In addition to thinking completed, not completed or future goals it’s great time to stop and think all the good things we already have.
Have a good new year.
In addition to thinking completed, not completed or future goals it’s great time to stop and think all the good things we already have.
Have a good new year.
Free-to-play games often introduce the “pay to save your time” model. In the game, you can wait or do grinding, or you can buy your way out of these situations. It’s a pretty common way to monetize these games.
All I’ve heard is pretty much objections towards this model, from developers. Quite fierce objections – have to admit I’ve done the same as well.
But if we take a totally objective way to look at this model, is it really that bad?
Is it really that different from feature-locking, or level locking? A decade ago, there was plenty of discussion about shareware locking. Some said that 30 day trial is a good, while others recommended 60 minutes trials. And then there were many other, like locked features and whatnot.
Is pay-to-save time simply a new alternative way to lock your game?
Is it a nice way to allow people to play the game free infinitely, while also allowing those who have less time (but more money) to focus on different aspects of the game?
From a player perspective, is pay-to-save-time locking a better or worse alternative than for example demo vs full versions, where demo version shows only a little bit of the game?
What you think?
The new Humble Bundle has received mixed opinions. People are taking sides and preparing to attack or defend the new bundle – or something between. People have really fierce arguments over how the current bundle is nasty, evil bad thing.
I think there’s quite many irrational arguments that get dragged in the conversation to support people’s views.
Here’s the situation I’m thinking when I’m estimating the newest bundle:
If we imagine a situation where this newest bundle would be the first bundle. How would I react?
Here’s some facts:
These are the facts as I look at this offering as-is. When looking at this offer only, it’s irrelevant whether there has been previous bundles or not. Whether previous bundle had Linux games or not, is totally irrelevant when it comes to evaluating the current offering.
If I’m having a good day today, it’s irrelevant whether I had a good or bad day yesterday. I can be happy about today, even if was shitty day yesterday.
Similarly, I can objectively look at this bundle offering, and determine whether it’s a good or bad.
The actual offering looks to me pretty humble and solid. I can decide price, I have windows, so those factors are okay. Then I can determine what I think of DRM. Well, usually I prefer without… but if these games work enough, I don’t care having DRM, so that factor – to me – is fine.
Then there’s couple of other factors:
To me, it feels that only the “which companies are participating in this” is bit more subjective. All other factors can be reasoned to be pros or cons (for example: Linux gamers can automatically reject the bundle since it’s Windows only).
Then some factors that are irrelevant:
Going to take a closer look at each of these factors.
“Previous bundle had Linux + Windows + Mac”
This argument has absolutely no meaning in measuring this current bundle. If I have a great day today, it’s irrelevant whether I had a bad day yesterday. Dogs are good at getting this, humans not. We humans tend to drag our past experiences into something where they don’t belong. And I must emphasize: I’m evaluating this current THQ bundle.
Equally well we could turn it around. Imagine that all the previous bundles were AAA, windows-only, DRM games — and you bought none of them.
And then comes a new bundle. If the new bundle offers indie, windows+linux+mac, no DRM games, would you not buy “because previous bundles were windows only”? To me, that makes no sense.
“Indies made the games in previous bundles”
Again, a factor that doesn’t matter. Two reasons why: being “indie” is not important. Providing fun games is.
When I purchase games, I make the decision based on the fun factor, or when I want to support interesting projects. Whether they were created by indies or not is irrelevant. I want that the most fun games survive in this world.
I’m an indie, but my goal is not to be an indie. My goal is to have fun creating games, and to see that other (some, not all) people find them fun. Whether I’m an indie or not is irrelevant.
And again the history aspect: whether other bundles had indie games or not is irrelevant when evaluating this current bundle. We people want continuation, and if something doesn’t match our expectations, we tend to drag the history with us to argument how this current offering cannot be good since previous offer was different.
When estimating this offering, the indie factor has little meaning.
The gaming world is not about “us” and “them”, “indie” or “aaa”. It’s more about “offering bad games” or “offering fun games”.
I vote with my wallet for “offering fun games” by companies that hopefully treat their people good, and just perhaps help make the world a bit better place.
There seems to be different opinions about use of kickstarter. Some devs think it’s purest form of evil, while others seem to think it as the heavenly paradise which solves all their funding problems. And then there’s the rest of us whose opinions falls somewhere between.
With that being said, let’s move forward and accept what Kickstarter is, and what it isn’t.
First of all: Kickstarter is much (not in all projects, but for many) about selling ideas or early projects. Of course it depends of the team who is using it, but for many cases it’s about “hey, Ive done this sort of stuff before and here’s what Im planning to cook next. You wouldn’t mind giving me some cash, would you?”
It’s about having idea or something bit more, and then asking for money for completing the project.
And that is perfectly okay.
