessary) rejected by an audience who is capable of thinking on its own. This also implies that there is no absolute control over the masses” (Cassar, 2013: 346).

The duality between the dominant class and the discourse of resistance in game development has been traditionally conceptualized by the ambiguous concepts of “mainstream” versus “indie” (De Jong, 2013; Lipkin, 2013). It is very difficult to define both concepts, but considering that in our research it is essential to frame the ideology of crowdfunding in the video game industry, we will establish a set of operational definitions. Thus, and according to Lipkin (2013), we believe that “mainstream”

is corporate in nature and capitalist in ethos. While not fairly universal, the mainstream is characterized as emphasizing profit and popularity over creativity and artistry. AAA games are developed by large teams in numerous different companies with multimillion-dollar budgets. Games are published by large corporate publishers […] often as both physical disks in retail stores and digital downloads through platforms. (p. 9)

Instead, the notion of “indie” is conceived, in its simplest reading, as the discursive opposition to the Hegemony of Play, similar to what happened with the American indie cinema (Newman, 2011 in Lipkin, 2013: 10) or independent artistic movements of the 1950s and 1960s (Oakes, 2009, in Lipkin, 2013: 10). But in a broader reading, indie is identified with an ideological framework based on the aesthetic and creative nostalgia and the fan phenomenon (Lipkin, 2013: 10) along with the notions of genre, authenticity, innovation, and creativity (De Jong, 2013: 16–23).

The rise of “indie” game reflects the establishment of a digital culture that has reduced technological costs of major game engines (Unreal and Unity are free today in their use), and it has also allowed greater dissemination of content through the democratization of online distribution (Ruffino, 2013: 106). However, some authors disagree. According to Dovey and Kennedy (2006), “as we have seen in the film and music industries, the ‘indie’ tag may not signify much more than ‘wannabe’” (Ruffino, 2013: 108), an idea also supported by Dyer-Witheford and de Peuter (2009) when they considered that the release of development tools for “wannabe” game developers is ultimately the weapon of game corporations to agglomerate and control potential forms of subversion (Ruffino, 2013: 108). Thus, the logic of survival of the gramscian ruling class (“mainstream”) would be to co-opt part of the discourse of resistance (in this case, the technological revolution for indies).

Along with the supposed democratization by the reduction in technology costs, indie developers have seen that their public access is facilitated by digital distribution platforms. This is particularly notable in the case of the console market, a sector in which access costs (development kits and control over content) were too high, and now, owing to digital distribution, they are more affordable (for instance, the disappearance or reduction in the costs of development kits). However, this view also seems to be questionable. According to De Jong (2013), “the emergence of these distribution platforms is part of a larger development wherein corporate ownership structures are shifting from a control of content to a control of infrastructure” (p. 2), a central strategy in which the publisher no longer intends to exercise direct control over traditional means of production (somehow the hard core of the indie claims) but hegemony co-optation passes through the tutelage of the digital distribution (Martin and Deuze, 2009: 284). In this sense, “because the platform owners effectively market them as indie games on these platforms, they draw in the large segment of consumers eager for products that do not follow ‘mainstream’ conventions.” Thus, rather than indicating subversion, indie has become a highly marketable genre. As an alternative movement, it fails to oppose dominant capitalist structures because it has become such an integral part of those structures (De Jong, 2013: 2).

Research focus: The crowdfunding ideology in the game industry traditional value chain

