Competition from retail developers...

[Adrian Lopez]

I hope Kai Backman doesn't mind me posting this, but I've been looking around the Web for other Space Station sims and I found a game called "SpaceStation: SIM". The game has yet to be released, and while I think there's nothing wrong with a little competition, there's something about the deal that makes me a little uneasy. Specifically, the folks at GRS are getting help from NASA (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13651) to develop their game, thus getting preferential treatment over those who can't secure such a close relationship.

Would it be possible for somebody like Kai to learn as much about space station design as the folks who have a deal with NASA? It just seems a bit unfair to me, that's all.

[Adrian Lopez]

I'd also love to hear your own stories about competing with retail developers.

[ggambett]

Would it be possible for somebody like Kai to learn as much about space station design as the folks who have a deal with NASA?
Probably not, but does he really need NASA-level knowledge to make an interesting game? Probably not.

Having a NASA logo helps marketing though...

[PoV]

In the case of NASA, maybe there's some sort of non financial agreement Kai can negotiate for to slap the logo on his site somehow, just to avoid the blunt "why play this one, it's not approved by NASA" nay sayers. Heck, links are free. What's to stop him from linking to their site on an informational purpose, for those interested in learning more about space stations?

As for similar situations, well, beyond the infamous remake of my game by someone else on a different platform, I've got nothin'.

[Adrian Lopez]

It's not just the logo, but the availability of information and the help provided by NASA engineers. I can imagine there's only so much information publicly available on such a technical subject, so the big developer has a significant advantage over the indie (yeah... so what else is new?).

I've been designing my own Sim (it's not space-related), and I worry over potential competition from big companies. In fact, I'm so paranoid that I worry about retail developers beating me to the punch and releasing a similar product before I have a chance to release my own. Heck, even if I managed to release mine first, I'd still be at a disadvantage. Big developers have lots of resources, and indies have very few.

It is difficult to compete with retail developers, and it's even more difficult when they're granted special privileges. :(

[Bmc]

it's a fact of life. deal with it and find a way to persevere.

besides just because a game may be more scientifically accurate doesn't mean it will be more entertaining which should be the key goal(to make it entertaining).

[Indiepath]

Well... the press release says "to be released at Xmas 2004"... then gameplanet points release date "to be announced at 2005"... and the company website address is given to be: grsgames.com which looks like big place of ads (sponsored by "domainsponsor" or something). besides the game is supposed to be for both PC and PS2 (and without a mouse you know what it is like to play PS2 strategy games).

So... I think Kai is safe here ;)

Ps. wasn't it supposed to be developed by some indie company?

[baegsi]

In fact, I'm so paranoid that I worry about retail developers beating me to the punch and releasing a similar product before I have a chance to release my own. Heck, even if I managed to release mine first, I'd still be at a disadvantage. Big developers have lots of resources, and indies have very few.Right, that's just the life of indies. The clue is not to compete head-to-head with big studios. Make your sim so special that big devs are unable or not interested in to provide what you offer. You have to offer a value that is more/different than graphic features or licences, because on those areas an indie will always lose.

[Kai Backman]

I think Adrian addresses a valid point here. First here (http://www.vision-play.com/products/) is the link to Space Station: SIM homepage. And you can find my ShortHike here (http://www.shorthike.com). This is very specific to my own niche, so this might not apply in a broader context, but it might be of interest to some.

I originally found out about Space Station:SIM in the end of 2003. Space Station Manager (the older sibling of ShortHike) was an entry for the Independent Games Festival 2004. In one of the Usenet game forums there started a debate if the game was original or not. There had been space station simulators before, but none of the known ones let the player build in full 3D. After the debate had raged for a while, Noah Fallstein (http://www.theinspiracy.com/) posted that he and GRS/Vision Videogames were working on such a product. I emailed with him and it turned out someone had mentioned Space Station Manager when they had started showing their game at the GDC in March 2003 (SSM was released in February). The rest is public knowledge. They seem to be running a large team and a large budget, the game is for PS2/PC and aims for a retail release.

I'm personally very pleased that someone else is working on a similar game. In a broader sense they are helping me to create the market and in a personal sense they acted like a wake up call in 2003. Until then I had imagined I could be silently doing my thing and I wouldn't have to get up against any large retail teams. This event, and attending the IGF in 2004, changed my viewpoint completely. It made me think about my business from a new perspective and plan my strategy so that I could beat EA on my home turf. Everyone needs to think like this, it's the WalMart equivalent for small retailers.