Nobody is forcing anything. Everybody has freedom of choise to do as they want. People have the right to buy expensive plastic junk in giftwrapped boxes once per year and they sure have the right to support ideas. Or pay for ideas.
Even when somebody is selling indie games priced $10… That doesn’t mean it would be the “proper” or “right” way to do it. When it comes to money, it’s the customers who decide what they pay for, not the developers.
I decide how I use my wallet, not you.
If somebody is selling orange juice at certain price, that doesn’t mean he gets to decide whether the neighbour can sell his juice for subsription based fee. Whether the other guy promises too much or sells too cheap… Well that’s tough. He has the right to do so (within commonly agreed laws).
Let’s take another example. Nuclear power.
Nuclear power can be used for good stuff (think Mars rover: that beast has one cool huge nuclear powered energy source with it, no need to worry about solar panels). Or it can be done bad (recent nuclear plant issue at Japan, remember?).
Guns can be used for good (hunting: providing food for the family) or for the bad (crimes).
Similarly there are teams and projects that can use Kickstarter for good purposes, and then there’s projects that should never be there.
Kickstarter is not about being good or bad, it’s simply a different tool. It’s about having one more option.
And freedom of choice is more than welcome, in my opinion.
Cliff Harris (Positech) style.
I’m finalizing my Infected card game, and the responsibilities have been easy to define: I do pretty much everything, except for the art (and group testing and actual card manufacturing). All art was created by Anton Brand, and I paid per asset.
But what if I had teamed up with somebody, split the profits, done the project together with someone?
Currently: most of the responsibility lies on my own shoulders
The whole game project of mine is very much my responsibility to deal with. Anton got paid per asset rather than receiving % of sales. The good news about this is that I can make all the final decisions, I can craft the game exactly the way I want it to be, and that I’m not dependant on others for most of the part.
So, dependancies I have had during this project have been:
Majority of testing has been done by me, and then test group has helped going through some major revisions and helped me to gather feedback. The dependencies have been minimal (game works well as solo, so I’ve been able to test solo without actually needed to have test group near and card manufacturing at this point will go through online service, which works – I’ve tested that as well).
What if I’d want to team-up with somebody?
I’ve liked “pay per asset, not give % of royalties” since it’s a pretty straightforward way to get people working in the project. I haven’t needed to discuss design decisions, argue whether it’s okay to have “crow” as an ally or not. I’ve asked people in twitter, and then made my final call on things. It is also giving me a feeling of control: I get to decide how the game looks like.
For a card game with limited 2D art assets, this approach has been working great.
But, what if I need a bigger art budget or just want somebody to join my team?
I wrote earlier about creating your dream game, and while creating a physical card game has been my dream coming true, I’ve also had visions of creating certain type of video games.
One challenge is – I bet for many – the art budget. I’m not looking into creating a game that competes with AAA visuals, but even if you are going to do a simple 2D sidescroller, there can be tons of art to be created. It takes either humongous amount of time or money to get that stuff done. And the bottleneck doesn’t need to be art, it can be something else. I’m just taking art as an example here.
If you team up with somebody… well, that comes with a price.
If you happen to find a artist, and you do the programming side, that combination can work great. Each of you gets to focus on your strengths. There’s cons though. In a team of two, consider the following:
On the positive side:
Taking someone into a team can be a huge asset, but also a big mistake.
Are you working solo, or in a team with somebody? Why?
Remember how godmode ruined Doom 2 experience?
If we look at the F2P games out there in the market, I think there’s roughly two type of genres:
1) “Save time” packs: Games that are designed to exploit our gambling habits by introducing hidious grinding which takes a lot of time. Time which you can “save” by paying. For example, they tell you must kill 100 orcs in order to progress further, and it takes 10 hours with a rusty sword. If you buy a “kill 100 orcs” spell (costs just 1 USD), you can snap your fingers and get through the obstacle.
2) “Personalize”: Games that sell “cosmetic” stuff that doesn’t affect gameplay difficulty in any level, and there’s no other way to gain the cosmetic stuff besides buying. There’s no “kill 100 orcs” spell, but instead you can buy paint and colorize your rusty sword. All other players have rusty metal swords, but yours has nice blue blade. (Assuming there’s no other way to get different colored rusty sword)
Please notice that if you can get access to blue paint by going through 100 hours of grinding, then that’s closer to #1 than #2 category: it’s still about “saving time to personalize”.
That’s a pretty simplified classification, but should cover two different ends of the F2P opportunities.
I think the difficult issue with #1 type of cheat codes selling (and this is what mr. @lemmy101 stated so well in his most excellent ranting tweets around 15th of November) is that it might give framework for designing games in certain way. The designers are rewarded for designing “games that generate most revenue”, instead of “games that generate most fun moments”.
I read a good post by Daniel Cook and he arguments how “sell 10 buck games” is not working way to generate sustainable business.
