Spidweb talks about innovation in indie gaming...

[Jack Norton]

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/701/701513p1.html

found particularly interesting those 2 phrases:
If you are an indie and your game flops... well, small companies have a real hard time surviving the blow. And I don't want to lose my house.

and:
Remember that the next time you look to the independent developer to be the source of innovation in this industry. There is nothing scarier that aiming at a market that doesn't exist yet. It might not exist at all.

hope this will be a good starting point for a flamew.. ehm a polite discussion :D

[Savant]

What a depressing article. He's advocating the one thing that will kill you long term: shoot for the middle of the road. Don't deviate. Stay the mundane course.

Ugh.

There is nothing scarier that aiming at a market that doesn't exist yet. It might not exist at all.
Yes, but if it does ... IF IT DOES ... you're set! Sure, it's not always going to work but that's why innovation advocates say, "Do it quickly and do it cheaply so that if it doesn't work, because it probably won't, you're not out of business".

Staying the course is not going to grow your customer base and it's not going to move you forward as a person or as a company. Growth is in the edges.

The standard argument always seem to revolve around money. "If I make the safe game, I'll make money and I can stay in business". However, the best advice I ever heard on this subject was:

"Don't worry about chasing money. If you're the best in your field, money will find you."

[Sakura Games]

Well if is a hobby you got not much to lose. If is your only source of income...

[soniCron]

"Don't worry about chasing money. If you're the best in your field, money will find you." And if you're not the best in your field...?

[Savant]

And if you're not the best in your field...?
Then you're clearly in the wrong field. Pick something that you're good at and do that instead.

[Sakura Games]

Well surely Savant who just made 1 game clone knows more than Jeff Vogel who does shareware since 8 years and has more than 4 full rpg games developed.

[mahlzeit]

Just because you're not innovating doesn't mean your company doesn't have a right to exist. All you need to do is sell a product the market wants, innovative or not. People still need plain-old paperclips, even though the thing was invented 120 years ago.

And of course it's smarter to let someone else do the innovating and the risk-taking, and then steal their ideas once they've proven successworthy. ;)

[digriz]

< deleted to avoid flamewar >

[soniCron]

Then you're clearly in the wrong field. Pick something that you're good at and do that instead. Which is it: "best" or "good?"

EDIT: I've got a couple hours this morning if you want to bat a couple around, Savant. I'll be checking this and the Warrent Spector threads frequently... ;)

[Savant]

Translate "best" to "among the best". There's room for a few top dogs in each field who take 99% of the money.

[soniCron]

Translate "best" to "among the best". There's room for a few top dogs in each field who take 99% of the money. Surely the best (or those among the best) didn't start out as the best?

[cliffski]

being innovatiev gives journalists and other gamers something to talk about. indie games have small budgets, so we are unlikely to look the best, have the most content, the most famous voiceovers, or the big name licences. You need some way of standing out that doesnt cost money. Innovation is one such method.
Innovation means you have little direct competition, which is also good. Doing a match 3 puzzle game is the worst of both worlds now because its a crowded market and the production values have shot up. how can you compete? The same goes for doing an RTS or an FPS.

[Anthony Flack]

Surely the best (or those among the best) didn't start out as the best?

No, but you'd want to keep practicing until you were. And don't feel like you have any entitlement to earn money until then. I've been working at it for years and I still don't feel that I have any real right to claim money for this yet, because there's still so much I can improve. So any earnings are a bonus.

Mind you, I also don't think that these high production values people mention are really that high. It used to be mostly terrible, now it's mostly serviceable if not remarkable. Still easily within the means of a single person, though; it's not like these games have masses of content. I never understood why people thought it was okay for their games to look like crap.

[Anthony Flack]

Re: the article.

I wonder if Jeff actually regrets making that game, though? He's still in business. It sounds like he's quite proud of the game. Some people really enjoyed it. So, if he had his time again, would he prefer to make nothing but straight-up cheesy fantasy games, in order to have the most money?

[Sakura Games]

The problem is, and some people (not you) seems not to understand, is that he said the sales for that game were CRAP.
He didn't say "well I just got slightly less money than my other games" - he was PISSED about the sales! there's no doubt reading the article that if he could go back in time he would surely NOT make it again!

Think that you worked 8-9 months on a game and then you earn so few money that you immediatly need to start a new one, because you are short of cash - remember is your ONLY source of income, not a HOBBY. You can't pay the bills with "art".

Everyone here seems to talk like if they're ultra-rich and need to make games just as something to kill free time... I don't understand.

[Savant]

The problem is, and some people (not you) seems not to understand, is that he said the sales for that game were CRAP.
He didn't say "well I just got slightly less money than my other games" - he was PISSED about the sales! there's no doubt reading the article that if he could go back in time he would surely NOT make it again!

Think that you worked 8-9 months on a game and then you earn so few money that you immediatly need to start a new one, because you are short of cash - remember is your ONLY source of income, not a HOBBY. You can't pay the bills with "art".

