Not a bad article, although I've got a few qualms with parts of it.
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.
First you say, don't worry about the "box-cover saleability," which in the case of indie-games comes down to screen-shots and unique selling points that can be posted on the portal page, but then you say you've got to do whatever you can to get the game into players hands. While I agree with the latter point, I kind of disagree with some of your suggested solutions. Posting your own leaked copy of the game isn't actually going to get people to download it, unless it looked interesting in the first place. Even putting games on a disc and handing them out to people won't work in a lot of cases. I don't know about you but whenever I'd get a free Demo CD with some magazine, I didn't install all the demos and try them out - only those that I had read about beforehand or those that were already highly hyped. The rest I just don't have the time to bother with.
And regarding your statement "most of the big money isn't on the portals," well, as far as I know that's just patently not true. I think that's the equivalent of saying that "most of the AAA titles aren't sold in stores but are sold through direct download" or something. While it is true you can make *HUGE* sums of cash venturing in a new direction -- Furcadia sounds like it's doing well, and I just know "Adventure Quest" and "Dragon Fable" must be making a killing, their page rankings are ridiculously high for an "indie-game" and their design leads to little overhead costs (no multiplayer servers, for one)).
So while I agree that venturing out into new territories can be highly profitable, there are obviously no guarantees there. And it's just not possible or even desireable for every game to be adapted to fit into some different pricing model, IMO. The #'s tend to show that the casual market is dominated by older women, and I think the numbers would also show that most of them just want a game that is fun and cheap that they can pick up and play. While there is a market out there that'll play a game that is free but offers the option to purchase special abilties, items, whatever (or often-times as it is, more or less "requires" said purchases if you really want to be effective or see the whole game), there is also a large market that would be turned off by such a pay scheme.
Anyhow, I'm not an authority on the matter by any means. If you want much more and much better feedback, I'd post this over at the IndieGamer forums -
(http://forums.indiegamer.com/index.php?). There are a couple of guys over there that live quite well off of their indie games revenue, and there is a big divide between those who are portal supporters and those who think portals are the devil. Anyhow, there are just a lot of guys over there with finished games and a lot of real-world experience and they'll give you the best feedback.
Prior to that though, here's a few nit-picky things
bargin should be spelled "bargain"
also, this line
should read, "Marketing doesn't..."
Despite my feedback I thought it was a good article and tend to agree with most of the points (I'd love to see fewer clones and such), yet, I think you are sort of taking a naive idealistic look at things. It's just one of those things that's fairly easy to say, but when you're going to put in 60-80 hours for the next 6, 12, or 18 months, it's a lot harder to ascribe to and take such a big gamble by going with a new and innovative game/game-mechanic. And even the best of ideas still might not translate to fun - capturing fun is an elusive beast - and that's why people are so content to do a spinoff of a formula that is already known to be "fun" (at least to their target market.)
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.
First you say, don't worry about the "box-cover saleability," which in the case of indie-games comes down to screen-shots and unique selling points that can be posted on the portal page, but then you say you've got to do whatever you can to get the game into players hands. While I agree with the latter point, I kind of disagree with some of your suggested solutions. Posting your own leaked copy of the game isn't actually going to get people to download it, unless it looked interesting in the first place. Even putting games on a disc and handing them out to people won't work in a lot of cases. I don't know about you but whenever I'd get a free Demo CD with some magazine, I didn't install all the demos and try them out - only those that I had read about beforehand or those that were already highly hyped. The rest I just don't have the time to bother with.
And regarding your statement "most of the big money isn't on the portals," well, as far as I know that's just patently not true. I think that's the equivalent of saying that "most of the AAA titles aren't sold in stores but are sold through direct download" or something. While it is true you can make *HUGE* sums of cash venturing in a new direction -- Furcadia sounds like it's doing well, and I just know "Adventure Quest" and "Dragon Fable" must be making a killing, their page rankings are ridiculously high for an "indie-game" and their design leads to little overhead costs (no multiplayer servers, for one)).
So while I agree that venturing out into new territories can be highly profitable, there are obviously no guarantees there. And it's just not possible or even desireable for every game to be adapted to fit into some different pricing model, IMO. The #'s tend to show that the casual market is dominated by older women, and I think the numbers would also show that most of them just want a game that is fun and cheap that they can pick up and play. While there is a market out there that'll play a game that is free but offers the option to purchase special abilties, items, whatever (or often-times as it is, more or less "requires" said purchases if you really want to be effective or see the whole game), there is also a large market that would be turned off by such a pay scheme.
Anyhow, I'm not an authority on the matter by any means. If you want much more and much better feedback, I'd post this over at the IndieGamer forums -
(http://forums.indiegamer.com/index.php?). There are a couple of guys over there that live quite well off of their indie games revenue, and there is a big divide between those who are portal supporters and those who think portals are the devil. Anyhow, there are just a lot of guys over there with finished games and a lot of real-world experience and they'll give you the best feedback.
Prior to that though, here's a few nit-picky things
bargin should be spelled "bargain"
also, this line
Marketing don't just mean getting people to the site,
should read, "Marketing doesn't..."
Despite my feedback I thought it was a good article and tend to agree with most of the points (I'd love to see fewer clones and such), yet, I think you are sort of taking a naive idealistic look at things. It's just one of those things that's fairly easy to say, but when you're going to put in 60-80 hours for the next 6, 12, or 18 months, it's a lot harder to ascribe to and take such a big gamble by going with a new and innovative game/game-mechanic. And even the best of ideas still might not translate to fun - capturing fun is an elusive beast - and that's why people are so content to do a spinoff of a formula that is already known to be "fun" (at least to their target market.)