next »

[ProgramGamer]

Also I should clarify that by "valid" I mean "it technically works" and not "it's ethically correct to do this".

And yes, also that. Flappy Bird benefited from an unexpected social media explosion because of how frustrating and stupid the game was. And Mario pipes.

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

And yes, also that. Flappy Bird benefited from an unexpected social media explosion because of how frustrating and stupid the game was. And Mario pipes.

+ fake accounts ,boosters & bots

[ProgramGamer]

Was not aware of that part O_o

[craigz]

i am absolutely not clicking on a video to listen to a person who looks like that on purpose

Got a good laugh out of this 

But seriously, I just finished up the Greenlight thang last month, and it was weird to look through the others that got lit and find comments like this... clearly just botted.

That being said, hoping Valve will have something interesting to show at this years Steam Dev Days :D I think they're on the right track with personalized curation > human editor curation. Doesn't matter HOW many games on the Steam if they're connecting the right games with the right audience. In theory, right?

[quantumpotato]

Yes what matters a lot is how good your marketing campaign. That and the game being good and people want to share it eg they share puzzle games with X person because X likes puzzle games.

There are many talks about "going viral" - game mechanics that force or encourage you to spread the game's existence.

I wish there was some way for me to browse games and just not see a game that either a) had enough bad reviews or b) has too many plays. If it's really that good then eventually someone will tell someone who tells me about it (or I'll read from a curator). Does Steam have an "ignore" option.. ?

Those botted reviews could possibly be fixed by requiring playtime or achievements before a review? A store could default reviews to those who have played > 1hour and at least N achievements (some progress through a game a harder to bot through). Then have another reviews tab that's all reviews -- reviews from 2 minutes playthrough of people tried and say, the graphics didn't work, need to be accessible.

[Zizka]

I feel like marketing is the ugly, unwanted child of game development. I often find there's a sleazy undertone to it which seems to involve some sort of manipulation of others.

Or maybe I just don't like marketing. A necessary evil I suppose.

[cynicalsandel]

A trailer for your game feels dirty? Sharing gifs and screenshots on social media is sleazy? Talking to journalists in interviews and on podcasts is unwanted? Showing your game at a conference/convention/trade show is manipulative?

[Glyph]

A trailer for your game feels dirty? Sharing gifs and screenshots on social media is sleazy? Talking to journalists in interviews and on podcasts is unwanted? Showing your game at a conference/convention/trade show is manipulative?

No, it's more like these are extroverted things, which when seen through the lens of introversion can feel these ways at times (source: my life)

[quantumpotato]

A trailer for your game feels dirty? Sharing gifs and screenshots on social media is sleazy? Talking to journalists in interviews and on podcasts is unwanted? Showing your game at a conference/convention/trade show is manipulative?

It's not dirty, it's necessary. Entities with all marketing and zero content get downloads. Especially in Facebook games and mobile games over the last several years. That and the Triple-A games with unimaginative gameplay. Marketing trumps gameplay for earning $.

I'd rather just make and playtest my games instead of spending time marketing them but it's a necessary evil. Where this fits into Quality Control on Steam.. if you have sufficient green light voters, you could churn out a shitty game every week (from a different virtual Studio, even) and flood Steam with your crap. A number of mobile studios do this on Android & Apple (it's even worse than Steam on Apple at least because Apple picks the games with churn&burn monetization that earns them the most $).

Related discussion: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/QuantumPotato/20150928/254690/iOS_Game_Discovery_is_Broken.php

[cynicalsandel]

Those were rhetorical questions directed toward zizka. I listed some forms of marketing that I believe aren't "sleazy" in the slightest. Everything that's gets your game or information about it in front of others is marketing.

I guess I just fundamentally do not understand people averse to marketing. I get excited about the prospect of other people seeing my work. I want it out there. I wouldn't consider myself extroverted at all either.

[Zizka]

A trailer for your game feels dirty? Sharing gifs and screenshots on social media is sleazy? Talking to journalists in interviews and on podcasts is unwanted? Showing your game at a conference/convention/trade show is manipulative?

Well, no, if you put it that way. It's hard to explain.

The trailer itself doesn't feel sleazy, I guess it's the idea of shoving all the good things forward and hiding any shortcomings under the carpet. It feels dishonest. Marketing is often based on the use of superlatives "this is the best" (you hear this one so much, which one is the best if everything is the best?) and how spectacular everything is. It feels odd considering game who turn out to be abysmal use this type of strategy.

