This is really long. And is a first draft. This is not -just- for blitz, so I wanted to get feedback. Tell me I am wrong, tell me I am great. Tell me I spelled something wrong or screwed up basic grammar. Tell me what I should include. Tell me what I shouldn't. Tell me to STFU. All your input is welcome. Even the insulting stuff.
Also!.. Important. There is no citation here. If you made, know who made any of these things and think they wouldn't wanna be included in this essay. Tell me. I'll find another example.
Making, Selling, and Thinking Indie Games.
Indie games are indie. Seems pretty straightforward, no? It is surprising how most indie games try to follow the same sort of rules as the big guys follow. The same rules that don't really work for them either. In this essay you will learn what seems to actually make games sell, how people find games, and what it should be alright to cut and still have a fantastic and well-done game.
What are the big companies really doing?
When you look at the big-boys you see several things. First, you see that they try to push their graphics as hard as they can. They go on and on about them on their boxes and in ads, and they put forth a lot of cash on them in the first place. Secondly, you see that they focus on one or two major gameplay hooks to try to grab the box-reader. “With gravity gun” or “Over 500 skills!” Things that might sound a little interesting or impressive.
Lastly, you see that it all works for them. Or does it? What we miss when we look at the box, is the chain of events that brought people to the store in the first place. While a large number of people do just walk into the store and buy whatever game looks cool, most of them are children or adults buying games as gifts. Relatively few people wander into the store and drop a small fortune on a brand new game without some kind of forethought.
There are several major kinds of game buyers; First-dayers, Heard-from-a-frienders, Read-in-a-reviewers, Follow-the-hypers, Bargin-hunters, and I'll-buy-anythingers.
First-dayers are the kinds of people that buy games the day they come out, they are into the culture of video games and they are the ones waiting in line to buy the next game in a series. They aren't, however, followers of hype in most cases. Their purchase might overlap with something that is hyped, but they will not buy it just cause others are excited about it. They buy it cause THEY are excited about it.
Heard-from-a-frienders and Read-in-a-reviewers and any other 'like' kind of buyers are the ones who do research before they buy a game. They know that games in a series can end up being terrible, and will always wait to see if it is good. In addition, they will be open to games that are normally outside their sphere of exposure should someone they trust really sell the game on them.
Follow-the-hypers buy whatever is totally hot. They will be happy to drop 60 bucks on the next big thing, simply because it is the next big thing. Be it 'Doom 3', or 'Quake 4', they are out there scooping up these games like they are candy. Gloating that they got their hands on it, and about how amazing it looks and feels.
Next up is the Bargin-hunters, they wait for things to cool off. Could be representatives of any of the other types of buyers, but they rarely buy a full price title. They enjoy getting a great game for a great price. “Startcraft Battle Chest for $10, I'll buy that!”
I'll-buy-anythingers aren't those who will really buy anything, they buy anything in their sphere of exposure. Like the stereotypical RPG nerd buying any and all RPGs that come out. Like the sports gamer buying every version of 'Madden', or the wrestling fan who buys all the games. These gamers just buy games that interest them in the store, and they don't even care that the game sucks when they get it home. They are happy with their copy of '50 cent: Bullet Proof' and you can't convince them it was the worst game to come out on the PS2. “Pokemon Black? Yes, please.”
What's this all mean? Most people don't buy the game cause the box has pretty graphics, they don't buy it cause it has this that or the other gameplay mechanic listed on the box. They buy the game cause they read about it, heard about it, buy all the like games, buy anything that has those characters/assets in it, or because they think their friend/child might like it. Only a few people buy it cause they were sold on it through the box.
The big companies are out there generating hype, making sure the game has the right characters or settings, and making sure it looks good, because there are a lot of people that buy games cause they look good. They are sending copies of the games to reviewers, because a lot of their buyers come from good reviews. They are out there letting people play the game, cause a lot of people buy the game if someone says they played it and liked it.
So what am I doing wrong?
Indie game designers seem to focus on all the wrong things. The new and fun ideas tend to get ruined with bad design choices and there are loads of lame clones and examples of established gameplay models with new twists. In short, it isn't any different than the big boys. They spend a lot of time and effort on fancy graphical touches and other things that are secondary to gameplay. They do this, because they are told that they need these things by portals and their peers.
Is all that true? Yes and no. If you really want to sell your game on a portal, which is like a store that has some minor review abilities and even some user feedback, that is fine. But remember, it isn't the box that sells the game. A good outlet is going to promote your game, at least to the people shopping at that portal, perhaps outside it. But they are again, just showing off the box. You might get reviewed by an indie reviewer with little or no mainstream credit. You might even sell a few copies. But you really aren't reaching your full potential as an indie designer. Unfortunately, it is already too late for that game.
Is there a better way?
