What kind of people buy indie games?

[dogzer]

Hi, i'm kind of new here. To start out I was wondering if you guys would like to discuss what kind of people would i be making games for?
I have this question: When you can save your money and buy the best of games for 60 dollars, why would you spend any amount on an indie game?

But just because of that doesn't mean you are going to fail on selling small indie games, this only means you need to find things to take advantage, for example choosing TYPE of people you sell games to. People who don't find what they want for 60 bux on the market. What public do you think people like us should design and sell our products to?

[Nexic]

Middle aged people with no time for big games. Most of us are selling to that market.

[dogzer]

Thanks Nexic, that makes sense, since they have money and probably just want something to relieve the stress.

What kind of middle aged people though? Is it working peope who need to relax? or people who want non-violent games that makes them use their brains? Or people who want to play side-scrolling shooters with fast paced music? I have no experience on selling videogames, so i'm interested on any opinions you might have.

[cliffski]

When you can save your money and buy the best of games for 60 dollars, why would you spend any amount on an indie game?


Your entire premsie is completely and utterly wrong. The best of games are the best of games, who makes them or what the budget was is totally and utterly irrelevant. Is The latest Tom Clancy a better book than 'Pride and prejudice' because it had a bigger marketing budget?
I recently went to amazon.com to buy a agme, browsing the available titles looking to spend money. Cost wasn't really an option.
I gave up, went to sillysoft.net and played Lux. Its a better game than Age of Empires 3 in my opinion, so I bought it. I dont give a damn how the budgets or production values stack up, Lux is fun.

My market is everyone, from age 12 to 80, from university proffessors to people stacking shelves. from people new to games, to veteran gamers. from computer programmers to people who hardly know how PCs work. Men, Women, Kids, Grandparents.
Don't asume a certain type of person buys indie games. Retail thought only 13yr old boys bought games, and targeted their games to match. Then match 3 came along and spanked that assumption big time.
Everyone buys indie games.

[dogzer]

First of all, forgive if i'm not wise enough, that's why i'm asking for opinions here in the first place.

Cliffski: What´s the public opinion of what the "best of games" are is actually another discussion. So rather not going to get into that.
I hope you understand that by best of games, i ment those that gets millions of sells, and are made by known companies. Like it or not, those games are concidered "better" by many people. My bet here would be to make something that doesn't compete directly against that.

I thought since you guys are way more experienced than me, you had some research about if there's any high peak on type of people who are inclined to buy small indie games.

I'm going to take what you said into account, because taking a wider range of posible buyers may (or may not) get more people to buy the game.

My concern:
*MAYBE* by making games for both kids who wants certain games or old women who likes the oposite type of games, you might lose both customers. Isn't this worth researching?

[ggambett]

I hope you understand that by best of games, i ment those that gets millions of sells, and are made by known companies.
It may have as much to do with being "better" as with the millions of dollars invested in marketing said games. You can't compare AAA retail games and indie games on number of sales without considering the development and marketing budgets.

[simonbowerbank]

Your entire premsie is completely and utterly wrong. The best of games are the best of games, who makes them or what the budget was is totally and utterly irrelevant. Is The latest Tom Clancy a better book than 'Pride and prejudice' because it had a bigger marketing budget?

The marketing budget doesnt decide the quality of the game, the production budget does.

[Ricardo C]

The marketing budget doesnt decide the quality of the game, the production budget does.

I thought talented developers and solid game design determined quality ;)

[simonbowerbank]

Talented developers dont work for free

[Robert Cummings]

The marketing budget doesnt decide the quality of the game, the production budget does.So when the marketing budget is huge, where does that leave the remaining production buget?

think "movie licenses".

[Ricardo C]

Talented developers dont work for free

Some work for themselves.

Others don't work for big companies, and don't make as much as they should.

Still others are right here at Indiegamer, producing quality titles with small budgets.

