What do you all think about this as a starting point for replacing intellectual property? Take a game, for example, lets say Mirrors Edge II. Under the traditional model some big entity provides the investment, and prosecuting people who share/denying them full access to the product is the way they make money, which they use to try and break even on their investment. Under an alternative funding model, the potential creators advertise that they want to create the game and people have the opportunity to invest personally, where theyll only lose the money if the product is released (as its held in escrow by the platform provider). Because its Mirrors Edge II and people have seen the quality of the previous game and know the publishers abilities, theyre making an informed decision as to whether or not to commit money to the product. Some people want to pay a dollar. Thats fine. Some people want to pay $99, what youd normally pay for a game. Thats fine. Some people, like me if I had the money, would be happy to pay $200, because of how much they liked the first game. What we are all purchasing is the creation of that game. If the game is created and thus the money is taken from us, I am now in a world where I possess something I value quite highly, the game creators are in a world where they have the amount of money they wanted, and as a side benefit everyone else in the world benefits from the transaction because Mirrors Edge II exists and its a great game. I honestly think that system is far better.
Posted on: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:11:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015