Success Range

[Black Hydra]

If there are two things people learn from hanging around here they are:

1) Making a lot of money is hard.
2) The sky is the limit (or close to it) for how much you can make, assuming you understand principle #1.

We've all heard from games like Diner Dash which, had any indie or small dev team made the same amount of money probably could sit in Cancun living on the interest. But as we all know, few indies make anything close to the commercial success of such games.

Now my question is, why?

There are some pretty obvious reasons (and probably some not quite so obvious) why this happens. Now I'd like to brainstorm with you guys on why. What makes a game like Diner Dash a huge success while other games can't even cover their developement costs.

More constructively, I'd like for us to really think about how we can overcome some of these obstacles (instead of bitching about them) to become financially successful.

I really don't want to imply that I know exactly what is necessary to make a successful game, but I believe discussing the obstacles and ways we can (or other developers have) overcome them we will be better off.

What are we as indie developers doing wrong that we need to change to compete?

[Omega]

Diner Dash used alliteration. Same as Betty's Beer Bar and Wild West Wendy.

If those games had a name like "Sit me down", that genre wouldn't be as popular.

[Robert Cummings]

Now my question is, why?Because most people are talentless and their games suck.
More constructively, I'd like for us to really think about how we can overcome some of these obstacles (instead of bitching about them) to become financially successful.Make a game that doesn't suck and people like.

I mean, come on? What kind of answer are you looking for? to not suck, you must not suck, and your game must not suck. There is no magic wand, no grail, no special secret formula other than getting your game finished and stop posting on forums.

When your game is finished, polish the hell out of it, learn from it, and do the next one. It's a career, a long game. Not a one hit wonder.

[Reactor]

It's a forum guys. If people want to brainstorm on things, don't have a go at them. Let them. I don't think Black Hydra was asking for a list of everyone's special secret formulas- just a chance to talk about things.

[tunca]

Now my question is, why?


This is for my side:

I saw Sinclair when I was 7. I drew a line in Basic

LINE(0, 0)-(100, 100)

and made a beep sound

BEEP

and drew a circle

CIRCLE(100, 100), 30

and the revolution came in when

x = x + 1

was not wrong with computers

and I started thinking that I could do any game if I was able to do these. Then C64, Amiga, first PC, GFX cards, OpenGL, DirectX came.

Everything was so deceiving. Did they fool us ? :eek:

[1EyedJack]

Now my question is, why?


Maybe this can provide you some answers:

http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_dinerdashcasestdy500n031405.pdf

[princec]

To become financially successful you must not only make a game that doesn't suck but also make one that people want to buy.

I've got a few great examples of both kinds of game on my site :)

Exhibit A: Alien Flux. IMHO, a great game, average review score 80%. Sales (and downloads, for that matter) are mediocre.

Exhibit B: Super Dudester. A crap game, that doesn't sell. At all.

Exhibit C: Puppytron. It looks extremely sucky. But I sold a whole load of them before...

Exhibit D: Ultratron. Another good game, but this time with the magic fairy's blessing, and it sells. Possible cause? Consistency in design and gameplay? Easy? Who knows.

Cas :)

[luggage]

Make a game that doesn't suck and people like.I wouldn't have put it like that really.

Make a game that people like is the most important. Who care's if the game sucks or not if it's selling. Indeed - if it sells you could say that the game doesn't suck at all.

Slingo - that game sucks, there's barely a game at all yet it sells.

My two pennies worth is don't underestimate how easy your game has got to be. Diner Dash is nothing but whack-a-mole jazzed up.

[Robert Cummings]

I actually like dudster the most I think.

[princec]

Well, a lot of us here like to draw the line at writing stuff that sucks, because that's basically just workin' for The Man and many indies are doing it because they wanted to write stuff that doesn't suck and then try and figure out how to earn a crust from that. That's where the real problem lies of course ;)

Cas :)

[papillon]

I suggest you all put drugs, gangsters, and HOT SEX in your game titles.

My conversion rate is now complete crap, but with the massive amount of downloads I've pushed in the last month (on a game that was a quick throwoff experiment!) it's been a fun month for sales. :P

Retitle Alien Flux to 'Tentacle Rape' and see what happens! :)

[princec]

Mmm. Legend of the Overflux. Replace bubbles with penises.