Everyone here seems to talk like if they're ultra-rich and need to make games just as something to kill free time... I don't understand.
Yes, but this gets back to "do it quickly and do it cheaply enough that you don't get one turn at bat before you're financially dead". 8-9 months isn't quick.

If you want my take on it, it sounds like he screwed up by choosing a weird setting for the game. If he had stuck with his standard high fantasy style that his customers love, the plot twist idea probably would have worked out a lot better.

I'd be willing to bet that the setting hurt the game more than the innovation did.

[svero]

Well I think Jeff is actually advocating company suicide to some extent. I think in his case he's got a niche where he's not competing with too many people.. but aiming at the middle of the road isn't a great way to survive unless you get pretty lucky. The middle of the road, at least in casual titles, is becoming less and less lucrative. We had a little bubble there where a good casual game could make a lot of money being fairly decent, but I think it's over. I suspect we'll see a lot of the middle sized casual devs producing clones today, fold in the next short while because of that. You can only get so far playing it "safe"? What is safe anyway? If you decided to make a Diner Dash game 6 months ago aimed at the casual market...well that sounds pretty safe doesnt it? But if you were finished today, you'd have to compete directly with...

Diner Dash 2
Mystic Inn
Snowy Lunch Rush
Cake Mania
Diner Dash Spongebob edition

...and probably a few I didn't think of. Is that safe? That to me sounds like pretty bad news. If you think all those games in the top 10 lists are making the authors rich.. well think again. I'm wondering if any of the above games except maybe Diner Dash 2 which has the advantage of being a sequel to a really successful title, is going to be really worthwhile for the people that made it. I'm guessing just barely if the authors are lucky. They'll make more money for the portals than the devs. The portals don't care which of the (Diner Dash devided by Number of Clones) units of profit they sell. They make money on *any* of them. But devs are to some extent splitting the potential of that market. Sure customers may buy 2 or even 3 of these games and some will like one and not the other, but they're bound to get bored with the style of game. The games do compete with eachother to some extent. They don't offer THAT much difference from game to game. So what's safe about that?

I'd also argue that he's wrong about small companies being in danger of flopping a game. I'm not sure what he considers a small company, but my expenses are pretty small. I can handle a flop or two and sort of trim back on my personal expenses. I dont have a bunch of salaries to pay and an office to maintain etc... Whereas a bigger company that has a set of expenses they can't just put on hold is in real trouble if they flop for whatever reason. That reason could just as easily be aiming at the middle of the road as it could be, being to innovative or ambitious and missing the mark.

[Glen Pawley]

No offense to Jeff, but that game concept doesn't sound particularly innovative to me. It's an unexplored setting for an RPG game sure, but I don't think that's enough to call it innovative. As for his other stressed feature - the idea that the two stories would be distinct but complementary, well that's certainly been explored before in a host of other genres and settings.


On a completely different note...

All you need to do is sell a product the market wants, innovative or not. People still need plain-old paperclips, even though the thing was invented 120 years ago.

I don't think that's a very relevant description. Competing in the paperclip industry is a matter of manufacturing and distribution efficiency. With the ever lowering reproduction and distribution costs of digital media, those variables are moot. The unpalatable truth is simple - just like books and movies, there are enough games out there within easy reach to satisfy any man's curiosity for idling his time away. To compete against that you HAVE to offer something new, whether that be shinier graphics, or better game mechanics, or a new theme. Well you don't HAVE to BUT, every single game unit sale happens for a simple reason - it offers something to the buyer which he does not know how to procure from elsewhere. Therefore either sell through marketing (fool the customer into thinking that something else doesn't exist or is harder to get) or through innovation (create something the customer outright cannot get from elsewhere).

Hmmmm, that was pretty rambling. Hope someone found it insightful.

[soniCron]

Hmmmm, that was pretty rambling. Hope someone found it insightful. I sure did. Thanks! :)

[Sakura Games]

If you think all those games in the top 10 lists are making the authors rich.. well think again. I'm wondering if any of the above games except maybe Diner Dash 2 which has the advantage of being a sequel to a really successful title, is going to be really worthwhile for the people that made it. I'm guessing just barely if the authors are lucky.
Rich maybe not, but surely they'll earn enough to live. Barely ? :)
Why everyone keep making them then?

[svero]

Rich maybe not, but surely they'll earn enough to live. Barely ? :)
Why everyone keep making them then?

Depends on the game and how long it stays in the lists etc.. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd guess that a lot of them simply don't earn enough for the developers to live off of. What you'll notice if you watch carefully, is that fewer and fewer games, even by the top developers like popcap, reflexive, etc... are able to hold a place in the top 10 lists for longer than a month or two. It's getting harder to hold onto the top virtual shelf space and so once again the business becomes more of a distribution problem than a development problem. It use to be.. give up 50-80% and get distribution on the portals and find a lot of customers that way. Now you can't even guarantee that because many people want the small shelf space available on the portals and you have to compete with bigger companies and budgets and licensed titles etc...

