next »

[Muz]

You shouldn't really expect to make money off games. A game developer will make less money for his skills than he'd expect to get out of a career in software development.

You're making stuff that almost everyone can live without. I haven't bought a game in the last 2 years, and the ones I'm still playing are the ones I bought before that (as well as the new free games).

If you expect to make money, I think Spiderweb Software's bottom feeder model is perfect. Just work persistently at it. Charge low prices. Stop caring about the money and think more about the fans. Get more fans. Improve your product until it becomes something unique.

That's what Notch did. Minecraft was a shitty game for a really long time, but after a lot of long, persistent work, it made a hell lot of money. Also, you have to note that Minecraft did have a guy dedicated to business development long before they made any money.

If you want money, join software development and advertising and produce something people actually want to buy. My company takes almost 100% of what I produce (which is maybe $5k-20k a month at present), but I'm fine with that because they were willing to stick with me when I was producing -$1k a month for them and they've given me a hell lot more training and equipment that I could get if I went indie. But like anyone working in software development can agree with.. it's sort of a volunteer thing. Software developers are rare and valuable enough that they can work anywhere, so even big companies like Microsoft treat them with nearly the same respect they treat senior management.

If you really feel that they're cheating you, then start your own portal. You'll realize how much more work they put into it then. There's the matter of getting contacts, building a reputation, getting competent people. If it were easy, trust me, everyone would be doing it. In fact, the whole game portal market is already oversaturated, by lazy people who do want to make quick money.. but they're losing out to the really hardworking ones like Desura who stay ahead.

If you start brand new, you'll have no reputation. A portal gives you that reputation boost. I know a friend who made about many many times as much profit when he put his game with Big Fish. Of course he markets his games elsewhere as well, but Big Fish adds a lot of value via marketing and an existing connection to the people that he wants to sell the game to.

They are not simply "the delivery guys". They handle a wide array of things that are just abstracted out. Like PayPal takes a significant amount from people, but most of that money is literally because they can be trusted to hold a credit card number, rather than the effort of processing it.

Bundles work too because a lot of those games are just not worth the price individually. I'd pay maybe $3 for an individual game, because most games are shit. But I wouldn't sign on to paypal to just to pay for a $3 game, not worth the time, and if there were 10000 others like me, you'd make maybe $20000.

But if you sell me four games at $20, I'd probably buy that, because if one of those games suck, I have 3 others. And it's worth taking the time to pay for it. It also earns you a lot more than if you were selling your game at $3, with PayPal taking 1/6 of that. With a bundle, a 10% cut, and 10000 others like me, you'd make maybe $45000.

You'd also have to consider the economies of scale here -- marketing 100 games takes less than 10 times the effort of marketing 1 game. This also applies to experience; so you'd be hiring out the experience and reputation who has more experience and reputation than you'd have in your lifetime if you did everything by yourself. (This is in the case of something like Big Fish which does take a more hands on approach)

And if you still don't want to 'sell out', at least hire a business guy full time. You can spend a hell lot of time marketing your games, or you can pay someone to do it for you. And if you STILL insist on doing everything yourself, you better have a really good game.


tl;dr: Those companies are doing the kind of boring shit you'd have to spend years doing otherwise.

[Oddball]

Alec S., the thing is, you don't only give 30% of your profit, you also give them content. You drive traffic to steam with your game, instead of driving traffic to yourself and make yourself known.
Steam bring SALES, but the content\games drive traffic to steam.
Let's say you make a really good game and people want it. Let's say you don't put it on steam and you put it on indievania instead. Wouldn't that make indievania more competitive? Wouldn't you benefit from this increased competition in the long run?

This actually benefits everyone on Steam. Yes you drive traffic to Steam, but so does every other Steam developer. These now become potential customers for you. And until you make a bigger game than Half Life 1/2, Portal 1/2, Team Fortress 1/2, and L4D1/2 combined, Valve will always have brought more traffic to Steam than you. I'd say they've earned that modest %.

[PompiPompi]

My hunch is still that when you aim for steam you are aiming low. You would make more money on the short run, but I think you are still losing on the long run.
And yes, that also means you need to make a really great game or with a really good selling point. But if you are not making this kind of game, you ARE aiming low.
I think it's the "Good enough" syndrom. You are doing something that is just barely good enough to make a living, because you don't really want to be bothered with making a huge long term effort.
As I said at the beginning, my assumption is that you have another source of income, such as a "real job". So you don't need to worry about starving and can think of the long run.

