next »

[PompiPompi]

I would like to discuss, what are the choices you make(if you make) about the... cost effectivness of your game?
I started working on Sumerian Blood(Was Fatal Wars) partly because I thought it wouldn't take me so long to finish. But multiplayer and AI and generally balancing the game, is really time consuming.
Testing takes a lot of time, and give me great ideas, but I could have made minimal testing and just produce something that LOOKS good, but isn't necesseraly balanced and fun.
I guess the general question is what kind of game design or technical choices you make that might make the game better and more fun, but don't necesseraly translate to more sales and increase your development time.
Let's say you have 3 levels of difficulty: Easy, Normal, Hard. Now, you can be satisfied with this, but you could also add Insane. However, most of the players would probably not play Insane, so supposingly it's not cost effective.
I want to make a good game, but sometimes I feel if I am not chosing to make a game that isn't very financial viable. Not because it's not a good game, but because the tons of effort I will put into it won't necesseraly translate into sales.

What do you think?

p.s. I think the next game I will make I will do a lot more research and thinking about what game to make, heh. I have a tendency to think I know best myself, which is many times not true.

[Lynx]

Don't forget to take into account that as you produce more games, you'll get faster since you've either already built certain systems and libraries, or are now familiar with the design patterns.

From a fiscal point of view, you could think of it as 'budgeting for R&D'.

[eigenbom]

I think that extra little touches will always add to the quality (perceived and real) of the game. Which should lead to more sales (over the long term at least).

I think you just have to be smart about what features you implement. It depends on the game of course, but difficulty levels would probably require more effort to implement well than the benefit you get out of it. Otoh, saying "4 difficulty levels" is more fodder for marketing..

[Poya]

Perhaps also sometimes you can't really know which features are going to have the most impact until you actually release the game. I mean it's a fine balance but at least with some things, you could release the game, gage what the audience is missing most (through user ratings / feedback, reviews, etc), and release it as an update.

[James Coote]

I think you're just having a confidence crisis. I've had a few whilst working on my game, especially when you see people who started after you zoom past progress wise and release what appear on the surface to be far superior games.

If you're looking at the game and seeing all the mistakes you feel need a fresh start to rectify, that means you're learning. But remember, you will make mistakes throughout the whole process. If you never finish the crappy first game, you'll make great progress with the second game up till the point where you dropped the first game, at which point it'll all go wobbly

Another way to think of it is that you're making larger up-front investments in research and technology. The opportunity cost of not instead investing that time/money in a product that will ship sooner and bring in profits to reinvest.... You're increasing risk, but the rewards will be higher

edit: bleh, forgot to post this last night, so sorry if some points have already been covered

[PompiPompi]

Well, I guess my issue is that it takes me a long time to finish my game, and I am not sure it will cover the expenses(mostly time spent on it).
On the other hand, I see games that are made in what seems like a much shorter time, but have more success just because some choices that were made. For instance, a 3D game might sell a lot better than a 2D game(in some cases) even if less effort was spent in gameplay.
I think putting an effort in gameplay doesn't necesseraly increase sales, because only people who bother to spend a lot of time with your game will appreaciate the balance and effort you put into gameplay. And if you don't sell much, then what was the point of investing all this time in gameplay?
I don't doubt my technical capabilities, and I think I am making a good game.
I am just frustrated and wonder if certain choices you make BEFORE you start working on your game, will make it a lot more marketable and a lot less effort to make.