[Bmc]

So when the marketing budget is huge, where does that leave the remaining production buget?

think "movie licenses".


definetly not in the average code monkey's pocket ;)

[simonbowerbank]

Some work for themselves.

Others don't work for big companies, and don't make as much as they should.

Still others are right here at Indiegamer, producing quality titles with small budgets.

But the point is, if they had thirty million dollars to spend their games would be much better.

[Ricardo C]

The game would likely look and sound much better. The gameplay wouldn't necessarily benefit from having more money thrown at it.

[simonbowerbank]

You have the financial security to spend a lot of time perfecting and experimenting with the gameplay.

[Ricardo C]

You have the financial security to spend a lot of time perfecting and experimenting with the gameplay.

You do, if you are actually spending your own money, but not if there's a publisher threatening to shut you down if the game doesn't go gold in time for Christmas. If you know of any self-publishing developers who can afford to play around with $30 million with no pressure to get the product out the door, let me know so I can go beg for a job :D

[Anthony Flack]

But the point is, if they had thirty million dollars to spend their games would be much better.


I really don't feel this, although I don't quite intend it in the usual indie-affirming, "it's all about the gameplay!" way. Even though, in a way, it is.

It's just that by this point in my life, I own or have played several thousand games, and most games seem pretty boring to me now. I have to go through quite a few mediocre ones to find one that I like (although as a designer, there's still plenty to take in along the way). However,when I do find one I like, I enjoy it hugely.

A thirty million dollar game does not really stand a better chance of being one of those rare games that I really like. And if it's not one I really like, then it doesn't matter whether I think it's okay, or if I think it's terrible - either way, I don't play it.

[dogzer]

Even though you may know about these small great games, worldwide they are unknown. And -correct me if i'm wrong- the average gamer doesn't research how good these small games are. They just go to gamespot and check the screenies. And to THEM these big games are better, even though you may know they not and are just boring marketing products.

[C.S.Brewer]

Even though you may know about these small great games, worldwide they are unknown. lucky for all of us, these small games seem to be getting more broad press in the gaming rags, and major sites. Hopefuly the general public will know more about them as time goes on. When I've told people about what I'm doing I've been surprised to hear a few, non developers say Wow! I love indie games.

But the point is, if they had thirty million dollars to spend their games would be much better.
They certainly would shine prettier with all that gold plating! I can't find a quote, but for holloween, this reminds me of an interview about the making of Army of Darkness vs Evil Dead, I think. They said that on Evil Dead with such a low budget they had to do creative things that ended up working fine, like using rope to make someone hover. But on Army of Darkness with a large budget they tended to think in more complicated expensive ways, like trying to make an anti-gravity device :) maybe we tend to do the same sorts of things, which don't necessarily end up with a better game in the end?

[Leper]

If you have 30 million dollars to make a game, you wouldn't make a game that anyone would think of as an "indie game" ..

If you had a 30 million dollar budget.. You could hire like like 500 people to put 40 hour work weeks into one aspect of the game each. That's how the retail people do it.

I remember watching "the making of Mortal Kombat: balhblah" (the one that came out for xbox, ps2, gc)

I saw how one guy alone did NOTHING but make death sequences all day long 40 hours a week.

ok now think about what you could do as THE PRODUICER.. The guy who calls the shots.

You've got 30 million dollars and a dozen directors. The directors have a dozen programmers (or something)

You tell the directors.. "make this like that.. make this like that"

That would kick so much butt!! Anything you ever wanted to realize in a game you've made but didnt have the time or lost some motivation wouldnt matter. You would have every little "idea" .. nook and cranny to critique and have it carried out within a matter of days because of how many programmers and artists are working for you. 30 million dollar games have a lot of power. Of course, it all goes down to the development team and so on.

If you're highly organized and a great leader and all that good stuff, you could make the best game ever. If you have a team of devoted programmers and artists that are all passionate about the game (ie: you treat them all well, etc) you can make the best game ever.

