| Jack Menhorn |
|
|
Yes!
|
|
|
| Tony Celentano |
|
|
Fantastic article, I agree with all points. Incorrect monetization strategies can cripple a game, it's amazing how many developers try to cash in on the "pay for perks" model while creating a humongous gap between paying versus non-paying players. I wrote an article on this very topic that I hope you'll read http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TonyCelentano/20110830/8330/3_Simple_Steps_to_Ext
end_Your_MMOs_Lifespan.php |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Ron Alpert |
|
|
The average indie developer, especially these days during the boom, are not business-minded. They are much closer to hobbyists or fortune-seekers, many jaded by the traditional industry. They come from a background where they've never had to deal with things like marketing and promotion, biz dev, in any meaningful capacity and doing things like market research feel like a waste of time when they "should just be coding."
To be honest, it is unfair to expect anything less. This is a new world and the floodgates have opened for "anyone to get in," and we are still at a very early part of this phase. As time goes on, many indies will get burned/give up and move on to whatever next idea they have, or learn from (at least some of) their mistakes and mature to produce better business plans and therefore more accessible products. In the meantime, it's a gamer's market. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| tony oakden |
|
|
I think I disagree with the first item "No understanding how to put their game on multiple platforms:"
Some games work much better on some platforms than others and leveraging what makes a particular platform unique is often a way to claim a niche market which the bigger companies are not able to exploit. I do agree though that many indies (myself included) start of by thinking they can make the game they want to make with scant regard for who is going to buy it. The old adage "If you make it, they will come" is no definitely not true of the games industry any more. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Lars Doucet |
|
|
Danc - I've been a devoted fan of your columns for quite some time, and I understand the underlying points of your philosophy, so I'd like to ask you a pointed question, if you don't mind.
I notice that you've become a fan of multiplayer and microtransactions as of late. I understand this as a fullfilment of your first principles (don't build expensive fast-burning content, diversify revenue streams, get in front of lots of eyeballs, use cheap-fast-good engines like flash, leverage distribution, etc, etc), which of course all makes sense. So, do you think that the following things are fundamentally unworkable, or can they be leveraged in a way that fulfills your goals? * Monolithic experience (you get the whole thing for the price, rather than buying pieces) * Single player * Desktop-oriented offline play As far as monolithic experience, I don't necessarily mean "fixed price." The humble indie bundle is an example - you can set your price, but you buy the whole thing, not a piece of it, and everyone gets the same software. I ask this because, though I definitely get what you're saying and I agree with the principles, I don't really like playing (or designing) the kinds of games that result from your conclusions. Steambirds and Realm of the Mad God are cool, but I just don't like micro-transactions, and I'm not a fan of online games that require me to connect to the internet (and, as an Indie, the specter of building and maintaining an online service is pretty intimidating). Nothing fundamentally wrong with them, it's just not my style. However, your points are very important and to be ignored at ones peril. No designer should put on blinders and say, "I'm going to make my game my way and the money will just roll in and find me." So, I was wondering if, in your opinion, your design philosophy can be used to leverage new ways of making different styles of games, including, for example, games that exhibit the three features I mentioned above. |
|
|
| Jeff Hangartner |
|
|
"Perhaps by talking about how financial issues create an emotional rollercoaster, a handful of indies might skip ahead a few steps on their personal journey and have one or two fewer scars at the end. Yet, when I mention any of these issues, they simply do not compute or are seen as minor unimportant side items."