That doesn't affect the distributors as much as it does us because for the sites, whether they sell 1000 Diner Dash 2 or 500 Snowy Lunch Rush and 500 Diner Dash 2 doesn't matter. They might even sell a bit more if they promote both those titles. They can do well promoting things like a davinci code game or a king kong game. Why promote an original title by a small developer when you can use the momentum from a hollywood movie's advertising campaign to drive downloads?

Why do people continue make these games? Well it was and probably still is profitable to some point, but I think it's definitely getting harder and becoming less lucrative. I expect we'll see a lot of changes in the next couple of years with surviving developers shifting away from portals as a sole distribution method and instead refocusing on their own sites, setting up game communities, trying to get into console download markets, targeting niche's, online gaming, the phone and pda market etc... People won't stop distributing through portals but the successful devs will be those that diversify into other areas. I have serious doubts that a small indie company will be able to survive trying to distribute exclusively through portals. It's not even clear if that path will remain open to indies? I wouldn't necessarily count on it. It could be much harder if there are 4 brand name titles, a number of movie spin offs, lite versions of big name console games etc... all competing for space. Just a few years back you could make money by submitting to hotfiles and download.com. Today you can't. The only real certainty is that the market shifts very quickly. Adapt or die :-)

[KNau]

There is nothing scarier that aiming at a market that doesn't exist yet. It might not exist at all.
That's why there's a thing called market research!

Perhaps if instead of pulling some random idea out of thin air, he turned to his audience of fantasy gamers and asked what game they would like to see from him next he wouldn't have ended up as he did. I'd saw my leg off to be in the position he was (is) in - to have an accessible core audience like that.

There's no reason he couldn't innovate and stay within the confines of a fantasy RPG. His games are about 10 years behind the curve in terms of design, so there's lots of room to upgrade without alienating the audience.

That's the problem I see with developers now is that they've forgotten about finding a niche for themselves and instead just develop whatever pops into their heads. "Casual" is not a niche, it's much more fragmented than that.

If you're lucky enough to become known for something and establish an audience, for heaven's sake stick with it!

It's like if Anthony Flack decided to make a 3D Space Invaders when we're all foaming at the mouth to play his next claymation game. It'd be career suicide and he'd have to right to claim it's the fault of "innovation".

[Sakura Games]

I have serious doubts that a small indie company will be able to survive trying to distribute exclusively through portals. It's not even clear if that path will remain open to indies? I wouldn't necessarily count on it. It could be much harder if there are 4 brand name titles, a number of movie spin offs, lite versions of big name console games etc... all competing for space. Just a few years back you could make money by submitting to hotfiles and download.com. Today you can't. The only real certainty is that the market shifts very quickly. Adapt or die :-)
Hmm well few years =3-4 years ago I think, yes you might be right. Nowadays is quite hard to get any money from shareware, but if your game gets on a portal top10 I bet you'll surely make more than simply selling on your own.

P.S. those are small indie company surviving with portals, so is hard but still possible:
Funpause (now is BFG, well)
Arcadelab
Hipsoft

[Sparks]

Hi,

well I don't see that subject as such a big problem.
Blizzard, whom some of You may know, did not invent the RTS genre, they pushed it forward but doing the right thing, keeping the essence, but enhancing the experience.They innovated within the niche.
Instead of faceless cannonfodder You get characters and fewer but more colourful units.
They were successful doing that, others failed.
On the other hand, Will Wright created a series of innovative games, starting with SimCity, through SimEarth, SimAnts until he arrived at..."The Sims", which is a phenomenal success and innovative, although You might say he took the concept of "Little Computer People","Sim City", "Populous" and "SimEarth" and mixed a new genre out of it.

The bottom line is: it doesn't matter whether You create the next WarCraft 3 or the next "Sims", it DOES matter taht the game that You create has its own personality and makes it distinguishable from the clone next door.
It always comes down to: why should I buy game X if I have already played game Z ?
And the answer is: because X is a new and different experience.
Not necessarily so much better.But new and different.
Its always the same technique, be it films (how many aliens invading earth came before the successful ID4 and WotW), be it books (I bet there have been a lot of wannabe magicians before Harry P.), be it music (come on, 50 cent beeing the first "true" rapper ???).
You can sell nearly everything if its got its own character and, of course, if You make people love it.
I mean, if somebody had pitched to me the gameplay idea of Katamari, I would have told him to forget it.And guess what happened.

[Davaris]

I think what Jeff should have learned from this experience is the *vast* majority (90%+) of computer RPG players are morons. When they see RPG, they don't think role playing games (ie you can play any role you can think of), they think of Lord of the Rings, wizards, warriors, monsters and dragons. So anyone that makes anything outside of the fantasy norm is going to get a kick in the teeth. Its a sad fact, but its the way of the world, because only stupid people are breeding. :)

I learned this lesson the hard way and when I make another RPG, its going to be stock standard D&D.

EDIT:
I suspect Jeff is going to learn this lesson again with his next title, which he says is going to have less areas and tons more text.

[svero]

>but if your game gets on a portal top10 I bet you'll surely make more than
>simply selling on your own.

