That's not the problem. It's like saying that music industry is in crisis because there are tons of junk records around. Good music is always a minority and one has to sift through noise to get to it. Gaming isn't any different. Good games are a form of art, and they are always a minority, whether we are talking about indie and low budget or big budget / publisher funded games. That's why Steam may be a bad example, because filtering games there isn't easy. Services like GOG concentrate on good games. That's of course subjective (according to the distributor), but they do a lot of pre-filtering for you.
> It's not sustainable.
It is, like any other art. Make something unique, make something good and you'll find your audience. Crowdfunding also helps to increase visibility.
Services like GOG concentrate on good games. That's of course subjective (according to the distributor), but they do a lot of pre-filtering for you.
Which Steam did, a role which they have since abandoned. Why do you assume GOG will be any different? The day GOG's accountant proves irrefutably that it's more profitable to offer 20,000 shitty games than 200 good ones is the day they'll start doing that. That might not be for a while; as long as GOG's sales growth depends on differentiating it from other brands like Steam by being more selective. But eventually that growth will hit a plateau, and economics change.
It is, like any other art. Make something unique, make something good and you'll find your audience.
You might, but there's no guarantee that you won't get lost in the shuffle. As Vogel points out, the problem is not so much for micro-producers with very low overhead, for whom even small sales are profitable, as for mid-sized ventures that have to invest $1 million+ to meet audience expectations and who will go broke if they can't recoup their production budget.
I really find your advice a bit facile. What branch of the arts do you work in?
My advice is based on viewing art as art, and not something that has to be specifically commercialized really. Indie developers are actually in the better situation here, because they can resort to crowdfunding which allows them making artistic choices based on interests, rather than on demands from the publisher. And it makes it easier because they don't have huge agreements to spend millions on marketing which they need to recover.
I have to tell you that things are very different when you're on the production side. It's easy to be idealistic about his sort of thing as a consumer, but if you do as a producer then you will go broke. And while one shouldn't be too cynical (otherwise you might just as well take up accountancy or some other line of work), it's a fact that consumers are a fickle bunch - they like novelty but not always originality.
I came across some good advice last week (aimed at designers, but relevant here): being 20 years ahead of your audience is not a recipe for success - people will just think you are strange. Being 20 minutes ahead, however, can pay off big.
For all their faults, this is something publishers understand well, and historically they have done a fairly good job of curating the authors they publish so as to support the ones that are a little too far ahead of the curve. They also look after a great deal of stuff that artists are either not good at or don't like, like marketing, accountancy and so on - so artists get to focus on what they do well rather than having to deal with the business stuff.
It's nice to think about art as being above commercial considerations, but being an artist doesn't get you out of paying rent or buying food or whatever family obligations you may have (which is why a lot of artists have precarious domestic arrangements). Even determinedly un-commercial firms like ThatGameCompany struggle with this; Journey was supposed to take one year but took three, and they ran out of money and couldn't make payroll in the third year so they had to let some people go and make others wait months to get paid. You often can't ignore commercial considerations becuas if what you want to do needs money then either you raise it or the work doesn't get made. As I've pointed out in relation to film, the costs of making even a simple one are pretty substantial.
I agree that planning any project financially is important if it doesn't want to go bust in the middle, especially if it's big enough and isn't a "one man production". Still, more than often publishers simply reject something that doesn't fit the mass market mentality. Not because it's necessarily years ahead of time, and not because it can't be profitable. They just don't want to go to bigger length to achieve more, if they can profit with less.
A current example - inXile Entertainment (an independent gaming studio now) are still working on their major project Wasteland 2. It's already in beta access for a while, and they plan the release in the end of this summer. They said that what beta has now is only around 50% of the game (i.e. they'll add a lot more still). They took their time developing it and getting feedback and improving things (and they work in parallel on Torment - Tides of Numenera by the way). They said many times, that if their work would be managed by publishers, they'd never be able to develop Wasteland 2 so thoroughly and with their own pace as they do now. I.e. perfection is not something that publishers often appreciate (since it requires more resources). They prefer more projects in less time, than more better projects with more time.
Music industry is in crisis, and the reason for both is that junk records are marketed hard so people buy them, and this poisons further sales to the client because people stop trying new things.
And we're not talking about experimental crazy junk. We're talking abour safe-investment knockoff junk that markets as AAA but is really B or C.
Comments
I disagree with the general sentiment.
> The problem is too many games.
That's not the problem. It's like saying that music industry is in crisis because there are tons of junk records around. Good music is always a minority and one has to sift through noise to get to it. Gaming isn't any different. Good games are a form of art, and they are always a minority, whether we are talking about indie and low budget or big budget / publisher funded games. That's why Steam may be a bad example, because filtering games there isn't easy. Services like GOG concentrate on good games. That's of course subjective (according to the distributor), but they do a lot of pre-filtering for you.