On that note I'm actually just finishing up a series of articles (on my Gamasutra blog) covering my adventures in marketing and watching my game bomb. Article IV is dedicated to the Psychology of being an indie dev and dealing with the stress of spending your money, watching sales figures rise and fall, making big decisions, handling critics and pushy marketers, watching your game get pirated, etc. Article I's up now, and I'll be posting the rest as I finish 'em up this week! :) I love the endlessly optimistic indie attitude, but I really think devs should search out some kind of short business course, even an online one, just to get a handle on how managing budgets, schedules, employees, finances, marketing strategies, etc. works in normal business models. It's not FUN stuff, but it's important and gives you a solid structure to build on and a plan to follow. I think Lars has a point that the games that result from what you're describing fall into a certain mold where ya, they're profitable, but most indies are actually gamers themselves so there's that struggle of "but I'd be annoyed if I downloaded a game and 90% of the content was an in-App purchase" Personally I think it's important to focus on making some money first so that you can afford TO make games that are risky and might not pay off. At the very least, developers should read your points and think about them and consider ways they might be able to integrate them to their designs. I know I'm eager to get into making games that involve in-App purchases because the money potential is astronomically higher but I also know designing the game will involve a lot of "is this going to tick off gamers, or will this content I'm charging for seem fair?" :) - Jeff bulletproofoutlaws.com |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| J Brian Smith |
|
|
This has been touched on by others but "Turning their great gameplay into an online service that brings in a steady stream of revenue" is not a "A shift here, a tweak there." It requires in many cases a dramatically different game design, and even when it doesn't it's a dramatically higher implementation cost (plus ongoing costs associated with running the servers).
I think the rest of your advice is excellent but that piece runs counter to the entire reason most people are doing indie games: they want to build the game that they feel passionate about first and foremost. Of course they want to make money doing it and even maybe have a shot at getting rich. But if making money was the top priority, they would be working at a big publisher or doing non-entertainment software altogether. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Daniel Cook |
|
|
@Lars
Sure. I still make single player games myself and it is how I got my start. You don't control as many of the variables (distribution, monetization, retention, etc) so your options are a bit more limited, but it is by no means hopeless. Here are some points that still apply: Distribution: A lot of devs just stick their game on a website that gets a few hundred hits a month. Put your game on as many friendly download sites as possible. Ones with good populations are players that fit your game are gold. (Steam is the current gold standard in the core PC downloadable space, but it doesn't hurt to try to be everywhere that has a non-abusive contract) Trial Let people play your game and then upsell them once you've demonstrated value. And don't give away the whole game for free in the trial. Efficient design I've yet to see a game where a few tweaks to how they make their art assets and levels wouldn't result is lower production costs with little decreased in perceived player value. Games as a service Quite a few PC devs constantly update their game and do everything they can to maintain their community. Minecraft is the most recent example, but many of the indies that survived the Casual Downloadable boom and bust have followed this strategy for years. Just like online games, you can create a direct relationship between your players and your customers unmediated by middlemen. This means they look to you when they look for their next moment of entertainment. Think of some of these ideas as 'Lean Game Design'. They are more a philosophy for maximizing your chances of success than a recipe that tells you what game you should make. Asking the questions are the important part. The specific answer is going to be dependent on your game. I look at certain developers who have really solid relationships with the right distribution channels in the right windows of opportunity in the market. You seize the opportunities at hand. Just do it in a smart, cost effective way that mitigates risk if you happen to be wrong. take care, Danc. PS: Regarding the pain of developing your own scalable online backend, you might want to check out player.io. They are a white box solution that I've seen client focused folks have good results using. PPS: Just musing out loud on a very different topic: Something I personally struggle to understand is the sea of nostalgia we now swim through. When I grew up, games were this bright new thing that was always shifting and changing into some unknown amazing and transformative future. With no past, anything was possible. I'm always surprised when I hear that someone doesn't want to make the 'immoral new thing' because they prefer the 'good old thing'. These aren't your words, Lars. But the sentiment floats out there and it just doesn't match the idea of games as a frontier. Heraclitus, baby. There is only fire and change. Embrace it. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Jamie Mann |
|
|
I think the main lesson for an indie dev (assuming they're looking for commercial success: some people just like to make games!) is: be patient. Most of the high-profile, commercially successful indie games (e.g. Minecraft, Braid, World of Goo, Super Meat Boy) have two things in common: they were produced by experienced developers and a lot of time was spent polishing the game prior to launch - years in some cases.
|
|
|
| Jason Girdler |
|
|
Focus on engines - Man I struggle with this one. I fully agree with the whole wasted life thing and I hate myself when I realise how much game I haven't worked on because this engine feature is going to be so useful in my next project...
|
|
|
| Tomiko Gun |
|
"Focus on engines: Wow...so much passion for cool engine tech. Such an incredible waste of life."
