next »

[Gold Cray]

I didn't see a topic matching this, so...

Um, it went into a lot of the costs of developing indie games? This is what I imagine:

- Art (he had to pay an artist, art isn't cheap)
- Music license (he licensed music from various folks, that costs money)
- Translations (he had to pay people to translate the game to various languages, although apparently got a bad deal on the Portuguese translation)
- Microsoft forces you to pay for quality testing of all XBLA games, which apparently costs around $25k -- this is only for games released on consoles, but most consoles require a money to get a game on.
- Living expenses for the three years it took to develop the game.
- Marketing costs (he marked the game like all heck, traveling around promoting it, giving talks, traveling many times to the GDC to promote it, etc.)
- Hosting costs (websites aren't free, and high-traffic sites can cost a pretty penny)

And probably hundreds of things more that I forgot about.

It looks like a significant cost of development is paying people to make resources for you or paying people to use their resources. If you work with a team to make all of that for the game, you eliminate that cost, but add living costs for additional people. I don't know the first thing about game development costs, though, so I'm asking people with experience instead.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

It can be cheaper in some ways, it depends. With Immortal Defense I worked with a team and we shared the profits (with me getting the majority, 60%, due to doing the most work for it). So although it was cheaper to make, you don't get all of the profits that way, and it's more complicated to keep splitting the money every month, so most established indie developers just choose to pay for the rights to the art and the music from freelancers for simplicity's sake.

Of course, some people do every single thing themselves: design, programming, art, music, testing, website, marketing, etc. -- like Konjak -- but that's harder to do, and we all aren't as capable of doing all of those at the professional level. For most who try it, their weakest skill can drag a game down.

[Snakey]

The other problem is also going to be time as well. If a game took two years for two people to develop (assuming the two people have different disciplines), it may not necessarily take one person six years to make it.

This is simply due to discipline, morale and raw machismo.

[Eclipse]

individually if you make art and music as long as programming all on your own.

If not, team rules, but not more than 4 people

[DaveGilbert]

It helps if you have a skillset of your own that you don't have to pay for.  Me, I can do programming and design.  So I don't have to pay a programmer or a designer, but I outsource all the art and music.

Doing everything yourself will probably drive you insane.  A small team of 4-5 people is great.

[godsavant]

I find it easier to partner up with another person I know at least semi-well; that way games get made much faster because you don't have to formalize and candy-coat every message with "thanks again for your hard work" or "hope to hear from you soon", and can instead just be frank when you need more asset or need them to "hurry the fuck up". People who try to organize an entire dev team using solely the Internet can expect slow hearbreak.

As in "aski, hurry the fuck up with that new preloader".

[Aquin]

I would love to work in a team, but I have no idea how to go about doing such a thing.  It's not something I need anytime soon anyway.  I've just always wondered exactly how you track down a freelance artist.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I would love to work in a team, but I have no idea how to go about doing such a thing.  It's not something I need anytime soon anyway.  I've just always wondered exactly how you track down a freelance artist.

many use this: http://forums.indiegamer.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20

[Aquin]

Eh, I'm so anxious and nervous and shy, it took me a year just to sign up on this one. 

Besides, art (like music and gameplay) is one of the major aspects of a game.  If it's done by someone else... it's not really representative of what *I* can do.  But at the same time, I guess there are artists that love to do what they do but can't do the other areas.

Man... my poor introverted brain is ready to melt.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

if that's true, sounds like you should solve that problem first before making games with a team -- you need to be comfortable interacting with people if you're going to work with others, even if it's solely online

[Aquin]

It's certainly on my list of things to do.  I have a couple games I need to make first.  For now, I'll just try to wear out my "new guy" status in the forums.

That'll likely take awhile. 

[yesfish]

I like the idea of assembling a team.

But I have a history of getting stabbed in the back. I always manage to attract the crazy ones too - especially the ones who seem normal at first but then reveal their true nature once it's too late.

[Jesseyay]

I find it easier to partner up with another person I know at least semi-well; that way games get made much faster because you don't have to formalize and candy-coat every message with "thanks again for your hard work" or "hope to hear from you soon", and can instead just be frank when you need more asset or need them to "hurry the fuck up". People who try to organize an entire dev team using solely the Internet can expect slow hearbreak.

As in "aski, hurry the fuck up with that new preloader".

I completely agree with this. Also I think it helps if you can meet in real life and not just over the internet, as there are some things that are just too hard to convey without body language.
Also you can keep people (yourself included) accountable and make sure that the work continues, it's pretty easy to not-do some of the harder/time consuming/less enjoyable tasks if the worst that's going to happen is a few angry emails.

[Aquin]

Man, that'd be nice.  I live in a pretty small town.  Even when I was running my gaming store, I ran into very few that even knew indie games.  And none of them were interested in doing it themselves. 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I find it easier to partner up with another person I know at least semi-well; that way games get made much faster because you don't have to formalize and candy-coat every message with "thanks again for your hard work" or "hope to hear from you soon", and can instead just be frank when you need more asset or need them to "hurry the fuck up". People who try to organize an entire dev team using solely the Internet can expect slow hearbreak.

As in "aski, hurry the fuck up with that new preloader".

I completely agree with this. Also I think it helps if you can meet in real life and not just over the internet, as there are some things that are just too hard to convey without body language.
Also you can keep people (yourself included) accountable and make sure that the work continues, it's pretty easy to not-do some of the harder/time consuming/less enjoyable tasks if the worst that's going to happen is a few angry emails.

occasionally i get approached by folk (usually GM users) who want to 'join my team' and make games with me, and what i always have to tell them is that i prefer working with people i know rather than strangers; it just works better that way

[Overkill]

Teams can be effective if managed correctly.

The games that I enjoyed making the most were typically ones I made in teams. This is because it saved me from having to constantly "change hats" midway through development. It also gave me people to bounce ideas off of constantly. And if something didn't fit, we'd be able to toss it.

Sadly, forming teams has a few downsides. That's finding dependable people. In my case, I trust all the people I work with to collaborate on some cool ideas, and I'm usually not let down, because they're pretty cool people. But the problem is finding people who have flexible schedules. Me and most of my online dev friends have terrible schedules and will randomly drop off the internet for weeks because of something.

The other problem with teams is motivating everyone. Even if you have a cool idea, that sounds really awesome and could be made into an awesome game, usually it takes about one week for morale to drop. Despite your how cool the idea is, you can't produce work fast enough and your team's interest in it drops, all because your team realizes how much work they're cutting out.

Usually you then get a two week period after the decline in interest where people take turns trying to save the project. Sometimes it works and people are interested, but usually then the 'dependable schedule' thing goes to hell. One of your teammates (or you) suddenly gets really busy and can't help for a while. Eventually the project dies.

This cycle for teams happens to me quite a bit. Holidays are typically the only time I can depend on myself and teammates reliably having time to make games. So for most contests, this works out great.

Usually after a contest, we're amazed by how much work we got done. But we fail to notice that our schedules are once again going to become chaotic, as most contests end around the time holidays end. We make the foolish mistake of thinking "hey let's make this compo entry into a full game", and we typically get nothing done. It stagnates and dies.

Been there, done that.

So lately, I've been asking for help in non-essential ways on my project. This way if my teammate falls through, I can still finish. And if I fall through, nobody gets angry, except for me, at myself, for being so lame.

I'm almost thinking being unemployed and out of school is the only reliable way to have to time to make games. But then you can't make games for a hobby and instead need to rely on them for a living. I dunno. :D

Maybe someday my teammates and I will learn proper team and time management skills, and be able to juggle all these different tasks without failing.