That's just my humble opinion! :rolleyes:

[GBGames]

If you had a 30 million dollar budget.. You could hire like like 500 people to put 40 hour work weeks into one aspect of the game each. That's how the retail people do it.

...

That would kick so much butt!! Anything you ever wanted to realize in a game you've made but didnt have the time or lost some motivation wouldnt matter.

Sweet! Now I just need to make $30 million, and I'm on my way to making the best MMORPG/RTS/FPS ever!!!

[GBGames]

Hi, i'm kind of new here. To start out I was wondering if you guys would like to discuss what kind of people would i be making games for?
I have this question: When you can save your money and buy the best of games for 60 dollars, why would you spend any amount on an indie game?

But just because of that doesn't mean you are going to fail on selling small indie games, this only means you need to find things to take advantage, for example choosing TYPE of people you sell games to. People who don't find what they want for 60 bux on the market. What public do you think people like us should design and sell our products to?

Essentially you are talking about market research, which is good.

Who buys indie games? Anyone who has a credit card and doesn't feel scared using it to purchase a downloadable executable to play a game.

Now, the person who thinks that awesome graphics and special effects are what makes the game might not appreciate good games that happen to have lousy production budgets (whether money or time). They are clearly not the target audience.

Who is? Well you have hardcore gamers, casual gamers, niche gamers, and interstitial gamers.

Hardcore gamers are those that pay $60 for a game and play for hours every day. They aren't afraid of control schemes or computers for the most part.

Casual gamers are the opposite. They might play a game once in awhile, and for minutes at a time at that. Minesweeper, solitaire, and puzzle games have great appeal.

Niche gamers are those fanatics who love games that most people don't think about. Turn based historical strategy war games appeal to a certain segment, for example.

Interstitial gamers are ex-hardcore players, usually due to other things taking up their time. When you love games but find that your job and family take up your time, you can't see investing $60 in a game that requires hours per day. And after playing some awesome games in the past, why settle for casual games? They are too simple for your tastes.

Any other way to break this down?

[Leper]

Interstitial gamers are ex-hardcore players, usually due to other things taking up their time. When you love games but find that your job and family take up your time, you can't see investing $60 in a game that requires hours per day. And after playing some awesome games in the past, why settle for casual games? They are too simple for your tastes.

Any other way to break this down?

I am an Interstitial gamer. Nowadays in my free half hour or whatever I'll play the latest shareware shmup, or maybe a platform game, a puzzle game, a strategy game, etc. Sometimes I get lost in one of those games and play for like 2 hours ;)

Actually I'll play just about any "casual game" but a "match-3" one..

But I used to spend 6-12 hours on the PC when I was a kid.. I used to spend days and days and weeks on one game, learning everything about it and mastering it! Learning all of it's exploits, every thing about it.

I simply dont have time to do that anymore, and when I play a highly involved game like one of those $60.00 games I usually get discouraged because it looks like too much of a daunting task. I'd much rather get highly involved in something that makes me feel like I'm being productive. If I want to entertain myself, I'll play a casual game!

[GBGames]

Ok, so maybe it's not casual games so much as very simple games. I think someone raised on Super Mario Bros, Total Annihilation, and Diablo 2 would probably not enjoy playing Bejeweled for too long and would want to find something along the lines of Strange Adventures in Infinite Space or Oasis.

[Mr.Blaub]

Well you have hardcore gamers, casual gamers, niche gamers, and interstitial gamers.
Is there any justification in typing that I'm most of the above?

I'll play anything from Half-Life 2 to tetris, and most things inbetween.

I recently played a text adventure that was made two decades ago.

And of course I'd purchase a casual game if I felt it deserved my money, so am I a freak of nature or are there more like me?

Anyways, I like the ideal that you attempt to market (and therefore design) your game based around the widest demographic possible. If you've got the chance to incorporate multiple types of gameplay (and the option to omit (sp?) each segment) I think you would get more sales.