Cas :)

[baegsi]

Besides "make a game that doesn't suck", I'd say, nobody really knows what it takes to make a successful game. Having said this, here's my secret formula for long-time success:
* always deliver quality work in all areas
* don't compete head to head on area's you don't have a chance, i.e. don't copy a product from a company that has 10x-1000x more resources than you
* instead: deliver what other's can't do / aren't interested in. Examples? Hyper-realistic baseball sim (http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/ootp/), hacker game without graphics (http://www.uplink.co.uk/), roleplay with huge storyline (and average/poor graphics) (http://www.avernum.com/blades/index.html) and so on...
* in other words: stick out
* don't give up (but change course if stuck in a dead end)

Ah, and yes, of course: add some nudity :)

[Pkeod]

I don't know about how much sucking has to do with making money. :confused: There are many games that I have not liked that have made a lot of money. Quite a few of these games were the ones with the sex/drugs/tentacles in them though ¬_¬

Now my question is, why?
There are two products sitting next to each other. The consumer sees that one is red and one is blue. Both products are perfect, but the consumer's favorite color is red.

What are we as indie developers doing wrong that we need to change to compete?

- Not doing market research! Point me to a game that was a one-of-a-kind game that filled a specific nitch that did not make cash (assuming the nitch was a decent size, and that the game had everything else right... game play, graphics, web site).

- Not using time as we should. Just because we're indies doesn't mean we can't give out tasks to other people.

- Some of us are not asking ourselves how we can increase our sales by exponential percentages. Instead some of us just bitch about it until no one listens to them anymore. Asking why on each specific game is important because... even if you made a list of things that would have to be right for game abc, these same ideas may not work at all for game zyx. It could be terrible graphics. It could be the lack of a real game (there could be a toy but no real goals). It could be that their web site doesn't make sense.

SteveP's article has a lot to do with this topic
http://www.dexterity.com/articles/shareware-amateurs-vs-shareware-professionals.htm

[Robert Cummings]

The real magic formula is actually making a game in the first place.

[Chris Evans]

What are we as indie developers doing wrong that we need to change to compete?


- Doing a "checkbox" list of established or popular features, yet not having a real understanding of what exactly makes the game fun or engaging for the target audience. Cutesy/Colorful graphics? Check. Simplistic gameplay? Check. Mouse only play? Check. World map? Check. 3-4 game modes that are basically identical? Check. Hi-score list? Check. Profile system? Check. "Hi Chris Evans, if this is not you, click here." Check.

We all know the basic formula, but with the exception of the few successful people here, many of us miss the small intangibles that actually make the game fun and addictive, worthy of purchase! I think it's because we're making games for an audience we really don't understand through and through. We basically imitate the top sellers on Real's Top Ten list and try to add our own little spin to it. But if you don't truly understand the audience your own little "spin" may not be that fun for the intended audience.

I think that's why we end up with a lot of clones, which have minuscule sales. At least in retail when the big publishers do clones or derivatives, they understand the audience. So for them, a clone is a "safe" bet that usually gives decent returns. While an Indie clone is somewhat low risk in terms of time invested (usually), I'd say it's not a "safe" bet for decent returns. Many Indie developers are ex-devs coming from the heavily Male 20 something oriented retail market, so then they struggle to figure what makes a game fun for 40 year old soccer moms.

I think some of us would do better trying to go after the "gamer dad" (of unknown market size) rather than the soccer moms.

I think Cas finally found a game that strikes a chord with "gamer dads". UltraTron is too retro for most younger players and it's too hardcore for soccer moms, yet it's Cas's best seller and I think it's because it appeals to older players who want hardcore action but don't have a lot of time. Too bad Cas's logs don't capture demographic info. :p

So I believe it's important for us to focus on games, which we have an understanding of what makes them fun (Could be casual or hardocre, etc). Then be prepared to make 2-3 games to learn how to assemble all the elements into a complete polished sell-able package for that audience.