Sharing things on social media doesn't feel wrong but it's the "hey, hey, look at me" incentive which bothers me to some extent. It bothers me when other people do it too. I'm a low-key kind of person so this is against my nature.

An interview is not sleazy as long as it's not purely aimed at promotion. I like honest interviews who ask questions to learn as opposed to questions to promote.

As for showing your game at a show, that's fine.

Maybe this makes you understand where I'm coming from (or maybe not). I do think there's a form of manipulation involved in marketing however. I've had lengthy conversations with people in that field and every single detail is carefully studied to elicit a subconscious response from the consumer.  That's generally not a good thing for most people but maybe it's unavoidable for product promotion.

No, it's more like these are extroverted things, which when seen through the lens of introversion can feel these ways at times (source: my life)

Yes, pretty much.

I'd rather just make and playtest my games instead of spending time marketing them but it's a necessary evil. Where this fits into Quality Control on Steam.. if you have sufficient green light voters, you could churn out a shitty game every week (from a different virtual Studio, even) and flood Steam with your crap. A number of mobile studios do this on Android & Apple (it's even worse than Steam on Apple at least because Apple picks the games with churn&burn monetization that earns them the most $).

Yes, I feel the same way.

[ilianasstuff]

Zizka, spot on! I feel really awkward trying to push my game trailer to journalists and writing countless e-mails. I feel like a spammer, but there is no other way really. And considering the lack of feedback (because no one ever replies) I have no idea if I am doing things right or wrong.

[2mass]

We just released a small free game on steam greenlight, casual mini-RPG/Strategy.. It's in my sig.. This is my first release on steam, but the gist among 3-4 commentators seem to be that small games doesn't belong on steam, but should stay in browsers and phones/tablets and so on. I see that gist more and more on greenlight items.

It's not the gist of Valve tho, as there are already many small games on steam quite on par with what we published, which are already greenlit, and even rather expensive sometimes. No critique on graphics, sound, music or game play. Just.. "too small for steam". Not knowing that something might surface as simplistic because it's made intuitive, while there's a 500+ scripts engine at play behind coordinating traits, skills, levels, weapons, upgrades, events and mission outcomes and so forth. But I guess it's impossible not to get judged on face value by those who tend to do that. We just have to suck it up or make a vivid explosion of graphics and sound in unreal engine. Or at least something that startles people into thinking that you're advanced.

[Sik]

i wouldn't use minecraft as a model. minecraft's mega success is in many ways an anomaly that had a lot to do with it being the right game getting the right hype at the right time. trying to be the "next notch" is a shitty business plan.

Also people forget context. Minecraft started gaining momentum at a time where the idea of a gigantic 3D tilemap environment that could be manipulated in real time was seen as outright plain crazy, and with good reason (in fact Minecraft was known for the massive amount of memory it took - OK the programming wasn't great, but it had a lot to do with the map just being huge for starters). So the technical factor played a lot into why Minecraft was becoming popular.

That's essentially the main grab behind AAA games as well, doing something (at least seemingly) amazing at the technical level. The usual indie game is unlikely to cut it.

lots of people simply advertising their youtube channel,

Oh yeah that reminds me, youtubers are just about as crowded as indie devs. It's so bad that I've seen an ad on TV mock the whole thing (the ad being some guy who insists on being a youtuber, and eventually his mum tricking him into getting a job as a telemarketer). It certainly didn't help that there was a time where Google kept pestering everybody into that they could make money making videos (only thing it reached was plastering even the least significant videos with ads, which was probably their real intention all along).

[froggyishere]

I feel like marketing is the ugly, unwanted child of game development. I often find there's a sleazy undertone to it which seems to involve some sort of manipulation of others.

Or maybe I just don't like marketing. A necessary evil I suppose.

What many people dislike is this notion that they have to sell themselves to others. We'd all like to be appreciated for who we are but the harsh truth is--that's more idealistic than realistic. This carries over into games as well. I always marvel when I find some promotional material for a game after I've already played it. I always think... who the hell wrote this? Did they even play the game? Probably not. But they had a degree in marketing and "dark and intense shooter combating the forces of evil" sounds better than "hallway meandering with a pipe wrench killing unarmed lab technicians".

I've just accepted that nobody much cares. They want to be sold something. It's not evil, it's just giving people what they demand. If you don't sell them your game, they'll just buy the next one. Abstaining from participation doesn't change the fundamental nature of the system, it just makes it easier for the next guy.