Personally, I will try to make a game without selling it on portals(except indievania) because money is not a consideration and I really think I will gain a lot more this way, especially as a learning experience.
It's also more fun XD
I also like the idea of having a good game you can't get on steam.
(Feels like making a difference)

[randomshade]

My hunch is still that when you aim for steam you are aiming low. You would make more money on the short run, but I think you are still losing on the long run.

I doubt that is true for the vast majority of developers. You've already mentioned Minecraft which has obviously given Notch/Mojang a huge and direct fan base for future titles, but I think a more realistic case study would be Spiderweb/Positech. They have been selling games for many years directly and have solid fan bases, but when the opportunity to get on Steam was available they took it. Why? More revenue.

If it takes you 10 years to build up a fan base that can match using Steam, it seems awfully silly to not use them imo.

BTW, Indievania is a cool thing (and the guy who built it, Lee, is a good guy) but there have been several attempts at more or less similar things in the past. I can't remember any of their names...(but Steam is still here.)

[eld]

As I said at the beginning, my assumption is that you have another source of income, such as a "real job". So you don't need to worry about starving and can think of the long run.

And let your boss take all your hard work and only give you a month salary for it?!

But the story is true here too, people cannot just conjure up a months salary on their raw talent alone, the people that take all the money from the product you worked on for them have their own invaluable skills they used to build their company with, and unless you want to learn all those skills on your own and build your own network of contacts you're better off paying the premium and be better off for it.

Personally, I will try to make a game without selling it on portals(except indievania) because money is not a consideration and I really think I will gain a lot more this way, especially as a learning experience.
It's also more fun XD
I also like the idea of having a good game you can't get on steam.
(Feels like making a difference)

The reality is: it's nearly always more profitable to sell your game via a platform such as steam, it's the same reason why big publishers sell their games on consoles where the console manufacturer will take a big cut.

Even free to play games that were originally not on steam and had a good following would end up doing even better when launching their games on steam.

big publishers like EA is thinking a bit like you do though, but see how a big bumpy ride it is even for a big and wealthy publisher and the requirements of a killer product to sell with it.

[PompiPompi]

Well one of my reasoning was that steam is so important because developers made it so important.
Currently it's a monopoly on the PC and I don't think that is good for developers.

[Evan Balster]

Re:  Steam being bad for developers in the long run -- if I achieve the kind of market saturation where I would have made more hypothetical money selling direct, I have far more money than I need to keep doing the things I do.


Re:  Portals being bad for the indie game community -- NO.  Portals like Steam and the spread of digital distribution are why indie game development has exploded in the last five years.  They free us from publishers and give us an arena where we can go toe-to-toe with big-budget developers based on the merits of our work.  The older members of our profession will remember the years between the early 90s and mid-2000s where we were called "shareware developers".  What kinds of feelings does the word shareware give you?

Furthermore, indie can't die.  (Barring something on the order of a nuclear war.)  Big companies are the trees of this forest; we're the grass.  The wind might level a forest; we would simply spring from the wreckage.


Re:  Big indies not caring -- I'm disturbed by the notion that successful independent game developers should be expected to take responsibility for the rest.  Our methods are capitalistic, are they not?  I think it's great when activism does emerge from our community, which is frequently the case.  But our free agency is the principle we found ourselves on; leave people to their methods.  (Note that I say this as someone who has never shipped a game, is not earning royalties of any kind from games, and is generally bohemian.)


My feeling on the topic of this thread, to be frank, is a great big so what?  Nothing personal -- Steam, in present perception, is simply the most reliable way to make a living from PC game development.  Developers are free to use it or not use it as they see fit -- and in my opinion indies should look out for their own interests; pursue their own separate visions.

[eld]

Well one of my reasoning was that steam is so important because developers made it so important.
Currently it's a monopoly on the PC and I don't think that is good for developers.

They're not abusing any kind of monopoly they might have, they're pretty open about letting people sell their game wherever they want even if they sell it on steam, and their success is directly related to providing a centralized and easy to use platform to sell games on. Many other platforms popped up during that same time with many great games being sold on those, but none provided the same easy to use platform that steam did, and that hurt everyone.

