http://glbse.com/ is the BTC stock exchange.
I could be interested in this project, but I would need to be convinced that it provides something unique and interesting over other games. For example braid, minecraft, super meat boy, are the obvious success stories. I do believe there is a gap in the indie game market for a space shooter if it provides something new and innovative as well.
Cool, thanks for the link.
I agree, a gap exists and just needs that innovation to bring players back in.
What do you think of the development time as an investor problem (against exponentially rising currency)? I've been thinking, and it could be a real problem.
Back of the envelope calcs for side by side versions of the same project (btc economy vs $ economy):
BTC in ->BTC outRaised: 20k BTC (approx $400k)
USD/BTC over 18 months: 20->200
Steam games: $20
Game price: 0.1BTC (competitive price in USD)
Spent: 10k BTC (costs reduced over time due to exchange)
Breakeven: 10k BTC, or 100,000 unit salesinstead,
$ in -> $ outRaised: $400k
USD/BTC over 18 months: 20->200
Steam games: $20
Game price: $20
Spent: $250k (costs increased slightly over time due to inflation)
Breakeven: $250k, or 12,500 unit sales!The breakeven in $->$ is reached in much fewer sales than BTC->BTC, and if somehow exactly the same number of games would have been sold if either was the currency, it gets interesting. If it was a smashing success with 500k units sold, its 50kBTC vs $10M (exactly the same amount of revenue), except a 1000BTC investor would get back 3000BTC ($600k over $20k investment), and a $20k investor would get back $507.5k. Rough figures, of course, and I guess the difference is due to the reducing cost over the life of the BTC project vs rising cost of $ version.
The risk is the big gap that needs to be covered by break-even point. If the venture is a flop, and only 10k units are sold, $->$ investors get back around 87% of their investment, and BTC suffer only 55% of their coin coming back.
I suppose BTC->BTC investors could see it as investing in the currency, as that's essentially where the currency has gone -> intangible value of the BTC), but how many people would do that? The other thing is that if its a BTC only game, it means there's more demand for the currency, helping its price up, which I haven't accounted for.
If it was targeting purely BTC owners (increasing the trade of BTCs), then the price might be set by supply/demand of coins; 1btc per copy only needs 10,000 sales to break even, but only to the early adopters with loads of coin...everyone else probably may not think 1BTC (the equivalent of $200/game) is worth the "usd" price. It'll seem as though the game's really expensive, when really it's just trying to recoup a lot of coin investment. Of course if the game still sells 100,000 copies @ 1btc, that's a tremendous return for investors.
So the question I have now, is how many people with BTC are willing to part with their coin, knowing that there's an inherently greater risk in getting all of their money back, but the reward is potentially higher? How many people with BTC stored are going to spend the equivalent of $200 on a game? the rising price could destroy it