Let us take a look at the types of game buyers, and how they present themselves online. First-dayers, and in most cases Bargin-hunters don't really apply. Sure, you can argue that someone paying $10 for your indie game is bargin-hunting, but they aren't. A bargin is when you are getting something for less than it is worth to you. Paying $10 for a basic 'bejewled' clone is not a bargin.
Most people will find your game when a friend tells them how fun it is, or when a reviewer they trust tells them. Surprisingly, they don't care at all how the game looks. Don't believe me? One word. 'Snood.' Want another example? 'Drug Wars.' I can go on. These gamers aren't out to be wowed graphically, and lets face it, you really can't get close to what the big boys can make.
Follow-the-hypers exist online too. They play Habbo Hotel, and Furcadia. They tend to be younger, and they don't have a lot of money, but given the chance, they will drop $125 to put dragon wings on their cat-person. Don't under-estimate these people, they can make your game a success.
One of the biggest groups online are the I'll-buy-anythingers. Funny, indie developers seem to fall into this category a lot, many will by anything just because it is indie. You find people that will buy all the puzzle games they can get their hands one. Or the misunderstood market of 'free' games, where people pay by clicking on ads and paying other people. Want to make a platformer? Make it fantasy themed and you'll find a lot more people are willing to buy it.
What can we learn from these buyers? That they aren't stuck on the traditional 'I pay you once, I own game.' model. The hardest part of getting an indie game to sell is getting people to play it, then buy it. Most people don't like demos. They are a waste of time and serve more to tease you than to be fun. People only use them when they are already considering buying the game. Unless, like 'Snood', the demo is fun. In which case it can get passed all over and become more like shareware and still generate some money. At the same time, most people won't buy the full version, cause they already get the milk for free. (I'm ignoring the sneaky things that Snood does additionally.)
How can we maximize our potential?
Start with the payment structure. Ad driven browser games? Mini MMO that lets you buy things for your characters or otherwise play for free? Something that works for you. Payment shouldn't be an after-thought. There should be a way to play the game, preferably in it's entirety, that works into your hand. For example, 'Furcadia' is free to play, but if you want new things, you have to pay them for it. Few people are willing to pay a lot, but the ones that are, might drop over $500 in the long run. You could release the first chapter of your game for free, the entire thing. Then charge for all the later chapters. If people are hooked already, they will keep paying for more.
Make sure your game doesn't suck. Obviously, graphics are the only way to make some 'bejewled' clone stand out. The alternative is adding in new gameplay mechanics. This might work out for a really simple game, and it might sell well. Still, is it a 'bejewled' clone. Be really creative, it is said all the time “Ideas are a dime a dozen.” So pay the dime for the bundle and actually use one. It seems like the indie games that get finished are all clones, bad ideas, or otherwise lame. If the game sucks, few will by it, if the game is fun, many will. You know what a fun game is, step back and just play your game. Use stand-in graphics, make it look terrible. If the game itself isn't a blast, you can't expect it to do swimmingly. Keep in mind your payment scheme. A great idea is to offer lots of content and a complete game, but offer bonus content and extra aspects to the game through payment.
Don't focus on the box-cover saleability of your game. Yeah, on a portal it will mean sales. But the big bucks aren't on the portals. The game doesn't have to look good to be fun, so don't focus on that. At the same time, don't add in new things just because they will look good on the website. Just Don't. Put the extra effort into the gameplay. Create more meaningful content. If you have the time and money, it can't hurt to have good graphics, but it is far more important to be a good game first.
Market properly. Your game is done, but people can't buy it unless they know about it. Marketing don't just mean getting people to the site, although it could mean that if the site will absolutely get people to give it a try. It means getting people to play the game. It could mean burning discs and handing them out on the street near a game store. It could mean posting 'fake' stolen versions on warez sites. It could mean anything that gets the game into the hands of people to get them to play it. If the game is fun. They will tell their friends. It is as simple as that. Leaking a few 'beta' versions that lack a lot of the later content can be more effective than any demo. You are indie, so you have to be indie. You can't play everything straight. Obviously you can't break the law, but none of these things do.
You have to think like other indie art forms. Indie films screen their movies for free anywhere they can. Indie music does a lot of the same. Viral marketing and word-of-mouth is all indies have to go on. Even a portal is a form of word-of-mouth. Don't get caught up in being professional. Feeling grass-roots and down-to-earth is what makes indie appealing to people. If you can get the fans involved in making the game, that is even better. This is another of the things that 'Furcadia' does. You can use the user to make most if not all of your content. Few indie games do this, it is being pioneered by the big guys, which is completely backwards.
The best example of this I can give is 'Naked War.' Unique payment plan that allows you to play the entire game for free, oodles of word-of-mouth, a real indie spirit, great gameplay, and on top of it all nice-looking graphics. 'Naked War' is indie in the way that things should be indie. It has a grass-roots feel. It is all about community growth and user input. This is what indie games should be. It is too bad that most aren't.
