next »

[Plankhead]

So I read on Kotaku that the Raycatcher developers, severely burned by a 35:1 piracy ratio, are going to try in-game ads to support themselves. I think they have one of the best possible ideas ever about how to make in-game advertising not suck for the player. Sadly, it still comes with the price of their souls.

With an advertiser-supported business model, you are dependent entirely on their money. If they don't think it's reaching enough billions of people and stop paying, you're done. If your game is for mature audiences and they don't want their brand associated with it, you're done. If your game is critical of something they like, you're done. And if you manage to survive while dependent on a large corporation who funds your work, well, that's not very indie at all, is it?

I wrote a fairly long blog post explaining this further, and what a better alternative might be. Sorry to shamelessly plug my own blog, especially after criticizing advertsing, but I was originally going to post it all on these forums (also I don't make money from it, so it's okay kinda maybe). It just got too long and too focused on not just games, but all indie artists in general. I still think you should read it, though, otherwise I wouldn't have put it on the Internet, now would I?

[Stegersaurus]

Clearly advertising is the way to go though! As advertising rates plummet due to more accessible advertising venues (blogs, adwords, etc) becoming more prevalent the smart thing to do is become yet another advertiser!

Latching yourself onto a bigger corporation may pay off for the few people who get that attachment, but it can definitely interfere with your own freedom as an indie developer. Either that or it becomes some weird pyramid of advertising like you can sometimes see on the iPhone, where Game A is an ad-based free app that is paid for by advertising for Game B from some other company.

[Zaratustra]

So to make money you just have to not suck and make people aware of the fact?

I don't think I suck, and I don't think people think I suck. Yet nobody donated me money, and now I don't have time to make indie games because I have a day job making casual Flash games about making cocktails to people that will pay for games.

[Plankhead]

I don't think I suck, and I don't think people think I suck. Yet nobody donated me money

People won't know you don't suck unless they know you exist. The knowledge that someone is good at what they do requires the knowledge that they do anything.

On a related note, I highly enjoyed Eversion, and for some reason the donation box on your site didn't register in my brain when I downloaded it. I just sent you 10 bucks.

The problem, though, is that enough people aren't doing that. I don't think abandoning the concept of donationware is the solution to that particular problem, as the underlying concept is desirable. Why aren't more people donating, though? Not because they're horrible people who can't part with even a dollar when they enjoyed a game, but because they're not used to it. Even I'm not used to it enough to go actively looking for the ability to donate if it's not brought to my attention before or after playing.

I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I think everyone trying to do anything indie should be thinking and experimenting with how to get (or remind) people to donate. Even if donations aren't your primary way of making money, it's never a bad thing.

[ionside]

I've considered using in game advertising for my first product. But have been wary of the same things you suggested. I also understand that if pirates find it worthwhile, they'll remove the advertising in your game anyway before putting them up on torrents.

At this time, sadly, it's best to predict your losses through piracy. I'm now considering only a basic DRM (emailed key). Which is simple for installation, and is a deterent for the least computer savvy people.

[skaldicpoet9]

In game advertisements suck, hard. There I said it. Not to say that they can't be done in a manner that is smart and unobtrusive but the simple fact is they feel like they detract from the immersion that certain games provide (or so I feel).

I am pretty sure that most here know my stance on piracy, and the fact is I don't believe that someone downloading your game means a "lost sale". These people weren't going to buy the game in the first place so why cry about them pirating the game? I don't support piracy but I think it absurd to think that piracy impacts game sales as much as some would lead you to believe.


Developers shouldn't feel that there is a dire need to somehow circumvent piracy. Every game has and will be eventually copied and uploaded onto the internet and downloaded by thousands of "pirates", get over it. Even WoW suffers from piracy, people are out there right now playing on private servers and Blizzard doesn't see a dime. Even if your game is online it doesn't mean that it will deter those in the "scene" whose sole purpose is to crack, rip and upload games.

The people that support what these developers do will support them irregardless. There are no such thing as lost sales. These ratios are complete and udder B.S. Not that they aren't factual, I am sure that they are, just that they somehow represent some sort of pandemic that is strangling the PC gaming industry.

[Plankhead]

The people that support what these developers do will support them irregardless. There are no such thing as lost sales. These ratios are complete and udder B.S. Not that they aren't factual, I am sure that they are, just that they somehow represent some sort of pandemic that is strangling the PC gaming industry.