In the context of mainstream versus indie conflict, Tim Schafer, a former Lucas Arts game designer and current owner of the video games studio Double Fine, repeatedly tried to obtain funding from a publisher for a classic point-and-click graphic adventure. After several failures, Schafer opted to go to the crowdfunding model in Kickstarter, estimating that it would need about US$400,000 for the entire project. The surprise came when, after a month of the release of the request for funding, the game of Double Fine had obtained more than 87,000 backers, with a total of US$3,336,371. In this context, the undisputed success of Schafer has questioned the traditional production model of the industry. In this case, the developer would be able to pass over the publisher (the traditional game investor) to ask directly to the final step of the classic value chain: the player. The novelty and the strong emergence of crowdfunding in the video game market have been seen as an authentic form of opposition, a “windfall to successful developers with a huge potential […] to compete with existing power structures” (De Jong, 2013: 35; Lipkin, 2013: 20, 21). This is particularly relevant, as we have seen before, in the case of the game consoles market, as crowdfunding may allow investors to request for a type of titles based on innovation that could raise potential restrictions on access (and control) on “mainstream” digital platforms. However, there are also voices that believe that crowdfunding is another trick, another trap, based on the exaltation of new technologies and platforms and in their ability to subvert the hegemonic model (De Jong, 2013: 35). In fact, some recent circumstances question the idyllic emancipatory and democratizing virtues of the crowdfunding model in video games. Paradoxically, the project “Double Fine Adventure,” a leading advocate of the virtues of crowdfunding model in the video game industry, has become, in recent times, a clear reference of its faults and main problems. In this sense, Double Fine, after the success of the initial campaign, decided to ask for more capital, an idea that has generated much discomfort among the investors who believed in the project. Similarly, the crowdfunding model has been challenged in some notable failures as the unborn project “Day One” of Pendulo Studios or the disappearance of capital in the video game “Haunts: The Manse Macabre” after 3 months of having procured the funds. Furthermore, together with the lack of confidence of many potential investors and the legal uncertainty of these kinds of projects that are ultimately defined from the business logic, recent academic research has detected a slowdown in the crowdfunding model platforms that could result, in a short time, in a true speculative bubble (Mollick, 2013: 21, 22; Wolf, 2013). In this sense, the discourse around crowdfunding usually fits into the logic of utopian exaltation of new technologies (Bogost, 2012; Buckingham and Rodríguez, 2013: 50) and does not take into consideration, for example, the Hegemony of Play framework and the potential co-option of “mainstream.” Thus, the recent purchase of Minecraft, an “indie” game created in a crowdfunding platform by Microsoft Game Studios, is a good example of how a “crowfunded” project can be co-opted into a “top-down” enterprise.

Considering the rise of this funding model in the Hegemony of Play framework, this research will answer the following questions:

Q1. What is the impact of the active role of the player in the digital crowdfunding model?

Consequently, this research answers both questions in two stages. First, it defines and sets the crowdfunding model in the context of digital participatory culture and the transformation of the passive consumer to a new prosumer-investor. Second, it analyzes the crowdfunding discursive elements in 10 historical Kickstarter-funded games from three perspectives: the role of the editor, the influence of the prosumer-investor, and the impact of this the new model in relation to the contents and genres of video games.

The digital crowdfunding situation: Participatory culture and the rise of the prosumer-investor

Digital participatory culture is, currently, one of the most relevant frameworks of social activism and civic engagement (Rheingold, 2008). Social networks and new technologies have allowed users to express their ideas outside (or even against) the boundaries of the corporatist model (Jenkins, 2006), thus creating new social practices and critical discourses (Ferrés and Piscitelli, 2012: 77).

In this context, one of the most popular social practices has been funding projects in digital platforms using the crowdfunding model. According to the latest report from Crowdsourcing.org (2015), 1250 digital crowdfunding platforms had a funding increase of 167% between 2013 and 2015. In an international perspective, the biggest crowdfunding platforms that host video game projects are Kickstarter (the largest one in 2014: 22,252 projects, 1980 of which were video games), Indiegogo, RocketHub, and Ulule. In recent times, GameLaunched or Gambitious are trying to establish small sites that exclusively focus on video game proposals.

However, it is important to note that this funding model has not just appeared in the digital era. The logic of microfinance (Morduch, 1999: 1609, 1610) is a constant in the history of mankind for projects of social or philanthropic nature (Ordanini et al., 2011), mainly to boost the artistic and literary creation, to appeal to the solidarity of society in catastrophic situations, or to fund particularly popular political campaigns such as that of President Obama in 2008 (Hemer, 2011).

In any case, the crowdfunding model, either in the past or in the current digital frame, can be defined as a funding source that stands for (1) the external support of a large mass of individuals; (2) with a particular goal (Mollick, 2013: 5); (3) with a mixed motivation, although usually associated with social, artistic, and humanistic responsibilities (Wojciechowski, 2009); and, finally, (4) oriented to a trustful project based on a strong initiator identity (successful previous experience, awards or attracting media coverage, among others) (Huili and Yaodong, 2014: 28).