As a general point there is an abudance of free information on almost all subjects if you want to do a simulator. The difficult part is not getting information (the Web and Amazon do that well enough) but to distill that information into something entertaining. My three years of simulation development has mostly been pruning things away, not adding them. Again, a NASA (or ESA or ..) logo would increase marketing exposure but would also generate huge expectations. I much prefer the situation where I can exceed expectations.

So the key is strategy. Think this way, EA is going to be exclusively online in 5 years or less. And your niche seems to be doing nicely. What's your strategy for keeping it? :D

[gpetersz]

You should put "sex at zero-g" in your game and you'll win the competition... :D

Seriously. If you cannot do anything against it, then don't worry, if you can then put "sex at zero-g"... ;)

I know that I was one of the most worried when retail companies started to release their older titles on-line, but since I've readed some good books on self-motivation and worrying just not help...

[Abscissa]

Heck, links are free. What's to stop him from linking to their site on an informational purpose, for those interested in learning more about space stations?
Not if you ask NPR... ;)

[Sillysoft]

I think that's a great attitude to have Kai.

[Adrian Lopez]

As a general point there is an abudance of free information on almost all subjects if you want to do a simulator. The difficult part is not getting information (the Web and Amazon do that well enough) but to distill that information into something entertaining.Information is publicly available, but do you think it would be safe for you to look at SpaceStation: SIM and learn from it without getting into legal trouble? That's what interests me most about this whole deal. You were first on the market (for 3D sims, at least), but they have greater resources. You could conceivably learn a lot about space station modules from looking at their game (thus benefiting, indirectly, from the special knowledge of NASA enginners), but I wonder if you might get in trouble for doing so.

In other words, to what degree would a company like GRS tolerate competition? When does the follower become the litigious leader?

[Adrian Lopez]

PS - The point about your "wake up call" tells me I should stop being complacent and start working hard on my game! Good lesson, I think.

[cliffski]

you can get into legal trouble just for looking at a competing product???????
That sounds a little extreme to me. Surely thats what everyone does.

[Adrian Lopez]

I'm probably exaggerating its significance, but the moment you look at a competing product and develop something similar you expose yourself to lawsuits. I suppose it doesn't matter much when simulating real-life entities (you could claim both products are derived from a common source), but looking at the competition's products means you won't be able to claim "independent creation" -- which is otherwise a valid defence against infringement claims -- if you should get into legal trouble.

I'm probably just being paranoid.

[Vorax]

I'm probably exaggerating its significance, but the moment you look at a competing product and develop something similar you expose yourself to lawsuits. I suppose it doesn't matter much when simulating real-life entities (you could claim both products are derived from a common source), but looking at the competition's products means you won't be able to claim "independent creation" -- which is otherwise a valid defence against infringement claims -- if you should get into legal trouble.

I'm probably just being paranoid.


I don't think there is anything to worry about, or there would be a heck of a lot of match 3 and arkanoid lawsuits going around.

[Adrian Lopez]

There's been at least one lawsuit over a Pac-Man clone where the defendant lost the case despite not using the Pac-Man character itself. I can't remember the name of the game, but it's certainly possible to be sued over such a thing.

I think there was also a lawsuit over an Asteriods clone, but I can't remember the details at the moment.

[soniCron]

This should clear some of this up. (http://www.abednarz.net/tetris.html)

[KNau]

Don't worry about competitors coming out with a similar or even identical product as yours ahead of you. Just remember, a competitor doesn't have to come out with a better mousetrap to succeed, just a newer one. You can still find your market even with the competition.

[gpetersz]

Anyway, I won't like Henk Rogers...

In my opinion there should be (and seemingly there is) a barrier in copyrights (even if I am an author myself). You cannot copyright a chair, a spoon, the elevator... You cannot copyright a user interface, a game style.
You can copyright (as most copyright laws says) the outlook, the trade dress as it said. Or the character (in games) and so.

It is insane what some guys want to achieve by copyright laws...

Though how could you differ from the original tetris? It is all about blocks...

[Kai Backman]

I'm probably just being paranoid.

Yes you are. .. ;)

I need to stress this again. There is too much information available already. Just picking one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007236811X) of my reference books reveals that ShortHike includes maybe 1/100 of the information from it. The difficult part is to have a deep and broad knowledge of space stations combined with programming and game design skills. NASA expertise could slightly boost this assimilation process, but it's still up to an individual somewhere to draw it all together.

My core competency is that I'm a specialist in both worlds. I'm a one trick pony who only knows to do entertaining space station simulators. The clue to my strategy is that I've grabbed a position that forces anyone competing with ShortHike to supply a single person to match against me. A classic guerilla tactic. And beating a single person is more doable than beating a large team .. :)