I agree for the most part, but what happened to Raycatcher is downright depressing, and I'm worried for the developers' financial health. I haven't played the game, so I don't know if the lack of support is justified. Maybe it's not a very good game. The description on Steam sounds very interesting, though. Admittedly, it's not making me want to throw $5 at it right this instant, so I think they'd benefit from a proper demo. As would everyone.

Regardless, this whole ordeal has given me an idea. You know those FBI warnings before movies saying not to pirate it? Do something like one of those, except not at all: A short block of large print text explaining that paying for the game will allow you to buy food.

I made a few for people to liberally use on whatever they want.

[Oddbob]

Maybe it's not a very good game. The description on Steam sounds very interesting, though.

It's not especially great, no.

[Zaratustra]

Thing is, you can always find a good excuse to not pay for a game. "It wasn't that great", "it was good but only 10 hours long", "it was too easy", "it was too hard" and so on.

[Movius]

If your money comes from ads, you are a slave to the advertisers

You seem unfamiliar with the definition of slavery.

I suggest consulting some form of dictionary or encyclopedic publication.

[moi]

ANybody here likes the new galactica series? I don't, but anybody here likes to watch it?

[Oddbob]

Thing is, you can always find a good excuse to not pay for a game. "It wasn't that great", "it was good but only 10 hours long", "it was too easy", "it was too hard" and so on.

I prefer the term "reasons" but YMMV.

[moi]

ANybody here likes the new galactica series? I don't, but anybody here likes to watch it?

I was asking because some people like to discuss this as if it was the last wonder of the world.
But this show, as most TV shows, is sponsored in great part by advertisement. Unless you don't watch TV at all, you're already spoiled by advertisement.
So yeah, advertisement is not all evil and you should be a bit more tolerant about it.
Advertisement is bad mostly for businesses who just send money for  nothing most of the time, and it pays a lot of things in entertainment industry.
So as long as it's not obstrusive (and I HATE those product placements in movies), it's OK for small devs -IMO. Take advantage of it if you can (but don't entirely rely on it), and don't let it become obstrusive.

[Plankhead]

You seem unfamiliar with the definition of slavery.

I suggest consulting some form of dictionary or encyclopedic publication.

How clever of you to have seen through my use of hyperbole. Clearly I'm attempting to mislead people with my propaganda, as opposed to making a point with non-literal language and assuming people are intelligent enough to parse it.

Thing is, you can always find a good excuse to not pay for a game. "It wasn't that great", "it was good but only 10 hours long", "it was too easy", "it was too hard" and so on.

There's something psychologically different about paying full price for a game. If people are actively encouraged to give any amount they feel like to help the developer pay the rent long enough to address their gripes with a game, the result might be very interesting.

People just need to get used to the fact that they, personally, are responsible for which game developers will continue to make games, and what games they will make. Individual, single payments by one person have to feel like they matter. Buying games at a store, online or off, has lost whatever psychological weight it ever had.

But this show, as most TV shows, is sponsored in great part by advertisement. Unless you don't watch TV at all, you're already spoiled by advertisement.

Many other excellent TV shows are cancelled because they somehow don't bring in ad dollars. Maybe the audience is full of tech-savvy science fiction fans who would gladly buy lots of T-shirts, but use Tivo and AdBlock, and are a measly, tiny 900,000 strong. Or perhaps the show is too controversial, despite being excellent, and advertisers don't want to associate their brand with it for some stupid reason. Building a business on pleasing advertisers is a slippery slope, and it seems counter to what most every indie developer wants to achieve. It's not going to work for most games, period.

[Oddbob]

ANybody here likes the new galactica series? I don't, but anybody here likes to watch it?

I was asking because some people like to discuss this as if it was the last wonder of the world.
But this show, as most TV shows, is sponsored in great part by advertisement. Unless you don't watch TV at all, you're already spoiled by advertisement.
So yeah, advertisement is not all evil and you should be a bit more tolerant about it.
Advertisement is bad mostly for businesses who just send money for  nothing most of the time, and it pays a lot of things in entertainment industry.
So as long as it's not obstrusive (and I HATE those product placements in movies), it's OK for small devs -IMO. Take advantage of it if you can (but don't entirely rely on it), and don't let it become obstrusive.

Well, I tend to only watch stuff from the BBC which I stump up for with a license fee, just to be awkward, but yeah, I take your point.