Looking at the indie-industry it has been a major contributing factor to its growth and important in every way.

But again, your choice:

If you want to keep that 30% to yourself you'll end up spending that 30% (and possibly more) on distribution, a stable platform and community, marketing and getting the contacts you don't have.

This while still not getting the same revenue as you would've gotten from steam as you most likely don't have a background or experience with these things.

[Moczan]

It's another thread by PompiPompi, you guys really expected anything meaningful? How is making 20-50 times more a 'good enough' syndrome, settling for less?

[Destral]

Well one of my reasoning was that steam is so important because developers made it so important.
Currently it's a monopoly on the PC and I don't think that is good for developers.

You're wrong, actually.

Steam started off as a distribution platform for Valve's own games. Then they started selling other people's games, and that made them enough money that they shifted to focusing on that and releasing games less often. But enough developers found that Steam brought value to their games that word spread, and it became the defacto distribution platform for digital download PC games.

Steam adds a ton of value to your game, for the simple reason that during their sales older games that are long past their peak selling periods suddenly come into the spotlight again, and make their developers substantial amounts of money again. There's a really good piece on Gamasutra from the Bastion developers explaining just how good Steam has been for them, sales wise.

Not only that, but it gives you the peace of mind that you can make your game and when it gets picked up by Steam, you can have your marketing/PR blitz, and that will generate you sales. Then everytime there's a Steam sale, chances are your game might get featured, and make you more sales, and so forth. And you don't have to worry about having a secure website to deal with people's credit cards - or contracting separately for someone to do that.

Of course, I have no personal experience, but the reason people release their games on Steam and such is because the 30% you have to pay them compensates for all the stuff they take care of for you that you no longer need to worry about, allowing you to collect money for your work, and focus on working on your next game.

As for wether 30% is too much or not, it might be, but it's become the de facto standard for most digital download platforms. If you don't like it, no one is forcing your hand. You could always release your first game on Steam (if they pick you) to help get you an audience, and then release your subsequent games on your own website, and promote it to the fans you have acquired from Steam.

As a developer, you have options. It's part of your job to weigh those options, find what works for you, and if nothing does, figure out an alternate route that does.

[Paul Eres]

i think steam having a monopoly is bad, but *not* because they take 30%. it's bad because they are often random in deciding which games get on it and which don't, and don't give the devs any feedback about why their game didn't get on it. maybe this will change with greenlight, but right now, it *is* a bad thing when a) most PC games that are sold are sold via steam and b) getting on steam feels arbitrary / random

if steam were less strict / less of a gatekeeper, and let any moderately good, playable, bug-free game on steam, then the monopoly aspect of it wouldn't be a problem. but right now they reject even some really great games and let some really bad games on there

[Moczan]

if steam were less strict / less of a gatekeeper, and let any moderately good, playable, bug-free game on steam, then the monopoly aspect of it wouldn't be a problem. but right now they reject even some really great games and let some really bad games on there

Any kind of moderation will spawn developers saying it's to strict, while lack of moderation will led to crap fest and race to the bottom AppStore-style.

[PompiPompi]

if steam were less strict / less of a gatekeeper, and let any moderately good, playable, bug-free game on steam, then the monopoly aspect of it wouldn't be a problem. but right now they reject even some really great games and let some really bad games on there

Any kind of moderation will spawn developers saying it's to strict, while lack of moderation will led to crap fest and race to the bottom AppStore-style.

Dichomety, you assume there are only two extremes.

[Paul Eres]

i think moderation for quality is fine. what's not fine, however, is not making clear *why* they chose the way they did

also, from what i gather, steam primarily decides which games to carry not based on quality, but on how many units they expect it to sell. that's a different kind of moderation entirely. i feel that it'd be better if they would let niche games of high quality on there even if they don't think they'll sell that many copies

[tesselode]

I have a variety of things to say the OP's points:

1. Steam isn't taking away from your brand. Just put a logo screen in your game and other stuff to let people know you actually exist. There, you have your brand back.

2. You made a good point about Steam deciding not to accept your game, but if you even got one game onto Steam and then they rejected the next one, you're still better off than you would have been without Steam.

3. If Valve got really greedy and took a 70% cut of the profits or something ridiculous like that, then developers would move away from Steam, and people would start looking for games elsewhere.