[Chris Koźmik]

This topic can be seen from so many angles... I will just post random related very short sentences, without explanation why, these might help you make up your mind. Otherwise I would need to post like 10 pages long :D

- Always cut down the number of features, never cut down testing and polish.
- Finishing the game as fast as posible is a virtue (true x10 if this is your first game).
- If you spend less time making the game it will be better than if you spend a lot of time (contrary to logic).
- Before you choose a specific money related thing ask yourself what are the consequences of not genberating X money on Y time (in short, when you are going to go bankrupt). Without this it is merely a discussion about ethic.
- Is your goal to be rich or to make the kind of gmes you want? You rarely can choose both.
- If you do it, whatever it is you do, will the players who bought the game: a) sign up to your mailing list and wait eagerly for your next game; b) curse you and feel cheated
- Are you building your fanbase or releasing game after game to random consumers you will never meet again?
- If you feel that "And if you don't sell much, then what was the point of investing all this time in gameplay?" what is the point in making games in the first place? Make business software, it always sells better than games.
- I don't know where the "crappy games sell" comes from, from my personal experience only things I loved brough money (proportional to how much I love them). It might not necessarily be true for you through.
- Always cut down the number of features, never cut down testing and polish (I feel this one is worth posting twice )

[Schrompf]

- Always cut down the number of features, never cut down testing and polish (I feel this one is worth posting twice )

Maybe even thrice, thus it got quoted.

I'm not exactly an experienced indie developer, so please take my words with a grain of salt. To me it seems a game needs to have this:

- a working game mechanic
- some new interesting ideas to justify the "why buy this and not any of the older"
- your passion
- polishing to the moon and back
- some cool effects to show off at images

Roughly in this order of sequence. The working game mechanic is obvious: people wont spend time if it isn't fun. But to be honest: if you're purely after the money, you can actually skip this part. By the time your consumers notice it isn't fun, you already have their money. It's just that I'd personally reject doing this. And I'd justify it by building a good relationship to my customers to sell future games.

The "few new ideas" are necessary to stand out, I think, but I'm actually not sure on this. I'd add those to justify both my time and the consumer spending money on my game instead of any of the others. Because, in case anyone missed it upto now: computer games are an oversaturated market.

Your passion goes a long way when presenting and marketing the game. It makes you come across as sympathetic, and it instills excitement in the people you interact with. And this buys you the most precious resource of the market: attention. Everyone playing computer games is swamped with offers by now, I'd wager. This personal connection to your audience might be the final step to get through to the people and leave a lasting impression so that if you finally release your game, they'd actually remember you.

Polishing - probably the fourth time to mention it. Every little quirk, bug or inconsistency looses you 50% of your potential customers. Their time and attention is scarce, they're swamped with other offers - don't give them any reason to look elsewhere.

And finally "cool effects" - something to show on images or in movies to make an impression. This is something that will make me unpopular around these places, but I think it's more true than ever: graphics sell. My explanation for this is: most potential customers get in contact with your game on some website, after receiving a link from a friend, after reading about it somewhere, or if you're lucky by noticing an image at the Steam frontpage. They might click on it and see what it is all about, but you have their attention for probably 30 seconds, maybe even just ten. Some cool visuals in their face might convince them to look further. Waste that 10 seconds with babbling and you're off the track.

[James Coote]

Sorry, I should say that the first game doesn't necessarily have to be 'crappy' or bad at all. In fact sites like this one are a way of learning those lessons without having to go through the hardship of doing them yourself

[Lynx]

Well, let me natter a bit about my personal experience as an artist: when I got started drawing back in 1991, it took me several hours to put out a basic pencil sketch, which would be full of anatomical errors.  Now I can do a sketch in 15 minutes or less which will look pretty decent.

I don't know you well enough to say if you have had a lot of past experience as a game developer or programmer, PompiPompi, but my two cents: it's very difficult to estimate the cost of a new feature, if you have never done it before, versus the cost of a new feature that you have done before in a different context.  It will take a lot longer, but you will be learning something you can reuse.  So you can't just look at how well the feature will help you in selling your current game, but also how valuable the technique will be in the future.

However, I don't say you should get carried away investigating all kinds of weird and wonderful features.  Having a playable game will give you a much better sense of how well your game is working and what features it actually needs, versus those it has already.

[bateleur]

Not because it's not a good game, but because the tons of effort I will put into it won't necesseraly translate into sales.