Sure, you'll make a little more but unlesss your game stays int he top 10 for more than a few weeks it's not going to be all that much. You only get a small cut of those sales as the developer and there are maybe only 2-3 portals of any significance sales wise. Im not advocating people ignore this route... use it if it makes sense for your game. What I'm saying is.. over the next year or two I don't believe focusing on this route exclusively will be a safe business strategy.

>P.S. those are small indie company surviving with portals, so is hard but still
>possible:
>Funpause (now is BFG, well)
>Arcadelab
>Hipsoft

Funpause is different since they now are part of bigfish, but Arcadelab and Hipsoft are perfect examples of companies I believe could be in trouble in the next year (maaaaybe 2) if they don't change their business strategy or get bought up as well. Take hipsoft for example. I don't know their sales, I haven't spoken to them recently, but I have had games in the top lists and have spoke to a lot of developers who have as well, so I have a pretty goiod idea of what it leads to money wise. Now Hipsoft recently released Ocean's Express. It's a very solid game, nice sequel to what was at least a semi-hit just a year or two ago (puzzle express) and today? snuck into bigfish top 10 for maybe a week or two, and then got delegated to back pages while bigfish's top 10 is dominated by movie tie-ins and in-house games and the odd new game. I guess they had a semi hit with Gem Shop recently and that probably helped their bottom line, but what I'm saying is that it will be harder and harder for them to compete directly in the same way. And don't forget that Gem Shop probably dug into Chuzzle sales and then Faries into their sales and Chuzzles etc... That's not a good situation for developers, but it doesn't affect the portals so much since they make the same money selling faries, gem shop or chuzzle.

[Savant]

Sure, you'll make a little more but unlesss your game stays int he top 10 for more than a few weeks it's not going to be all that much. You only get a small cut of those sales as the developer and there are maybe only 2-3 portals of any significance sales wise.
And I know this is obvious, but bear in mind that the sales made via portals aren't yours. You don't have those customers email addresses and have no way of contacting them in the future.

You're selling your long term business goals for short term financial gain.

[DangerCode]

Then you're clearly in the wrong field. Pick something that you're good at and do that instead.

But doesn't Jeff already lead the field? I don't know of any other successful indie RPG developer.

I didn't read this article as depressing. Jeff tried something that was out of touch with his customers and learned from the experience.

[Anthony Flack]

It's like if Anthony Flack decided to make a 3D Space Invaders when we're all foaming at the mouth to play his next claymation game. It'd be career suicide and he'd have to right to claim it's the fault of "innovation".

Hmm, 3d Space Invaders, you say? Interesting...

No, my career is the living dead and cannot be killed; cannot even take its own life to end its suffering. Adapt or die... or become a zombie developer. The only thing that affects my bottom line is the availability of fresh brains.

[Sakura Games]

Well since is svero posting (someone who actually might know how things are going) I'm convinced :) and shocked at same time, since even getting on top10 in a portal doesn't bring you much money, wonder what's the future of shareware... :confused:

[svero]

It's a very tough business right now. There is still a lot of money to be made on the portals, but the number of people making that money will be small, and the competition for that top end virtual shelf space is fierce. The market is bigger and the portals are selling more and more, but I suspect strongly that the returns of most individual developers are smaller due to increased competition, cloning, raised development budgets to stay competitive, etc...

[Sparks]

I think it depends on how You structure Your portfolio:
for a small team (2-3 people), it would be wise to get out as many games as possible as soon as possible with each game beeing in a different genre, then
analyse and create sequels to the best-selling games.
Of course it would not make sense to create 5 match-3 games in 10 months and exspecting each of them to sell like crazy.
But I guess if You do 3-4 games of different genres and dig into the hardcore niches (like war strategy, desktop rpg and the like) occasionally, You will have a business.
For myself I could not imagine doing one clone after the other, but I wouldn't be afraid of doing a sequel to our space shooter, with more polish, easier access and more mass-appeal for example.
There is also the question whether 2d games will ever die.
If so, then developers should as soon as possible create their games in 3D to get a sound pipeline.
In my opinion, game portals will sooner or later "mutate" into actual big time publishers, like EA, and that will go along with them investing in indie studios, buying them out, creating bigger budget casual games and so on, until the next indie revolution.
If You compare the indie games of today with the indie games of the Doom or Commander Keen era, You will find that they have higher production values today than back then, and when the next revolution comes, the production values will be even higher, things like realtime 3D are already accessible today for even the smallest indie, and I guess the next indie "evolution" will be purely 3D realtime games and with normal mapping effects, too.
But I doubt that the indie scene will ever die.

[KNau]

Whereas I'm of the alternate mindset:

Find a niche (either game style or subject matter) and build youself a leadership position there. So that no matter where you are on the web if someone posts "Anyone know of a good (insert game type)?". People respond with links to your site.