Besides "make a game that doesn't suck", I'd say, nobody really knows what it takes to make a successful game. Having said this, here's my secret formula for long-time success:
* always deliver quality work in all areas
* don't compete head to head on area's you don't have a chance, i.e. don't copy a product from a company that has 10x-1000x more resources than you
* instead: deliver what other's can't do / aren't interested in. Examples? Hyper-realistic baseball sim (http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/ootp/), hacker game without graphics (http://www.uplink.co.uk/), roleplay with huge storyline (and average/poor graphics) (http://www.avernum.com/blades/index.html) and so on...
* in other words: stick out
* don't give up (but change course if stuck in a dead end)

Ah, and yes, of course: add some nudity :)

Oh I definitely agree with this. Also if you develop something a little off-beat, you have a greater chance of building up a loyal fanbase. Clones typically don't develop loyal audiences or communities. This is why most run of the mil casual games have virtually empty forums. Breakout, Bejeweled, and Zuma type games have almost become commodities. If you're game doesn't have user-made levels, why would players want to talk about your game with others? Most likely they'll just download the next greatest flavor of Zuma rather than discuss your old Zuma game.

[princec]

I have always, absolutely, completely tried to target "gamer dad" but they are particularly difficult to get. It's almost like the beginning of the "soccer mom casual era" - they were there all right but it needed a few massive hits to establish the market properly. Hasn't happened yet. If I keep at it perhaps it'll happen to me?

Cas :)

[Nexic]

Try to do something new or different, do an exact copy will not get you very far. You don't have to reinvent the genre, but you do have to add some new features that havent been done in that genre before (or at least not much). I think this is why Cliffski is doing well with Democracy, and Cas is doing well with Ultratron. They are both good games, yet very different from what other people are doing.

Sure you can have sucess with a direct clone, but you will certainly never make it 'big'. At least when someone tries something new they have the chance of striking gold, and living off of the interest :D

[Black Hydra]

I think the major factor that separates a great game from a good one is how the details come together. I've played a lot of games that were technically good but they didn't really inspire me to play them. This is why I feel game reviews are so faulty. Trying to dissect a game to determine whether it is good (like into catagories such as graphics and gameplay) removes the connections between these details that ultimately makes the difference.

Most programmers (as people in general) tend to be left-sided brain people. For those who don't know, dominance of the left hemisphere tends to make you good at analysis and logic, the ability to break and evaluate components. However making a great game seems to be a more right-sided brain task. A great game is the result of the synthesis of its parts not simply on the quality of the components. I know it is harder to evaluate but I really want to discuss not the ingredients that make a great game but how components worked together to make a game great. The result being greater than the sum of its parts.

Can you think of examples of this, where a graphical element or a gameplay element or a character element really worked together to make a great game? The cartoon emotions of the people in Diner Dash really improved the gameplay elements. When playing the game I could almost sense a little bit of guilt when I saw a frustrated patron because I was taking too long. When they leave off their chair they are cheerful and happy which is a small reward in itself. These elements coupled with the tedium of the gameplay really kept you on your toes.

I think Chris really had some good points about how these intangible connections really shape how a game becomes.

@Robert - Finishing a game doesn't make it good. An unfinished game won't sell anything no matter how good it is, but lets not let this devolve into a "you can't say anything because you don't have a game out" topics. I wasn't claiming I knew anything (as I mentioned earlier) and wanted to brainstorm the issue. There isn't a magic formula, and I'm sorry if that sounded like my opinion. But discussing the issue of what key problems indies face is relevant to our community. Do you have a game out yet? All I can see on your site is that King Arthur is currently in development, I don't know you that well so I can't remark on your experience, but I do not appreciate the attempts to derail a topic simply because I made it.

[KNau]

My addition to this list is two simple rules:

"Don't give up. If you keep shopping your games around they will eventually find an audience."

and

"Stop trying to get rich off just one product. You're in this business for the long haul or you're not in it at all."

[JoeMaru]

What are we as indie developers doing wrong that we need to change to compete?

1) make a good game, and take the time to polish it. You don't get extra points from the consumer for being indie. You are competing with the big boys when it comes to the average consumer, so take the time to make the game professional.