Also!.. Important. There is no citation here. If you made, know who made any of these things and think they wouldn't wanna be included in this essay. Tell me. I'll find another example.
Making, Selling, and Thinking Indie Games.
Indie games are indie. Seems pretty straightforward, no? It is surprising how most indie games try to follow the same sort of rules as the big guys follow. The same rules that don't really work for them either. In this essay you will learn what seems to actually make games sell, how people find games, and what it should be alright to cut and still have a fantastic and well-done game.
What are the big companies really doing?
When you look at the big-boys you see several things. First, you see that they try to push their graphics as hard as they can. They go on and on about them on their boxes and in ads, and they put forth a lot of cash on them in the first place. Secondly, you see that they focus on one or two major gameplay hooks to try to grab the box-reader. “With gravity gun” or “Over 500 skills!” Things that might sound a little interesting or impressive.
Lastly, you see that it all works for them. Or does it? What we miss when we look at the box, is the chain of events that brought people to the store in the first place. While a large number of people do just walk into the store and buy whatever game looks cool, most of them are children or adults buying games as gifts. Relatively few people wander into the store and drop a small fortune on a brand new game without some kind of forethought.
There are several major kinds of game buyers; First-dayers, Heard-from-a-frienders, Read-in-a-reviewers, Follow-the-hypers, Bargin-hunters, and I'll-buy-anythingers.
First-dayers are the kinds of people that buy games the day they come out, they are into the culture of video games and they are the ones waiting in line to buy the next game in a series. They aren't, however, followers of hype in most cases. Their purchase might overlap with something that is hyped, but they will not buy it just cause others are excited about it. They buy it cause THEY are excited about it.
Heard-from-a-frienders and Read-in-a-reviewers and any other 'like' kind of buyers are the ones who do research before they buy a game. They know that games in a series can end up being terrible, and will always wait to see if it is good. In addition, they will be open to games that are normally outside their sphere of exposure should someone they trust really sell the game on them.
Follow-the-hypers buy whatever is totally hot. They will be happy to drop 60 bucks on the next big thing, simply because it is the next big thing. Be it 'Doom 3', or 'Quake 4', they are out there scooping up these games like they are candy. Gloating that they got their hands on it, and about how amazing it looks and feels.
Next up is the Bargin-hunters, they wait for things to cool off. Could be representatives of any of the other types of buyers, but they rarely buy a full price title. They enjoy getting a great game for a great price. “Startcraft Battle Chest for $10, I'll buy that!”
I'll-buy-anythingers aren't those who will really buy anything, they buy anything in their sphere of exposure. Like the stereotypical RPG nerd buying any and all RPGs that come out. Like the sports gamer buying every version of 'Madden', or the wrestling fan who buys all the games. These gamers just buy games that interest them in the store, and they don't even care that the game sucks when they get it home. They are happy with their copy of '50 cent: Bullet Proof' and you can't convince them it was the worst game to come out on the PS2. “Pokemon Black? Yes, please.”
What's this all mean? Most people don't buy the game cause the box has pretty graphics, they don't buy it cause it has this that or the other gameplay mechanic listed on the box. They buy the game cause they read about it, heard about it, buy all the like games, buy anything that has those characters/assets in it, or because they think their friend/child might like it. Only a few people buy it cause they were sold on it through the box.
The big companies are out there generating hype, making sure the game has the right characters or settings, and making sure it looks good, because there are a lot of people that buy games cause they look good. They are sending copies of the games to reviewers, because a lot of their buyers come from good reviews. They are out there letting people play the game, cause a lot of people buy the game if someone says they played it and liked it.
So what am I doing wrong?
Indie game designers seem to focus on all the wrong things. The new and fun ideas tend to get ruined with bad design choices and there are loads of lame clones and examples of established gameplay models with new twists. In short, it isn't any different than the big boys. They spend a lot of time and effort on fancy graphical touches and other things that are secondary to gameplay. They do this, because they are told that they need these things by portals and their peers.
Is all that true? Yes and no. If you really want to sell your game on a portal, which is like a store that has some minor review abilities and even some user feedback, that is fine. But remember, it isn't the box that sells the game. A good outlet is going to promote your game, at least to the people shopping at that portal, perhaps outside it. But they are again, just showing off the box. You might get reviewed by an indie reviewer with little or no mainstream credit. You might even sell a few copies. But you really aren't reaching your full potential as an indie designer. Unfortunately, it is already too late for that game.
Is there a better way?
Let us take a look at the types of game buyers, and how they present themselves online. First-dayers, and in most cases Bargin-hunters don't really apply. Sure, you can argue that someone paying $10 for your indie game is bargin-hunting, but they aren't. A bargin is when you are getting something for less than it is worth to you. Paying $10 for a basic 'bejewled' clone is not a bargin.