Q: "Anyone know of a good shareware RPG?"
A: "Try Spiderweb software, Avernum is cool"

Q: "Anyone know of a good solitaire collection?"
A: "Try Pretty Good Solitaire"

I think the more specific the niche the better. Rather than try to grab a small piece of a big pie try catching a big piece of a smaller pie. Hell, there's a guy who claims to be making good money selling text adventures. Now that's a niche market.

Again - "casual" is not a niche.

[Jack Norton]

Hell, there's a guy who claims to be making good money selling text adventures. Now that's a niche market.

text adventures!? who is? :eek:

[yanuart]

Rather than try to grab a small piece of a big pie try catching a big piece of a smaller pie.
doesn't it mean you'll get the same amount of pie ? If that is the case, that pie looks so delicious.. of course I'm going for the bigger piece !!

[Sakura Games]

Is not so easy. For RPG you don't compete with Spidweb. It's not that people look for "shareware RPG"!! they look for rpg in general and there are some MMORPG like everquest or some normal offline CRPG games like "Oblivion" that are much tougher competition than "Luxor"... :D

[KNau]

That's where you're wrong. People do look for shareware RPGs and the niches get very specific - "old school", "16 bit style", "pen and paper style", etc. There is no such thing as the "RPG" audience really. The audience for Avernum isn't the same as the audience for Everquest.

[Pluvious]

Its interesting to me that the decline of 2D graphics and/or turn based gaming has "created" niches for independent game developers. As the big budget developers stop making these types of games (no longer enough incentive financially) it creates opportunities for smaller developers.

I recently read somewhere that my favorite game "Age of Wonders" will no longer be made into further sequels because it just isn't lucrative enough for the company. I started playing Masters of Magic back in the 80's and continued playing all of the Age of Wonders games (imporved sequel to Masters of Magic) until the end. I'm a fan of all the turn based strategy/fantasy games that have come out since the 80's. And the big companies have all but stopped making these types of games in favor of RTS strategy or different types of games.

This to me is an example of a bit of an untapped niche for independent game developers. There aren't many of these types of games out there and the potential market is still pretty decent. But fans of this genre like and expect depth and quality. This needs to happen to capture the market. This may be easier said then done.

note: I noticed recently that someone is making a masters of magic clone...because people still love that game and it is only playable on dos systems.

[Sillysoft]

Find a niche (either game style or subject matter) and build youself a leadership position there. So that no matter where you are on the web if someone posts "Anyone know of a good (insert game type)?". People respond with links to your site.
I agree 100%.

And if you continue to dominate your niche, then you should be able to get a steady stream of sales from the people who are interested in it (with the size of the stream being dependent on how popular the niche is of course). Compared to the possibility of a dominant "big spike, then nothing" sales pattern from portals, a steady stream is a very nice thing to have.

[baegsi]

The problem is: if you are truly innovative, you are not in a niche, your product opens a whole new market.

I found this article pretty straight forward and not very surprising. Games are a difficult matter, adding a lot of innovation on top of it makes it even more difficult.

[Ricardo C]

From reading the article, it doesn't sound like "innovation" was the problem. The game sounds pretty straightforward. A misguided theme choice is not an issue of innovation.

And frankly, the painting of the Roman soldier fighting a Celt looks pretty mediocre to me. Yet Jeff V. describes it as "an awesome painting of a Roman kicking a Celt's ass". Could it be he overestimated the game's quality? Real-world (and therefore "less escapist") theme + uninspired art is easier to believe than "I tried to innovate and got kicked in the teeth".

[Anthony Flack]

The painting looks pretty good compared with the general standard of indie game art, particularly those from a few years ago.

If You compare the indie games of today with the indie games of the Doom or Commander Keen era, You will find that they have higher production values today than back then, and when the next revolution comes, the production values will be even higher, things like realtime 3D are already accessible today for even the smallest indie, and I guess the next indie "evolution" will be purely 3D realtime games and with normal mapping effects, too.

I don't agree with this, though, really. A game like Doom was far more ambitious, art and design-wise, than your generic puzzle-popper.

The other assumption that I can't say I'd go for is that normal-mapped 3d necessarily represents an improvement in production values, or if people will prefer that look, all else being equal. Cartoons are still popular.

To say nothing of the idea that 2d games will "die". Why would they?

[yanuart]

does it ever occure to anyone that when some "designer" bitches about how his innovative game failed it was probably.. just maybe that his idea .. oh well let me say it : sucks to even begin with ?

I mean, hey, I love RPGs for the fantasy it brings, I wanna be a knight that slays dragon or a mage that can cast a fireball every now and then or even become a not so good jedi.
The idea of becoming a celt warlord or a roman doesn't intrigue me that much in a RPG or at least if I want to experience mid century battle I'd play a strategy game cause that's where the action kicks in.

Apparently, alot of people feel the way I do according to this guy's sales report and then he whined alot about how people just don't get it ? IMHO this guy doesn't get it either (it = other ppl's money)

Isn't customer's needs that drives innovation ? and not the other way around ? Yes, you can also trust your instincts and ideas too but when it fails at least have some dignity by admiting that maybe, just maybe, for once you're simply wrong and not as genius as you might think!