2) most indies are blowing it on the demo and the upsell. Take the time to design into your game the demo, and the upsell, and think about this user experience and tweak it until you get it right. this would be my #1 bit of advice to those who are not selling.. rework the demo.. or better yet, redesign the game with the demo/upsell in mind.

3) hate to say it, but most of the games put out just are not that much fun. Mostly, it is some small annoying interface glitch that makes what should be an enjoyable experience an annoying one. Be ruthless with the interface of the game. Small things matter.. don't gloss over it.. fix it.

my list can go on and on.. but mostly it is just not taking the time to really finish the game.. not taking the extra amount of energy it takes to take a game from decent to good.. and from good to great.

[svero]

I think the general answer is what people are saying. Most games just aren't that fun. I agree with Joe too that people blow the upsell.

But a lot of this comes down to hard work. I think people often just don't understand the level of work and time needed to create an A title vs a B title. Ultratron sells better than princec's other stuff in part because he spent a little of that A title time on it, adding save games, some kind of progress indicator and so on. I think he could have gone much further with it but its probably the most solid of his games in that respect.

I beta'd beetlebomp here a few months ago and I've been working 12-16hrs a day on it since my "beta" -- what am I doing with all that time. The game was playable and sellable many months ago. And it probably would have done ok. But my hope is that all the extra time and effort will pay off any make the game more than just another clone. That the changes will be the difference between appearing at spot 6 briefly and dissapearing vs. apprearing in the number 1 spot and sticking to the top sales lists for months. Will it succeed? I have no idea. I hope so.. but there are of course other factors to consider.. like the sheer number of similar games on the market recently.

However.. Just for fun.. here's a rough non-specific list of the sort of things I've been doing/thinking about in the last couple of months to take Beetle to the next level.

- experiments.. tons of gameplay experiments. A LOT of stuff thrown out. I've had many many versions of beetle playable now with all kinds of twists. Some version even played a like galaga at points complete with shooting beams of light and glowing screen effects. There were beetle nests with egg pods to destroy and special paths that lit up and all kinds of stuff I tried... Most of the experiments were gameplay failures (they just didnt seem fun) but in the end a few of these tweaks stuck and hopefully they will make the game more interesting and not "just another".

- user interface changes - redid the thing from scratch maybe.. 3-4x -- ended up with a much more solid interface which is not only clearer for the player but SHOULD help sell the game as well by making registration benefits clearer. Also added lots of in game instructions.

- Added more advanced player tracking and save games

- Split the game up into 2 gameplay modes

- Added lots of bonus goodies. Things for the player to earn or watch. These were not insignificant either. Some are still being worked on and took months to develop including lots of new art etc...

- balancing gameplay .. fine tuning the levels, the way the path flows. Whats the right speed for the balls? Some exponential curve decreasing towards the exit? By how much? How many balls should come out in a row of the same color? What is the percent change of getting a bonus. How do I force bonuses to appear on levels with help for that bonus? How long should a bonus last? Do all the bonuses have unique sounds etc... Lots n lots of very specific detail work.

- Adding music and sound and tweaking it and trying lots of experiments here as well

And I've forgotten a bunch of stuff. Keep in mind again the game was playable before I started all this work. It's easy to just throw in some random bonuses and pick a few colored balls to stream in. What I believe separates a good game from a bad one is when you very carefully tweak all these variables. It's very time consuming and while the customer can't pick out that the number of chained colors of balls on level one is a little different than on level 4 they KNOW it in the sense that they feel the game is fun when they're playing it. Most games just don't have that level of work put in. Its easy to get "something" up and playable quick. To make it really stand out reflects in large part long hours.

I think Chuzzle is a good example. There you have a game that on the surface looks like it could be written in 4-6 weeks if you already had a decent game engine to start with. And in fact Im certain many people here could do just that for the basic game. They could make something that looks roughly the same and plays roughly the same. But I know many months went into it's development. What was happening with all that time? What was John Raptis doing. I don't know specifically, but its probably stuff like the details above. All the little specific tweaks and minor enhancements that make up a greater whole. A nice fur effect when a chuzzle pops. The screen going slightly darker so a bright special effect really shows up nicely. etc...