I'm currently making an Adventure game/Exploration game/puzzle game/twitch game hybrid, and some of the extra components (they're kind of like minigames, in a sense) can be shut off for the price of a deduction in potential high score points. This way, if someone just can't (or can't be bothered to) get past a certain obstacle, they can just skip it.

I wouldn't overdo this though. If you make too much of the game skippable (and don't have penalties for doing so) then the player will skip their way through the game, and will complete it too quickly/remain unfulfilled.

So that's one way of doing things - cram a bunch of different elements into one game. I don't know if this is going to be successful, as I haven't fully developed and released the game yet, but we'll see what happens :)

[gosub]

I have this question: When you can save your money and buy the best of games for 60 dollars, why would you spend any amount on an indie game?

In no particular order...

1) Free download. $60 is a pretty big investment when you can only read the back of the box.

2) Inexpensive. You know what you've got, and you don't mind spending $12, $15, $20, or whatever.

3) Not mutually exclusive. My mom plays $60 games, $19 games, and $15 games, and free games. My guess is that she spent more hours playing Snood than Myst or Zork.

4) Variety. There's a lot more Indi games than $30 million budget games.

5) Boredom. After playing any game for a while, you get bored with it. If you liked the basic premise of the game, you might go for a clone that is similar but different.

6) Luck. Your game is worse and more expensive, but they download it first. Or maybe they got bored with the better cheaper version, and want something new.

7) Stupidity. Why did people buy pet rocks when they could just go outside and pick one up? Did people actually buy pet rocks, or is that a myth? How about the guy who made millions by selling a program that only changed one registry key?

8) For fun. People will play a free zero-budget game for hours on end if it's fun. Of course, they might not pay for it either.

9) The list goes on...

-Jeremy

[gpetersz]

You might even ask, why should I watch "Blackadder" with Rowan Atkinson, when the whole series didn't cost the same as one episode of Star wars.

Because it IS different. And I like it BETTER. Because contrary that I like Lucas's films, and I really like SW (I watch it from time to time), I don't have that intelectual plus what makes "Blackadder" so much fun (black-sarcastic humour, the personality).

I don't really understand your question to be honest. The practice's shown that the two genre simple LIVES side by side.

Hmmm.... and personality. That's what Call of Duty does not have (personal opinion). I liked COD very much, played it 5-6 times, done it in all levels 1 or 2 times. Enjoyed the scenes. Then get bored of this scripted environment...

I've downloaded Professor Fizzwizzle yesterday. I love him!!!
I'll very likely buy a piece for my wife (and for myself naturally :)) for christmas. He's got personality, he is original in some ways, and the quality is quite good. Many times I feel when I play the next flashy AAA game that it is empty. (there are AAA titles that became my pastourized games, and remained installed, but very few)

So it is not a XOR but an AND relation between AAA and indie games. If I want a 30 million budget high-tech rendered movie I choose AAA if I want something ELSE I have an indie game.

Not to mention that I grew up on Spectrum/C64/Amiga games, and indie games are not different than the AAA titles of that days. So in my opinion when the tools and machines become that advanced indies will make Call of Duties (there are even now a commercial FPS maker, where you can make FPSs without coding!) while the AAAs will do something high-tech then.

[soniCron]

So it is not a XOR but an AND relation between AAA and indie games. *thinks about it* Actually, it would be an OR. ;)

[ManuelMarino]

I think the BIG POINT is the gameplay. Consider games like Monopoly... they had a huge success in their pc versions, while the budget behind was very small compared to some AAA games released in these years.

I know Lux, and I consider it a great game. Again, the gameplay is amazing, so the gameplay is what makes these games so interesting.

While many AAA titles don't need great gameplays to be successful (there are other factors to make them successful), low budget games absolutely need a very good gameplay to be winners in the competition.