Thus, and according to these characteristics, crowdfunding differs from (1) a traditional inverter model defined by certain business groups, (2) a donation without a definite aim (e.g. alms) or based on chance (lotteries, raffles, and drawings), or (3) financial projects designed exclusively to generate economic returns for investors.

This definition of the funding model does not imply that all crowdfunding proposals use the same kind of relationships between backers and project managers. Crowdfunding, as a concept, allows crowdfunders to choose between different ways to manage the funding of a project. In this sense, the most common classes of crowdfunding are crowd donations, crowd lending, and crowd investment (Hemer, 2011: 9–14).

Publishers as the creative brake

Almost all of the projects analyzed highlight the inability of publishers to support innovative games. In this sense, wit and sarcasm make an appearance when customizing publishers in the possible world of the crowdfunding model (Figure 1). OPEN IN VIEWER

The designer Brian Fargo, through his projects “Wasteland 2” and “Torment: Tides of Numenera,” is possibly the most critical game designer against the current role of publishers. In the presentation “Wasteland 2” video, Fargo deals with three publishers dressed in expensive suits and ties. All of them represent, in their own way and according to Fargo’s discursive perspective, the greatest vices of the video game industry. The first editor is a spoiled and ignorant child who knows nothing about the past work of Fargo as a game developer. His unique motivation is funding billionaire games such as “Angry Birds” or highly popular multiplatform franchises. The second publisher, equally ignorant of the work of Fargo, agrees to finance the game and promises to call the next day. Fargo, of course, receives the call after 2 weeks to discover that the project cannot continue because publisher business has taken “another direction.” The last editor, much less caricatured than the previous ones, proposes “minor changes” which only preserves the title and some graphics peculiarities. Fargo, ironically, proposes to introduce the launch of birds as a weapon, causing joy to the editor.

Regardless of Fargo’s videos and his incisive tone against publishers’ policy in the video game industry, other projects do not visually construct the figure of the publisher but appeal to the difficulties of the industrial model sponsored by them. In this sense, Kickstarter-selected projects introduce some arguments, such as “it’s been almost impossible to get funding through traditional methods for a game like this” (“Project Eternity”), “The traditional publishers don’t believe in PC or Space Sims. Venture Capitalists only want to back mobile or social gaming start ups” (“Star Citizen”), or “let’s face it, game publishers today want sequels in very restrictive genres. In many cases game publisher overhead makes small projects not interesting to them” (“Planetary Annihilation”). In the case of “Shadowrun Returns,” Microsoft appears as one of the most restrictive publishers when designing and publishing games:

The game we want to make is very humble by modern blockbuster game standards but it is still way beyond the ability of a small start-up to fund by itself. The restraints on the license from Microsoft made it impossible to get established publishers interested in Shadowrun and so it remained just a dream for a long time until Jordan saw the recent successes of some other veteran designers on Kickstarter.

Crowd sourcing to fund creative content represents truly profound change to the status quo. While we watch financial models for the creation and distribution of creative content continue to erode, Kickstarter charts a direction for how fans can directly impact development of creative content they want by funding its creation.

We hope that Shadowrun Returns is a creative concept you want to help make into a reality and we thank your consideration and support.

The emancipatory role of the prosumer-investor

Following creative misunderstanding and mistreatment of video game publishers, designers attending the crowdfunding model on Kickstarter try to seek confidence and complicity with a prosumer eager for new play experiences. To do this, it is common to directly appeal to the future game user and prosumer or to highlight the relevance of the role of the prosumer-investor in the configuration and future success of the proposal. In the discursive arguments, the crowdfunding model is conceived not only as a unique opportunity but also as a true revolution. In the case of “Double Fine Adventure,”

Big games cost big money. Even something as “simple” as an Xbox LIVE Arcade title can cost upwards of two or three million dollars. For disc-based games, it can be over ten times that amount. To finance the production, promotion, and distribution of these massive undertakings, companies like Double Fine have to rely on external sources like publishers, investment firms, or loans. And while they fulfill an important role in the process, their involvement also comes with significant strings attached that can pull the game in the wrong directions or even cancel its production altogether. Thankfully, viable alternatives have emerged and gained momentum in recent years.

Crowd-sourced fundraising sites like Kickstarter have been an incredible boon to the independent development community. They democratize the process by allowing consumers to support the games they want to see developed and give the developers the freedom to experiment, take risks, and design without anyone else compromising their vision. It’s the kind of creative luxury that most major, established studios simply can’t afford. At least, not until now.