> It's not sustainable.
It is, like any other art. Make something unique, make something good and you'll find your audience. Crowdfunding also helps to increase visibility.
There is absolutely no guarantee that you'll find your audience, and indeed the odds against doing so are increasing. For example: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2013/10/16/t...
Services like GOG concentrate on good games. That's of course subjective (according to the distributor), but they do a lot of pre-filtering for you.
Which Steam did, a role which they have since abandoned. Why do you assume GOG will be any different? The day GOG's accountant proves irrefutably that it's more profitable to offer 20,000 shitty games than 200 good ones is the day they'll start doing that. That might not be for a while; as long as GOG's sales growth depends on differentiating it from other brands like Steam by being more selective. But eventually that growth will hit a plateau, and economics change.
It is, like any other art. Make something unique, make something good and you'll find your audience.
You might, but there's no guarantee that you won't get lost in the shuffle. As Vogel points out, the problem is not so much for micro-producers with very low overhead, for whom even small sales are profitable, as for mid-sized ventures that have to invest $1 million+ to meet audience expectations and who will go broke if they can't recoup their production budget.
I really find your advice a bit facile. What branch of the arts do you work in?
> There is absolutely no guarantee that you'll find your audience,
Well, of course, there is always risk. What I meant is that if the game is not unique and not standing out, then the chances of success are way lower.
> Which Steam did, a role which they have since abandoned. Why do you assume GOG will be any different?
Because GOG insists they will be. So far they were honest: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-15-gog-on-early-ac...
> I really find your advice a bit facile.
My advice is based on viewing art as art, and not something that has to be specifically commercialized really. Indie developers are actually in the better situation here, because they can resort to crowdfunding which allows them making artistic choices based on interests, rather than on demands from the publisher. And it makes it easier because they don't have huge agreements to spend millions on marketing which they need to recover.
I have to tell you that things are very different when you're on the production side. It's easy to be idealistic about his sort of thing as a consumer, but if you do as a producer then you will go broke. And while one shouldn't be too cynical (otherwise you might just as well take up accountancy or some other line of work), it's a fact that consumers are a fickle bunch - they like novelty but not always originality.
I came across some good advice last week (aimed at designers, but relevant here): being 20 years ahead of your audience is not a recipe for success - people will just think you are strange. Being 20 minutes ahead, however, can pay off big.
For all their faults, this is something publishers understand well, and historically they have done a fairly good job of curating the authors they publish so as to support the ones that are a little too far ahead of the curve. They also look after a great deal of stuff that artists are either not good at or don't like, like marketing, accountancy and so on - so artists get to focus on what they do well rather than having to deal with the business stuff.
It's nice to think about art as being above commercial considerations, but being an artist doesn't get you out of paying rent or buying food or whatever family obligations you may have (which is why a lot of artists have precarious domestic arrangements). Even determinedly un-commercial firms like ThatGameCompany struggle with this; Journey was supposed to take one year but took three, and they ran out of money and couldn't make payroll in the third year so they had to let some people go and make others wait months to get paid. You often can't ignore commercial considerations becuas if what you want to do needs money then either you raise it or the work doesn't get made. As I've pointed out in relation to film, the costs of making even a simple one are pretty substantial.
I agree that planning any project financially is important if it doesn't want to go bust in the middle, especially if it's big enough and isn't a "one man production". Still, more than often publishers simply reject something that doesn't fit the mass market mentality. Not because it's necessarily years ahead of time, and not because it can't be profitable. They just don't want to go to bigger length to achieve more, if they can profit with less.
A current example - inXile Entertainment (an independent gaming studio now) are still working on their major project Wasteland 2. It's already in beta access for a while, and they plan the release in the end of this summer. They said that what beta has now is only around 50% of the game (i.e. they'll add a lot more still). They took their time developing it and getting feedback and improving things (and they work in parallel on Torment - Tides of Numenera by the way). They said many times, that if their work would be managed by publishers, they'd never be able to develop Wasteland 2 so thoroughly and with their own pace as they do now. I.e. perfection is not something that publishers often appreciate (since it requires more resources). They prefer more projects in less time, than more better projects with more time.
Music industry is in crisis, and the reason for both is that junk records are marketed hard so people buy them, and this poisons further sales to the client because people stop trying new things.
And we're not talking about experimental crazy junk. We're talking abour safe-investment knockoff junk that markets as AAA but is really B or C.
Were things any different in the past really? There was always the mass market junk including the one marketed by the big publishers.
In the past we have things like Jethro Tull which are both popular, critically acclaimed and good for every piece. And we have a lot of that.
Everything we have today is either mass market junk or only appealing to a narrow demographic or an experimental kludge.
I listen to a lot of kludges and one-trick ponies these days, but I can see it's not how it was, and popularity (of music as whole) reflects that.