What do you think?

This, for me, is the essence of what indie development is.

When you reach the point where you have to work on a project you don't enjoy to pay the bills, you should probably stop and ask yourself if you'd be better off just working as a freelance programmer and leaving games development for your spare time.

[Christian Knudsen]

Well, if you want to make a living as an indie developer, you still have to have some sensible ROI from the time and effort you put into your game. Or you won't be a full-time indie developer for long.

[nico]

You should do the absolute minimum amount of detail work possible, and then release that as an early prototype / demo to get feedback. Release early, release often, release unfinished. Then continue to work with users to improve what they care about, combine it with your own unique ideas, and forget everything else.

In my own experience (for non-game development) it's been very helpful to drop the "release-and-forget" mindset entirely, and realize that releasing is a continual process, not an event. Minecraft also did this very successfully. Once you switch to a more interactive dev process, many of the questions about cost effectiveness become moot, because you can always postpone the less important stuff and do it "later".

[moi]

let's be honest, getting financial rewards from videogames are out of reach for 95% of amateur devs.
(I mean money that is actually worth the investment)

That's why the advice from bateleur makes sense. If you want to earn money for a living you have to make a serious job (that may includes developing games seriously but then it will certanily not be fun, also: you'll have some crazy ass competition)

[nico]

let's be honest, getting financial rewards from videogames are out of reach for 95% of amateur devs.
(I mean money that is actually worth the investment)

That's probably true. Which just means you should study the 5% and commit to become one of them.

that may includes developing games seriously but then it will certainly not be fun

Is that personal experience? That sounds too way defeatist for me. Most jobs aren't "fun" either. I guess it depends on what you want to do with your life. I think when you look back you often find that the most fun parts of your life were the times you challenged yourself and grew as a result of it. It's much cooler to look back and be able to say "I made that", than to leave after many years of service in a job and be left with absolutely nothing.

[Chris Koźmik]

that may includes developing games seriously but then it will certanily not be fun

Definitely not true. I have been making games seriously for years and I still find it fun. I would even say that the additional worry of "not getting bankrupt" adds to the total enjoyment of making games (althrough, I might simply be totally insane, that's a posibility too :D), the constrants of "making the game sell" does not make the whole process unfun for me, on the contrary. It's a lot of fun that I have to worry if a game sells and this worry actually made my games better (because I first have to assure that the game is playable, which is not obvious if you are not doing a commercial game). It is the years of being the amateur who is doing games only for own enjoyment and artistic vision that weared me out. It definitelly is fun and thrilling.

As for crazy competition... You highly overestimate the number of people that take it seriously. It's not the 5% you mentioned, it's more like 0.005% :D Being half serious is probably enough.

[bateleur]

the constrants of "making the game sell" does not make the whole process unfun for me

Nor for me. But the constraints are pretty major, which will make it not fun for some developers.

PompiPompi's original question was specifically about adding content that doesn't translate into increased sales, so there's explicitly some tradeoff involved there.

[moi]

Earning money off indie videogames is a childish dream.
statistically speaking, you'll make more money by collecting chicken legs off a food processing plant and selling them to New Orleans voodoo priests, or painting faces on rocks and selling them at the burning man, or any other real life venture that does not consist in pursuing the dream of recreating works of arts created by teams of professionals and well connected capitalists, all by yourself, in a very competitive industry.

But that seems to be a digression from the main topic...

[James Coote]

Earning money off indie videogames is a childish dream.
statistically speaking, you'll make more money by collecting chicken legs off a food processing plant and selling them to New Orleans voodoo priests

The chicken feet industry is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_feet#Chinese_cuisine

[nico]

statistically speaking

Statistically speaking, almost nobody can play the violin, therefore it must be impossible.

any other real life venture that does not consist in pursuing the dream of recreating works of arts created by teams of professionals

If that's your business model, then I agree, you're doomed . Thankfully plenty of indies have a mind to do more than just recreate stuff.