next »

[J-Snake]

Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or sociopathy. Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people if the they commit isolated antisocial acts such as game-deving and do not show signs of another mental disorder.

[s_l_m]

I think everyone on the damn internet is sociopathic then

[PompiPompi]

I don't want to enter the charity discussions right here... anyway...

Paul, what I ment is when people criticize other people who admit to do research and do decisions in selecting a game\genre or other decisions that they know are more likely to make the game sellable.

They try to portray some indies as if they only make the game they want with all the creative freedom, and art and whatever, and others are just money grabbers.

I try to say that those "Artistic" indies who sell their game, are not likely to be more artistic than someone who choose to do "Android racing game" because he saw those are in demand.

Even the guy who does the racing game chose a game he wants to make, he only chose a game he both want to make and knows it is more in demand.

If you really want artistic freedom, then get a job and do indie games on your free time. Sure, you will have less time for this hobby, but you will have greater artistic freedom.

Edit: A game is not likely to sell well without the developer investing time and thought about how to sell\market it(in the design process as well).

[Christian Knudsen]

Please point to examples of this instead of using strawman arguments.

[J-Snake]

If you really want artistic freedom, then get a job and do indie games on your free time.

That's my way currently. However if I could spend 8 hours a day working on the game without worrying about duties in daily life I would be a lot faster. But yes, I will complete the games I want to make anyway, it will just take longer since I am creating clockwork-perfect technologies/designs from the ground up. So on the one hand I have the duty to keep me financially over water but on the other hand I have the freedom in game-deving. Kickstarter can turn it the other way round.

[PompiPompi]

Please point to examples of this instead of using strawman arguments.

My point is that any person who makes a game he intends to sell and it generates a decent amount of sales had to put effort\thought\design decisions to make the game sellable.

Take any of your favorite indie game that sold a lot and it is likely the developer put a lot of thought and effort in the business side which were also reflected in the final result of the game.

[Christian Knudsen]

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. Certainly not in this thread. What does it have to do with anything that's actually being discussed in this thread?

[PompiPompi]

I am not sure you read the whole thread, an example of what you actually want?

Edit: I sent back the 5$ to this guy.

[Christian Knudsen]

Then you're misunderstanding why people are making fun of you in this thread. Nobody's saying you're a terrible game dev for wanting to make money from your games. They're saying that as a person you're oddly obsessed with money and weirdly unable to understand why somebody would support a project they find interesting without getting their investment recouped. Even going so far as to call these people "suckers". Which seems incredibly hypocritical and outright stupid seeing as it really isn't that long ago that you yourself put up a page asking people to donate to your project without getting anything in return.

[Claw]

My point is that any person who makes a game he intends to sell and it generates a decent amount of sales had to put effort\thought\design decisions to make the game sellable.

Disagree. You put all your effort into making the best game you can, with the thought that if it's a good game, people will want to buy it, rather than thinking about how to make it 'sellable', unless you mean polishing?

Thinking about marketing whilst making a game and approaching the tail end of development is a good idea though of course, it just seemed by the way you worded it you meant designing a game around the idea of making money primarily, which I don't think is wise.

If you go down the route of "how can I make this appeal to a big audience and make all da moniez?" you're going to have a watered down idea, and the game will suffer. If you make something really great that some people love and a bunch more people don't love, isn't it better that the people who love it got an awesome experience, rather than a larger group of people getting an 'okay' experience?

All I'm saying is worry less about how to make more money and more about how to make good games.

[PompiPompi]

Chrisitan, well I fixed myself to say that people who donate more than the value of a pre order are irrational.
The reason is that they choose to invest in a very early stage project which is not obvious what will be the result of it, instead of investing in other existing games of indies who don't do well enough.
It's like Kickstarter is the ultimate hype website.

[Christian Knudsen]

You can call it "irrational" if you want. I'll call it "driven by interest and passion". What's "irrational" about supporting a project that you want to see completed? Is it "irrational" because the backers aren't getting (what you consider) their money's worth? Then it's equally "irrational" to make games, as only in the rarest of cases does the time put in yield an equal monetary reward.

And here you are putting up false dichotomies again to go along with your strawmen (the reason why I hate getting dragged into discussions with you):

The reason is that they choose to invest in a very early stage project which is not obvious what will be the result of it, instead of investing in other existing games of indies who don't do well enough.

Please point me to anything that proves that people spending money on kickstarter means less money spent on other indie developers. This isn't an either/or. If anything, I can easily hypothesize the opposite -- that kickstarter has brought a lot of new attention to indie developers in general.

[Superb Joe]

Israeli ROn Paul Fan Sees Video Games Through Prism Of Exploitative Investment Culture To Surprise Of ALl And Sundry

[Fallsburg]

In this thread we discovered that PompiPompi cannot fathom the subjective theory of value.

[PompiPompi]

Christian, the proof is that some of those kick starter projects gets loads of money eventhough the project is just in its first steps, and on the other hand there are many indie developers with great games that are struggling or making a very modest living out of their games.

[Christian Knudsen]

That's not proof of anything. The existence of successful kickstarters and struggling indie developers does not prove that the indie developers are struggling because of the successful kickstarters. Just as the existence of failed kickstarters has no direct correlation to the many successful indie developers that aren't on kickstarter. I really can't tell if your just trolling for attention at this point or really this stupid. For a guy calling others "irrational" you sure don't have a firm grasp of logic.

Also, why are you treating kickstarter projects and indie developers as two separate groups? Most of the projects on kickstarter are indie developers.

[zalzane]

Exactly how many kickstarters have shipped the product they were advertising?

How many kickstarter projects from that same time frame have been funded?

If your definition of successful is the product being shipped, then I would love to see some numbers behind it.

[PompiPompi]

It proves that those supporters are uninformed of the many other indie developers which make good games and just put money in the site they are used to go to.

It has a connection, how can you say there is no connection between failed indies and
successful ones? There is a connection even if it's not a direct one. We are not living in a vacuum.

[Christian Knudsen]

If your definition of successful is the product being shipped, then I would love to see some numbers behind it.

Was that aimed at me? For the purpose of this discussion (does money go to kickstarter projects or other indie developers) "successful" of course means that they were able to reach their funding goal.

It proves that those supporters are uninformed of the many other indie developers which make good games and just put money in the site they are used to go to.

No, it really doesn't. Show me proof of indie developers not on kickstarter having a harder time after kickstarter became a big thing.

It has a connection, how can you say there is no connection between failed indies and
successful ones? There is a connection even if it's not a direct one. We are not living in a vacuum.

We also aren't living in a world where there's a finite and locked amount of money to be spent on indie games. Again, that some kickstarter projects are able to be funded does not automatically mean that they're taking money from non-kickstarter projects. That's simply a logical conclusion you cannot draw.

[zalzane]

Kickstarter has been around for 3 years now, I just spent about 10 mins on google and couldn't find any statistics on how many projects are actually shipped.

How can anyone not find this discomforting when they are considering donating?