I can't say I care for ingame advertising, in fact - I don't really care for advertising full stop. I appreciate its need, but I still don't like it. But each to their own in that regard, I have no doubt that my subscription to the Bill Hicks school of thinking is a minority one and that's cool.

I take far more issue with the weighting of the Kotaku article and its unquestioning manner. No-one bought our last product + it was pirated lots = need for advertising isn't a formula I'm comfortable with getting on board with, especially given I'm not seeing anything special in Raycatcher that meant it warrants me feeling that compulsion to fork my money over for it.

Given every review I've read rates the game as somewhere between below average to average at best, I'm unconvinced that there's external factors at play here as to why the game fell on its arse. Which sorta drops the arse out of any credibility the article is trying to lend itself. It scarily reads more like an advertorial for ad inclusion than solid journalism.

[Balrog]

So to make money you just have to not suck and make people aware of the fact?

I don't think I suck, and I don't think people think I suck. Yet nobody donated me money, and now I don't have time to make indie games because I have a day job making casual Flash games about making cocktails to people that will pay for games.

Ha ha, I just donated.

[Zaphos]

I take far more issue with the weighting of the Kotaku article and its unquestioning manner. No-one bought our last product + it was pirated lots = need for advertising isn't a formula I'm comfortable with getting on board with, especially given I'm not seeing anything special in Raycatcher that meant it warrants me feeling that compulsion to fork my money over for it.

Given every review I've read rates the game as somewhere between below average to average at best, I'm unconvinced that there's external factors at play here as to why the game fell on its arse. Which sorta drops the arse out of any credibility the article is trying to lend itself. It scarily reads more like an advertorial for ad inclusion than solid journalism.

Yes ... the article is rather dubious.  Leaving quotes like "[the people are] not interested in paying for games anymore" unquestioned is pretty funny, considering that the games market is still alive and well.  And the focus on a group of developers who made one game that no one has even heard of (and about which even Michael Rose says "it's hard to recommend") is not very convincing!  Would have been nice if they'd also gotten comments from other people selling indie games and dealing with piracy, or making quality unity games -- 2D boy and flashbang seem like obvious choices.  (Might have also thrown some light on this idea that we must have either DRM or Advergames.)

edit: just after writing this I go over to indiegamer and see this article reported there, with a nice editorial comment from Simon C. that I'd like to quote here:

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Just had to chime in here, since I agree with Jeremy's comments and I'm worried this piece is a little misleading. Unfortunately, from what I know of the in-game ad market, it's not generally that lucrative at current CPM rates -- unless you're talking about actual advergames.

So I think the 'free+ads' angle, which is promoted by a Vancouver-based, VC-funded portal here (sigh), is a little bogus. But here's some real stats from a successful set of browser games to get a good idea of the fact that, even for the Hunted Forever creator, ads are a small part of the equation. But you can certainly make money with web games, this article just seems... unbalanced.

-Simon C.]

- http://www.indiegames.com/blog/2009/05/ingame_ads_a_piracy_beater_for.html

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

the whole 'make payment optional' solution you write about in your blog post usually doesn't work. it can occasionally, when a game is extremely popular and development depends upon donations (like with dwarf fortress), but saying, basically: "don't sell games, don't put ads in them, just give them away for free and ask for donations" strikes me as something only someone who hasn't had much experience with any of those three would write, and in fact is a suggestion you repeatedly see from people who haven't tried those things (if you search around this forum's archives i'm pretty sure you'll find at least a half-dozen suggestions that donations could replace selling games or in-game ads). same applies to the idea that social networking and word of mouth will make you famous if you're just good enough.

[Movius]

I thought the whole point of these guys putting in in-game advertising was that they were sensible and wanted money regardless of whether it involved "fighting piracy" or not.

[Craig Stern]

Donations are only a semantic solution to piracy. Ultimately, making payment optional is not going to increase revenue from people who refuse to pay even when payment isn't optional.

As for ads, I think the bigger problem is practical (getting enough money) rather than moral (depending on evil corporations for money). I've been using the ads-and-sponsorship Flash approach up to this point, and while it's netted me some decent money, I'd have to put out many more games than I currently am to make a living off of it. I'm not sure what kind of advertising we're discussing putting inside of games, but I'd imagine it would have to be pretty obtrusive to justify payments on a scale that could replace money from direct sales, even with piracy factored in.