Most people will find your game when a friend tells them how fun it is, or when a reviewer they trust tells them. Surprisingly, they don't care at all how the game looks. Don't believe me? One word. 'Snood.' Want another example? 'Drug Wars.' I can go on. These gamers aren't out to be wowed graphically, and lets face it, you really can't get close to what the big boys can make.
Follow-the-hypers exist online too. They play Habbo Hotel, and Furcadia. They tend to be younger, and they don't have a lot of money, but given the chance, they will drop $125 to put dragon wings on their cat-person. Don't under-estimate these people, they can make your game a success.
One of the biggest groups online are the I'll-buy-anythingers. Funny, indie developers seem to fall into this category a lot, many will by anything just because it is indie. You find people that will buy all the puzzle games they can get their hands one. Or the misunderstood market of 'free' games, where people pay by clicking on ads and paying other people. Want to make a platformer? Make it fantasy themed and you'll find a lot more people are willing to buy it.
What can we learn from these buyers? That they aren't stuck on the traditional 'I pay you once, I own game.' model. The hardest part of getting an indie game to sell is getting people to play it, then buy it. Most people don't like demos. They are a waste of time and serve more to tease you than to be fun. People only use them when they are already considering buying the game. Unless, like 'Snood', the demo is fun. In which case it can get passed all over and become more like shareware and still generate some money. At the same time, most people won't buy the full version, cause they already get the milk for free. (I'm ignoring the sneaky things that Snood does additionally.)
How can we maximize our potential?
Start with the payment structure. Ad driven browser games? Mini MMO that lets you buy things for your characters or otherwise play for free? Something that works for you. Payment shouldn't be an after-thought. There should be a way to play the game, preferably in it's entirety, that works into your hand. For example, 'Furcadia' is free to play, but if you want new things, you have to pay them for it. Few people are willing to pay a lot, but the ones that are, might drop over $500 in the long run. You could release the first chapter of your game for free, the entire thing. Then charge for all the later chapters. If people are hooked already, they will keep paying for more.
Make sure your game doesn't suck. Obviously, graphics are the only way to make some 'bejewled' clone stand out. The alternative is adding in new gameplay mechanics. This might work out for a really simple game, and it might sell well. Still, is it a 'bejewled' clone. Be really creative, it is said all the time “Ideas are a dime a dozen.” So pay the dime for the bundle and actually use one. It seems like the indie games that get finished are all clones, bad ideas, or otherwise lame. If the game sucks, few will by it, if the game is fun, many will. You know what a fun game is, step back and just play your game. Use stand-in graphics, make it look terrible. If the game itself isn't a blast, you can't expect it to do swimmingly. Keep in mind your payment scheme. A great idea is to offer lots of content and a complete game, but offer bonus content and extra aspects to the game through payment.
Don't focus on the box-cover saleability of your game. Yeah, on a portal it will mean sales. But the big bucks aren't on the portals. The game doesn't have to look good to be fun, so don't focus on that. At the same time, don't add in new things just because they will look good on the website. Just Don't. Put the extra effort into the gameplay. Create more meaningful content. If you have the time and money, it can't hurt to have good graphics, but it is far more important to be a good game first.
Market properly. Your game is done, but people can't buy it unless they know about it. Marketing don't just mean getting people to the site, although it could mean that if the site will absolutely get people to give it a try. It means getting people to play the game. It could mean burning discs and handing them out on the street near a game store. It could mean posting 'fake' stolen versions on warez sites. It could mean anything that gets the game into the hands of people to get them to play it. If the game is fun. They will tell their friends. It is as simple as that. Leaking a few 'beta' versions that lack a lot of the later content can be more effective than any demo. You are indie, so you have to be indie. You can't play everything straight. Obviously you can't break the law, but none of these things do.
You have to think like other indie art forms. Indie films screen their movies for free anywhere they can. Indie music does a lot of the same. Viral marketing and word-of-mouth is all indies have to go on. Even a portal is a form of word-of-mouth. Don't get caught up in being professional. Feeling grass-roots and down-to-earth is what makes indie appealing to people. If you can get the fans involved in making the game, that is even better. This is another of the things that 'Furcadia' does. You can use the user to make most if not all of your content. Few indie games do this, it is being pioneered by the big guys, which is completely backwards.
The best example of this I can give is 'Naked War.' Unique payment plan that allows you to play the entire game for free, oodles of word-of-mouth, a real indie spirit, great gameplay, and on top of it all nice-looking graphics. 'Naked War' is indie in the way that things should be indie. It has a grass-roots feel. It is all about community growth and user input. This is what indie games should be. It is too bad that most aren't.