My counter is:
I’m not willing to buy new items for my character, or ways to kill 100 orcs easier. But, I am willing to buy new levels with more potential weapons to find, new monsters to hunt.
When developers have some good new DLC additions, it’s a no-brainer for me to buy more.
The “buy 10 buck game” model might not work but “10 buck game and then 5 buck add-ons” does work, and is a fair model.
It boils down to this:
I’m choosing option B, and that’s probably the reason why there’s not a single F2P game in my computer, and that’s the reason why there’s tons of games in my Steam list.
Which type of games you prefer and what you think of these different ways to sell items and content?
Are you creating your dream game? The game you’ve always wanted to create?
If not… why not?
I asked about these earlier in twitter and got some replies & sparked some discussion. Here’s some more points regarding this issue:
If visuals/sounds is the problem, why not use existing games and mod them?
For example, Skyrim, Crysis, Source games, upcoming Source 2 (or whatever it’s called)… There’s plenty of game engines that can be used for modding?
Needs more design? Why not more prototyping?
I also heard about reasons saying that game requires more planning or designing first. Why not take 2 weeks to design, and then participate in some weekend prototyping jam & knock the game basics together?
One of the most fun way to get some very fun stuff out is prototyping. I knocked my dwarves prototype together in a week, sold 22 copies (that’s $22!), and it was one of the most rewarding experiences.
I prototyped the core. It would be easy to continue from there if I’d want.
Too big scope or takes too much time
One of the biggest issues I’ve had with my card game development is that, it started as a small game. It went through 3 very huge revisions. Each version was almost totally different. The current final version I have, is totally different than what the game was when I started.
Sure, this is taking “too long”… but they always do. I’m setting my first public release for 12/12/12. At that point I aim to get the first version out, and I do my best effort to finalize the game during these 30 days.
This started as a small project. In a way it still is – it’s the game mechanisms that took most of my time anyway – and has taken a long time.
And the real answer is:
- So what if scope is too big? Either scale down features or just take more time. If you need art assets, then well, mod some existing game. Or make minecraft like graphics.
- DLC. Patching. There’s a reason why those exist. So that we don’t need to put all our ideas in the first version. Sure, I’d like to have 30 different characters in the game, but I just stick with dozen. Why? Because I can add 20 card character pack later if I want. Similarly your cool shooter game doesn’t need 902 weapons in the beginning. Just throw in 4 for the first release and add more later in a patches.
Narrow down scope, get rid of useless features or minor features. Keep the big important features there. And go further. Put less important stuff in your “maybe later” box.
Dream game needs to be 5 year long project
Developing game long doesn’t guarantee it’s better than if development takes short time.
Split schedule into smaller releases.
Rather than doing “one big dream game project”. Do “series of smaller dream game sub projects that all help create the one big dream game project”. Why? Because it’s in every single way the much more rewarding way to do it.
Are you making up excuses?
It’s easy to come up with excuses. “Need more this or that, then I could do it”.
There are limitations. And if you don’t happen to get some sort of funding, you probably have to be bit more creative to figure out how to get development done.
If visual assets is the problem, then you must think whether art is important. Could you replace it with something easier? Could you mod some existing game?
If it “needs more design”, then start prototyping. Prototyping can quickly reveal issues in design. Get others to play your prototypes. Often. Prototypes can be as simple as pen & paper.
Your might need to reduce your project scope in some aspects, but if you think of “what is the experience my game will offer to players”, you will soon realize that certain “must to have” features we think there should be… aren’t so “must to have” after all.
So, how about that.
Could you start creating your dream game?
I’m getting my card game in a real good shape, and will be getting some juicy details later on – when I feel I’m ready to share those. Today, I’m sharing tiny lil design thing. I had a problem naming my decks and explaining what they do. Earlier I used words such as “threat” and “zombie”, and then “challenge” pile. I was trying to explain that you must overcome threat difficulty by using cards in your “challenge” pile. So, “threat difficulty” would be compared against “character’s challenge”.
At some point I renamed these to be simply:
Attack and Defense.
Now, zombie Attack is compared against character’s Defense.
And this blog post probably doesn’t do a good job in explaining how important this small change was… but for me, it was a big deal. It is much easier to explain that “these chaps here ATTACK against you and therefore you must put some effort on DEFENSE.” Attack and Defense are two counterparts, which our brain immediately understands. “Difficulty versus Challenge” really didn’t make any sense.
Good thing one of my testers was puzzled about this and helped me make the change.
Sometimes your brain just goes its own way. You give some shitty name to something (can be function, can be attribute) and six months later you realize that you really gotta do some refactoring.
Even in a physical card game design.
Would be pretty cool if you could comment this blog post. You first have to provide correct anti-spam answer.
Thanks in advance.
(If you encounter any trouble, please tweet me @gameproducer)
P.S. I’m using the quiz plugin here.