[Savant]

You might want to turn the angry down a few notches. I don't remember anyone in this thread claiming to be a genius.

[Ricardo C]

He's not attacking anyone in the thread, though. He's just reacting to Jeff Vogel's arguments. The guy claims the market didn't reward his attempt to innovate, Yanuart is arguing that maybe the game wasn't innovative, but rather just subpar. It's a fair view, I think.

[Savant]

Yes, and we covered that point already - only with much less angry sauce.

[Davaris]

Could it be he overestimated the game's quality?


I don't agree. I found the Roman/Celt and the stolen item concept far more interesting than his other games. Not to put Jeff's games down, but I find them tedious as endless exploring does not appeal to me. On the other hand when I play his games, I can see their goodness and understand why they sell, because they appeal to a particular mindset.

The best computer game I have ever played is Fallout. Everyone in the industry has heard of it, it was critically acclaimed at the time of its release and still has a fanatical following. But it only sold 500,000 copies. Why? I think the problem is the market Jeff would like to be writing for (and the Fallout market), has grown up and is busily paying off mortgages and bringing up kids. Poor old Jeff is stuck writing games for their dumb kids. :)

Oh well... Who said a job is supposed to be fun? If a job was fun it wouldn't be called a job, it would be called happy fun time. Do your job Jeff. ;)

[yanuart]

eh sorry bout my last post. Actually I was quite in a happy mood when I wrote that. The writing style I chose is intended to make it a "slap back to reality" criticism that goes to everyone including myself as I watch my sales report.
The moral is : if something doesn't go the way you want it, isn't it best to look for answers starting from yourself?

For ex : Hmm.. my last post pissed someone off, maybe I'm not as funny as I thought I am :)

there you go..

[MikeRozak]

Some random thoughts:

- Looking at all non-indie CRPGs and MMORPGs, it seems like fantasy is by far the most popular (sales wise), assuming that fantasy in an Asian setting is still fantasy. Science fiction is a distant second. Everything else (aka: historical) is almost non-existant. I suspect indie CRPGs/MMORPGs would follow the same basic distributions unless there is a specific niche of Roman/Celt historical buffs that you can tap into. (I'm debating which setting to use for my CRPG/MMORPG. http://www.mxac.com.au/mif.)

- You can create three games that take four months to develop, or one game that takes twelve months... A 4-month game can be cloned in (approximately) 4 months. A 12-month game takes 12 months, so you have more time to (potentially) earn money from it. Plus, the 12-month cloning duration will make clone-writers think twice before they undertake the project. In the long run, clone writers encourage games that require increasingly longer/bigger development. I suspect Spiderweb Software doesn't have as much of an issue with cloners. (On the other hand, their business model is to clone Ultima-N.)

[baegsi]

The guy claims the market didn't reward his attempt to innovate, Yanuart is arguing that maybe the game wasn't innovative, but rather just subpar.Isn't this exactly the problem, that "innovative" is higly subjective? So if we argue here whether or not this game is innovative/creative/fun etc..., the customers do as well.

[Anthony Flack]

Well, it sounds like people who were so inclined really liked it, so I don't think it was a bad game.

I don't think this is about innovation at all; it was simply a niche that was either too small, or that he was unable to successfully tap into. Which comes to the same thing, really.

Actually, given the huge number of people in the world, I'd say just about any niche could work - but can you reach those people effectively? I'm sure there are lots of people that would like that game, but they never heard about it. Most niches are surely much larger than we would ever suspect. And very small niches could be profitable if you had easy access to the entire audience.

[kjs335]

The advantage of going indie is that it is possible to try something new without the risk of going bankruptcy like big companies.

Nowadays, anyone can get access to proper 3D engines (i.e. Irrlicht, OGRE3D, etc), 3D modelling programs (i.e. Blender3d, Wing3D, etc) and other dev kits.
Average speed of computers of gamers in general is increasing. (And the next M$ Windows is going to have 3D interface.)
If you have been to some of the open source 3D engine forums, you may find some astonishing *mini* projects (the most rememberable one is one-man MMORPG project) which are made by few people.

There are people who are thirsty of innovative hardcore games ( including me )
and I think that's where Indies can fit in.

[cliffski]

they could even innovate with 2D

[baegsi]

The advantage of going indie is that it is possible to try something new without the risk of going bankruptcy like big companies.
Not if you want to develop indie games fulltime. As an individual, you are actually in a worse position than a company, because you're liable with your personal belongings and may get in debt for a long time, whereas when your company/employer goes bankrupt, you can just get another job.

[kjs335]

Not if you want to develop indie games fulltime. As an individual, you are actually in a worse position than a company, because you're liable with your personal belongings and may get in debt for a long time, whereas when your company/employer goes bankrupt, you can just get another job.
My bad, I was referring to part-time indies. I remember learning the advs/disadvs of sole trader and registered companies several weeks back.

Although the company has unlimited liability, there was an article somewhere in this forum that publishers don't like risking their money so they accept mostly AAA clones.

