next »

[Christian Knudsen]

What's weird to me is the way you're presenting marketable content as something separate from the gameplay:

My point is that a game with medicore gameplay but good marketable content will sell better than a game with medicore marketable content but great gameplay.

If your game has great gameplay, why isn't that good marketable content? Why can't you show that in videos or talk about it in interviews or demonstrate it in a demo or have YouTube Let's Players show it off? I really don't get your argument.

[PompiPompi]

When someone watch a video about your game, before he played it, he won't notice all the small details. You can edit the video so it would seem like it has good balance and gameplay, eventhough if it doesn't.
Is the case of having a good gameplay and bad marketable content possible? I am not sure. But it's definitly possible to have shorter development time and still get good marketable content, even if the gameplay is medicore.

[Christian Knudsen]

And if you make videos that misrepresent your game, you'll end up with poor word of mouth and customers that won't buy any of your future games. How will that help?

With indie games, gameplay and reputation is king. If you're EA, you can pour millions of dollars into marketing campaigns that'll ensure some minimum number of sales, but this business model doesn't scale. It doesn't work the same on the indie level -- because indies are dependent on word of mouth. If you intentionally make a game and market it in a way that's misleading and sure to disappoint the players, you can kiss your future as an indie developer goodbye. It's as simple as that.

And, yes, you can cut your game development down to the bare minimum required to achieve some modicum of commercial success (at least in theory, since being commercially successful with an indie game is nowhere near an exact science), but as has already been mentioned on the very first page of this thread: If you're approaching your game development from the very cynical point of view of putting in the bare minimum effort, then why on earth are you making indie games? Shouldn't you be making games because you want to make the best game you can? Because you're compelled to make good games? Because it's your passion?

[JWK5]

But it's definitly possible to have shorter development time and still get good marketable content, even if the gameplay is medicore.

I sincerely hope that is not your goal.

[PompiPompi]

I didn't say that is what I am doing, I am just a bit frustrated to see games that the videos they show are much more spectacular than how the game actually plays. And those games end up having good sales.

[Christian Knudsen]

Then I have no idea what the purpose of this thread is anymore, beyond you complaining about the world of advertisement and marketing not being based on 100% honesty and truthfulness...

I once ate a Big Mac that wasn't nearly as juicy as in the advertisements!

No, seriously, what's the point of this thread if you don't at all intend on doing any of the stuff you've been talking about for the past four pages?

[PompiPompi]

I guess it started with a rant that says that basically everyone are doing it to a certain degree, and the following question is should you do this to? And if not, can you really succesed without doing so?

[moi]

I didn't say that is what I am doing, I am just a bit frustrated to see games that the videos they show are much more spectacular than how the game actually plays. And those games end up having good sales.

provide an example

[JWK5]

He gave Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy as an example, which is kind of silly considering how many people actually enjoyed that game (myself included).

I will give you an example of such game. Do you remember "indigo prophecy"? The demo had this amazing short bit where you murder someone in the bathroom and then you need to act as you wish.
You can try to run away quickly, you can try to hide the body, wash your hands, and etc. It seems so amazing that you had so much scripted options.
Needless to say, the game itself was a really bad where you just watch movies and have to follow key presses. Kind of like Dragon Layer, but without the amazing animation.
There are probably more games like that, but this is an extreme example that you don't need to have a great gameplay to sell the game. Medicore gameplay and some propoganda is enough.

Pompi, did you ever consider that maybe some of these games you are certain have terrible gameplay but are selling well just don't appeal to you personally, but still appeal to others?

[Christian Knudsen]

I guess it started with a rant that says that basically everyone are doing it to a certain degree, and the following question is should you do this to? And if not, can you really succesed without doing so?

I don't think most developers are intentionally not adding features to a game that will increase its gameplay quality. I think the question most developers are constantly asking themselves during development is if a feature will improve the quality of gameplay enough to warrant the time spent on implementing it. That's different.

You shouldn't be asking yourself if a certain feature will improve the gameplay enough to increase sales. Mostly because something like that is almost impossible to guage. And if you design and develop games with your focus on marketing and sales from the get-to, you'll fail. Again, focus on making a good game. Every decision you make should be based on what it will add to the game itself, not its sales potential (though I'll still argue that improving gameplay will automatically improve sales potential, as I'm firm in the belief that excellent gameplay is the most 'marketable content' there is).

We often hear developers at big publishers ranting against the marketing department and cursing their influence to the high heavens. As an indie developer, you have the freedom to focus 100% on making a good game without a marketing department breathing down your neck and throwing Venn diagrams at you. Don't be a marketing department during development. Save that for when you actually have to market the game!

[Schrompf]

Don't be a marketing department during development. Save that for when you actually have to market the game!

I mostly agree with you, and I felt flattered by your citation of my post :-) but this single point needs more discussion in my opinion.

First point: A marketing department is not necessarily a bad thing. It has an influence on the big projects, possibly more than a sane amount, but if the gals'n'guys there are well placed, they actually know a bit or two about your target audience. And they know what features or scenes might make an impression in the world. This is probably where we differ, but I'd say: a good first impression does convert to sales, even for indie development.

Second point: indie developers don't have a marketing department - they have to be their own marketeers. And because of the fact that force-flooding the audience with your presence won't work for indies, marketing needs TIME to get to speed. Therefore, don't wait for the point where your game is done, but start as soon as you have something to show. Something of substance, I might add. In my opinion, the following things are not "substance": concepts, sketches, mockups, idea descriptions, IGotTheScreenUpAndRunning, FisherPriceMyFirstSpriteRenderer. For me as a casual observer, most of the presented projects here at TIGSource start to be interesting at thread page ~20.

[Christian Knudsen]

Of course a marketing department isn't necessarily a bad thing. My point is simple: Don't let the marketing side of your indie developer self be the deciding factor when designing and developing your game.

And of course it's often a good idea to have open development where potential future customers can follow the development of your game and slowly build you a fanbase (I'm doing that exact thing myself). But that's completely different from letting the marketing potential of various features be the deciding factor during design and development.

[Schrompf]

Ok, then I simply misunderstood the cited sentence. I agree with you.

[hanako]

Pompi, did you ever consider that maybe some of these games you are certain have terrible gameplay but are selling well just don't appeal to you personally, but still appeal to others?

Quoting just to reiterate that people often don't understand that their tastes are not the only tastes that exist in the world, and that just because you don't see the value in something doesn't mean it doesn't have any.

Friend of mine heard about MS Paint Adventures being popular, looked at the front page, boggled, and ranted about how hideous the art was and how OBVIOUSLY no one cares about quality AT ALL so there's just no point in even trying... now, whether one is actually a fan of MSPA or not, if you know anything about the comic you should be able to tell that this opinion is missing a lot of the point.

[Paul Eres]

i think honest marketing succinctly shows players why they would like a game, and what's good about a game, and addresses the specific audience who would enjoy that game

dishonest marketing relies on tricks/gimmicks, hype, mainly shows off graphics or cinematics, focuses on style rather than substance, and tries to appeal to everyone

both marketing methods can lead to a lot of sales, but the second method requires less work. i get the impression that most marketing types hate work, and actually *aren't very good* at marketing. there are definitely people in marketing who are good at it, but i think the primary problem with marketing isn't that there's too much of it or that it influences the games, but that what passes for marketing a lot of the time is actually a waste of money and pretty ineffective (in terms of cost/benefit)

some indies are actually better at marketing than a lot of big studios are (e.g. minecraft, terraria)