HAHA so true. |
|
|
| Alex Hutchinson |
|
A few bonus notes:
- No true differentiation from existing games (or worse, Super Nintendo Games): Most Indie games are pale echoes of the 1990s. If people stopped buying those games then, they sure won't be buying them again now. Worse, despite cries for innovation, most of these games (and even iOS and mobile games) are less innovate than the latest revision of Madden. Indies are often failing not to succeed with new ideas, but even to have new ideas. - Excessive focus on niche audiences: Connected to the first one, but Indie games tend to be even more naval gazing / less accessible than 'mainstream' games, limiting their audience and only reminding your average person why they didn't play games 15 years ago. Where are the games the average person would want to play? |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| John Tynes |
|
|
I think one of the problems we have with the current wave of indie games is that they're remaking and demaking the games they loved when they were young, the stuff they played on NES or Game Boy or whatever, which means they're hung up on engines and single player and simultaneous-start symmetrical multiplayer and all that. This new world of freemium games and always-online games and so on is so new that we haven't yet seen the rise of gamers who take them as a baseline to innovate on.
We're not that far off. Kids who were playing the likes of Ragnarok Online and Club Penguin six years ago are hitting college age now. I want to see what they come up with, having grown up in this new paradigm. I don't need to see another innovative dual-stick shooter or 2D platformer. And Dan, while you kindly tried to pull out of the crash dive in the last paragraph, you still managed to score a critical hit: for all that indie devs are bush-league heroes for their creativity, they are fucking abysmal at reaching a useful audience or designing games whose ambitions and critical thinking are properly scoped to their market. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Callum MacKendrick |
|
|
I've been lucky enough to recently work with a successful, experienced dev team on a game (admittedly, a sequel) that recently got to #1 on the app store in about 20 countries. This is the most commercial success that I've seen in the industry, during an admittedly short career. The achievement speaks to the brilliance of the original concept and the team's talent, but the game was
-unoriginal -totally single player -single platform (iOS) -tested by only one full-time QA person and part-time by several staff In fairness it does have in-app purchases and the monetization strategy was worked out already based on the original game. As a result of this and other experience I agree strongly with Jamie Mann's comments, esp. the one about polish making the difference between indie success and failure. Which is why I am surprised that 'production values' was panned as being one of the things to which indies should devote less focus. Wouldn't highly polished, fast-burning consumable episodic content be justifiable if it was also easily re-used and re-purposed for future episodes? Wouldn't this be a way of reconnecting and refreshing a fanbase? Hasn't this been done successfully in the past? <- Not rhetorical questions; I'm really asking since that would be my game plan if I were a lone-wolf indie. Many indie devs don't have the connections or the clout or the money to find good experienced collaborators, producers, and so they go it as a one-person op or possibly a couple part-time cronies. Which isn't a bad thing at all, usually, except... Even if I were a genius artist, designer and programmer I don't think I could build a satisfying multiplayer, always-on, in-app purchase type game without devoting many years to it, and isn't that part of the risk we're trying to avoid as indies? So it seems (but what do I know) like Lars, J Smith, are on the right path, even if single-player is usually the path to ruination. (Is it?!) I also think too much is made here of innovation. The average dev cares deeply about innovation because it is a sign of talent, and experience fulfilled, but the average player cares little for it; their focus is on fun. The predictable, reliable and well-tread can often be very fun, esp. with a good coat of paint. We see real innovation in indie thought experiments all the time in weekend competitions, but the vast majority don't go anywhere except possibly as lessons learned for future experiments. If that isn't enough, innovation is also risky, and isn't this mostly about mitigating risk to indies? Lastly, I think that Shakespeare's enduring popularity had a lot to do with knowing how to play to the penny crowd (groundlings) and the royalty in the upper tiers, with simple plots that anyone could follow but lots of in-gags for the educated classes. Probably a good lesson for game writing in there somewhere. |
|
|
More: Indie, Design, Production, Business/Marketing