[yanuart]

Nowadays, anyone can get access to proper 3D engines (i.e. Irrlicht, OGRE3D, etc), 3D modelling programs (i.e. Blender3d, Wing3D, etc) and other dev kits.
Average speed of computers of gamers in general is increasing. (And the next M$ Windows is going to have 3D interface.)
the technology may be getting cheaper by the minute but contents aren't. From my experience, I spend more money in arts and audio, etc. The only reason why I'm still making 2D games is simply as this : NOT ENOUGH $$$$

[Sakura Games]

Yes exactly... not because the tools are available at low price means we develop faster!! making a good 3d low-poly model, or programming a 3d game is still something very time-consuming.

[kjs335]

How about 'Darwinia' for example?

[Sakura Games]

LOL that's exactly a good example.
http://www.igf.com/php-bin/entries2006.php?entry_id=61

Note the text:
Dev. Time: 3 years

[Savant]

Note the text:
Dev. Time: 3 years
Sure, that seems long but look at the name they've made for themselves. They're even being distributed on Steam, alongside Half-Life2.

Contrast that with producing 5 puzzle games in that same time period that vanish into obscurity in some portals archives.

[luggage]

But what if it bombs? Then the end result is the same except one game took 3 years and the other took 4 months.

[Savant]

But what if it bombs? Then the end result is the same except one game took 3 years and the other took 4 months.
It's never safe taking the route less traveled. Of course, the "safe" road is proving all that safe either now is it?

[Sakura Games]

What about doing those 5 months clones, vanishing into portals archive with some big bucks in the bank? :D

[Savant]

What about doing those 5 months clones, vanishing into portals archive with some big bucks in the bank? :D
If you think taking a shot at producing a portal hit is a safe bet, then go for it. However, experience is showing that it's a fool's game. Sure, you might do it. But odds are that you won't.

[luggage]

You compare a "hit" game to 5 games that bomb and disappear. Hardly a fair comparison.

How about comparing a hit game with 5 hit portal games?
Or a 3 year game that bombs with 5 portal games that bomb?

It's not about thinking it's a safe bet. Nothing is a safe bet when releasing a game. It's juggling the risk involved.

[Sakura Games]

If you think taking a shot at producing a portal hit is a safe bet, then go for it. However, experience is showing that it's a fool's game. Sure, you might do it. But odds are that you won't.
I spoke with some authors (sorry can't make names) and they said that's not bad as someone says. If you're a team of 5 people then forget about it, but for 1 programmer and 1 artist (which is the most common case), getting a game on several portal can give you decent and safer income.
If game has good quality (not hit, just good quality) can be easily placed on BFG and Reflexive minimum.
Let's say takes average 6 months (but surely less) to make a portal game. In 3 years I make 6 portals games, maybe one is a hit. I think I've made already more than a niche top-game like that one, which is much more risky since requires a big team and lot of effort.

So Savant you're going to make a niche game now?

[Savant]

So Savant you're going to make a niche game now?
Oh, whatever I do next will definitely be niche. There's no way I'm going casual ever again.

[Sakura Games]

Oh, whatever I do next will definitely be niche. There's no way I'm going casual ever again.
Looking forward to see your next game.

[Chris Evans]

In 3 years I make 6 portals games, maybe one is a hit. I think I've made already more than a niche top-game like that one, which is much more risky since requires a big team and lot of effort.


Who says a niche game takes a big team? I can name off numerous Indie niche or non-casual games that was made by 1-3 people. Democracy, Starscape, ShortHike, and Lux just to name a few...

[Davaris]

Oh, whatever I do next will definitely be niche. There's no way I'm going casual ever again.


I was thinking I was going to forget about niche games. But after reading what you guys have said about how hard casual games are, I'm swinging back the other way.

I guess the only sure way to build a steady income is to:
1) Make a game you can build a community around.
2) Attract new customers (constant marketing).
3) Keep your old customers by adding content or getting your community to add content for it like DROD.

[Jack Norton]

The only objective difference between a casual game and a niche one is: while on a casual you can focus on your game, and let others (portals) do the marketing, for a niche game you have also to do marketing.

This assuming you make both a good casual or a good niche game. If you're going for niche, be prepared to spend a LOT of time doing marketing. More time than making the game itself probably :eek:

[jmc]

Niche game is very risky i think, but of course it depends on your situation. ( if you can afford to take a huge risk or not )
By showing the demo of my upcoming casual game ( quite advanced ) to a couple of portals, one of them offered to fund me to finish and polish it ( which i accepted ). Of course that means i have to go exclusive with them for a while, but i already know they'll be pushing the product and that is definitely a financial security for my family ( need to feed the kids! ). I would consider portals as the new way of funding instead of just aiming at the top 10 ( who knows if your game will make it... ). Prepare, polish your demos and talk with portals, they know what works, and they can guide you to making a better product that sells. ( without their help i wouldn't have seen the changes and tweaks that my game needed to be "casual friendly" ).

Jmc.