Thus, based on the new crowdfunding model, developers’ freedom of action is the key to understanding the connection between video game studios and prosumer-investors and, with it, creativity’s protection in the context of the video game production and design.

However, and in the ideological framework of the possible world, the role of the new prosumer is not limited to “liberate” video game developers from the utilitarian and ignorant editor. His conversion to a prosumer-investor also adds a new dimension. In this case, changes in the status quo (“Shadowrun Returns”) means that now “Instead of taking this prototype to a publisher for a green light, we are cutting out the middleman and taking it to you” (“Star Citizen”). “We are in a new era where you get to decide what we spend our time on […] the better we do the more resources we’ll have to bring you a great game” (“Planetary Annihilation”). Thus, “Ask not what your [video game] genre can do for you, but what you can do for your favorite genre” (“Star Citizen”). In this new logic of investment, game designer’s freedom is in direct connection with the conversion of a consumer into a prosumer-investor according to the idea that “your dollars are now your votes” (“Planetary Annihilation”). In this discursive framework, the bottom-up logic (from the backer and now prosumer-investor to the game designer) becomes more relevant than the traditional top-down system established between the classic publisher and a small developer.

Genres and fictional themes as nostalgic appeals

The analyzed projects are limited to a type of very specific genres and themes. In particular, games that seek financing through Kickstarter’s crowdfunding platform are divided into adventure games (“Double Fine Adventure”), space simulators (“Star Citizen” and “Elite Dangerous”), strategy (“Planetary Annihilation”), and role (all other titles), in which the most popular themes are fantasy and science fiction. In this sense, the analysis highlights the lack of current hegemonic genres such as the first person shooter (called “FPS”) or online games with persistent worlds (called “MMO”). In fact, there is a notable contrast because of the constant appeal to the nostalgia of the most popular genres of the 1980s and 1990s as in the case of “Project Eternity”:

Project Eternity aims to recapture the magic, imagination, depth, and nostalgia of classic RPG’s that we enjoyed making – and playing. At Obsidian, we have the people responsible for many of those classic games and we want to bring those games back … and that’s why we’re here – we need your help to make it a reality! […] We have wanted to go back to our roots and create an epic PC role-playing game adventure for years. But, it’s been almost impossible to get funding through traditional methods for a game like this. The great thing about Kickstarter is that we can go directly to the people who love to play RPGs as much as we love to make them. Plus, we don’t have to make compromises with a publisher. We make the development decisions, we market the game, and we don’t have to answer to anyone but you – our fans.

In this sense, persuasive discourse emphasizes that corporate culture and capitalist approach are attempting to end some of the most popular genres of the past (“Double Fine Adventure”) by the homogenization of production and the lack of investment in innovation and creativity. More explicit is the presentation video of “Star Citizen”:

They said I was dead. They said console was the future. Now they say mobile and tablets are the future. I say to you, the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. I am a PC game. And I’m a space sim.

After the video statements, the proposal again highlights this idea when it defends that

We say they’re wrong. We say that there is a large audience of PC gamers that want sophisticated games built for their platform. And inside this audience, a significant group of people that have always loved space games, and if given a quality one again will be happy to play it.

Thus, the recovery of old genres and the reevaluation of classic gaming platforms involve the recovery of some ancient creative values linked to an era where video game design was more an art than a business under the capitalist (“Double Fine Adventure,” “Project Eternity”).

Along with this perception, designers also highlight the growing fan interest in the recovery of certain fictional worlds that marked the recent past. This is the case of “Wasteland 2” when they state that

not a month goes by when an email doesn’t come in asking if we’ve ever considered doing a sequel. Emails from gamers who remember Wasteland fondly and want, just as badly as we do, to return to that gritty world where burning through clips might be the only thing that keeps you alive; and where running out of ammo will certainly get you killed. The fact that you, the folks who know and love and play games, keep asking for Wasteland 2 told us that there is a demand for it.

Finally, all projects highlight the contrast between a successful trajectory of certain video game designers and the current status of some depressed genres with little or no industrial support. Therefore, almost all successful games that have gone to Kickstarter looking for funding respond to a system of celebrities or star system that generate a decisive confidence in the prosumer-investor and in his financial support capacity.