[Savant]

( if you can afford to take a huge risk or not )
It's a huge risk staying in the middle of the road. You're going to get run over.

[Sakura Games]

It's a huge risk staying in the middle of the road. You're going to get run over.
If you say so :D must be true!

[luggage]

It's a huge risk staying in the middle of the road. You're going to get run over.Unless the road is one-way and has a 1000ft drop either side.

[Anthony Flack]

Motorbikes drive down the middle of the road.

[princec]

Motorbikes drive down the middle of the road.
We frequently get run over though.

Cas :)

[Savant]

If you say so must be true!
You don't have to listen to me. Take a look around. The evidence is everywhere. Middle of the road, average products for average people are not the ones that succeed long term.

[Sakura Games]

You don't have to listen to me. Take a look around. The evidence is everywhere. Middle of the road, average products for average people are not the ones that succeed long term.
And good product for average people? I see Fairies is still #7 on Realarcade this week. Is a game more than 6 months old...

[svero]

It's not 6 months old on Real. It's pretty new there. Bigfish and Real didn't have a deal when Faries was first released.

[Sakura Games]

It's not 6 months old on Real. It's pretty new there. Bigfish and Real didn't have a deal when Faries was first released.
I meant in general, from first release date. Based on savant theory almost all games would disappear in 2-3 months completely from anywhere in the world like if they never existed.
I see Betty Bar, Chuzzle, or other good games still selling on various portals. If they were making 0$/month they would remove them completely no?

[Savant]

I'm not sure where I said that a middle of the road product would sell zero copies. I said it wasn't a winning strategy, long term.

[svero]

I see Betty Bar, Chuzzle, or other good games still selling on various portals. If they were making 0$/month they would remove them completely no?

Games can keep selling for years, even average ones. But if you're not featured in the top 10 all the portals combined won't add up to all that much. There's really only 3 or 4 really good sales spots today, and the rest you hope add up to some decent residual income all together. Keep in mind also that portals are merging (zylom, gamehouse --> real) and of course portals do eventually drop titles in favor of adding newer ones.

Course it's kind of a hard conversation to have when we're discussing using words like "all that much" or "not that much money" etc... How much is a lot of money for you? Where do you live? What are your expenses? How many employees do you have? etc... I don't think that a game that's dropped into obscurity though would be considered by most people a liveable wage or income for "most" games. There will always be exceptions. I can't go into much more detail than that without starting to talk in numbers and nda's and confidentiality clauses in contracts unfortunately don't permit me to do that. That would put an end to it of course. You'd either say "that's all?" or "wow thats more money than I thought!?" and there'd be no further discussion.

But at the end of the day, no matter what your living expenses are and no matter how much the portals might earn you, there is some info you do have. A lot of very good companies with budgets anywhere from 50-150k (very common budgets in casual games now.. especially top 10 material.. see reflexive's recent gama interview - but it's a pretty easy educated guess that budgets for other companies are in line with that as well) that you have to compete with. That means.. that if your budet is competitive you need to sell, (average royalty of 25%) 200k to 600k in gross sales before you see dime 1 in profit. Even at full price that's a minimum of 10k units. And thats if you get full price and if you get 25% which are big ifs. And if you just happen to be one of the very talented few who gets lucky and produces a hit game from your parents basement on a much lower budet then more power to you, but consider that in order to be that guy you have to compete with games from reflexive, popcap, iwin, playfirst, gamehouse, bigfish, as well as all the mid range studios like myself retro64 raptisoft arcadelab hipsoft etc... and so many newcomers I can't even keep track of them all. Oh and of course you also have to compete with king kong, the davinci code, the apprentice, family fued etc... where it's difficult to win for download appeal due to the familiarity of the brands. As well big companies will start to move their retail and console brands into th casual market. I've heard of a few projects along those lines.

[Sysiphus]

yup, there's a lot of movement towards that(consoles to casual development). but needed is huge license payments, other costs, and usually be somebody really known or strong already.

Well, is good to know that new situation in Pc games. But...well, in mobile is really much worse than all mentioned here. It's an already closed field, much more dominated by licenses and carriers have full control of all. Almost no portal there, and there are some a bit...dangerous, even.

And more weirder things.

I doubt pc-casual can be worse, sells-wise or in other matters ;)

But cool to know that a bit of change in direction should be taken.

Anyway, there's also the possibility of ...well, multiskilled people, team of two,producing hi quality games based on professional experience and skills...Not so much costs, no salaries...smaller animals move better (yup, can be smashed easierly ;) ) The company I work at, lets pass by loads of oportunities as it really needs to earn a huge load, even with less than 6 salaries...so it only picks the very big ones.

the "produce while you're contracted somewhere else" is another chance...or "while you have enough in the bank"...which also allows the oportunity to newcomers to stay there with very little cost, so earnings must be not so huge, and can start getting a foot into. I'm personally used to hard situations, though :D

Maybe is all(above this line) wrong/fasle. Dunno.

But i can tell you: mobile to me is the hardest place, and I've been,and yet I am there(now not as indy)...