7 ms·

How about just not selling your soul to soul sucking distributors like Apple or Valve? The real question is do you want fame and industry class "success" (ie,

by zanny 13y ago

How about just not selling your soul to soul sucking distributors like Apple or Valve? The real question is do you want fame and industry class "success" (ie, your game sells millions) or do you want to be creative. Terrible example, yada yada, but Minecraft is still being sold from the Mojang site where the company (and originally Notch) gets 100% of proceeds. If you want to see millions of people play your games, with millions of copies sold, with front page storefront ads, then yeah, you sell your soul to the entrenched interests. But you don't have to play their game - you just need: 1. An Audience who likes your content. 2. A way to eat as a result of that content. Really, the obvious answer is the audience plays patron as the article denoted funder. That, in the long term, is the macroscopic way this is all trending anyway. And I'm not talking kickstarter style get-a-bunch-of-money-at-once-and-blow-it-all. I mean you have an (open) product, put it out there, advertise it however you want (personally or outsourced) and hope that those that experience it think its worth continued funding. Also, metaconsoles is kind of a misnomer - you have a platform spectrum, from open accessible platforms to walled gardens with padlocks. On one side, you have the wild west of self-hosted downloads for free platforms like Android (without the play store, think fdroid) or desktop Linux, and you progress from there through Windows, the Play Store, OSX, and finally the iOS / old console locked down ecosystem where you need a developers license, development tools from the source, etc. Yeah, Steam is barely better than a console - they act as gatekeeper and takes a huge cut - but on the platforms Steam supports, you at least have the option to use other platforms as well, like gog, the humble store, desura, or self hosting. When there is whole stack lock down like on the traditional consoles and iOS, you are literally praying at the alter of the corporate owner that they give you a blessing.

RKoster 13y ago
Other storefronts... That would be nice if people could make money on those other distribution channels. Unfortunately, they can't, by and large. Most people don't find the effort worth it to even sign up with Amazon, which has a huge addressable market. I have never even seen a sales report with money from fdroid. For devs who are trying to make a living just from games, anything other than Steam, iOS, and for some people, Google Play, is basically irrelevant. Unless you land in a Humble Bundle. As far as the loyal audience, yes, I agree with you on that, even mentioned it in the article. But that's not a living wage for most, and the latest research says that sort of environment is more susceptible to a hit-driven winner-takes-all market. That leads to an ugly place as regards the income levels for the typical dev.
- jib 13y ago
  Isn't this the same problem that music has though? The vast majority of musicians don't make a huge living from creating their own music. You either do it for the joy of it with the hope of possibly being discovered. Struggling artist etc. With the main difference being that software developers skills are also hugely wanted in other markets, which musician skills normally aren't. On some level, its a question of how you both eat the cookie and have it, right? What independent game developers want is some guarantee of a base income, but also with the option to cash in big if they do make it big. Maybe there is an opportunity there - I'm not sure if a credits organisation is what you're looking for. But maybe something like a self-organised fund that will buy stakes in individual projects, where the stakes are paid out more in a salary style? Semi-organised group of indie-game developers that guarantee a (lowish) living income to all in the group in exchange for a relatively large chunk of any large windfalls to support the future. If games are actually sustainable then something like that feels like it could stand a reasonable chance, right? Assuming you get past a critical size and have some name recognition. Could also move into the same benefit areas that unions do. Essentially something like your own very light-weight union/co-op.
speeder 13y ago
"How about just not selling your soul to soul sucking distributors like Apple" Alright, I have a mobile game company, currently very unprofitable. Also we have our stuff on iTunes, because that is the only way we know to distribute on iPhone and iPad. Tell me sir, a way to distribute to our end users easily, and I will PROMPTLY figure how to do it. (by the way, we are already on Google Play too, and almost any random android store you can think, even ones that net us 1 download per month, even carrier stores at the other side of the planet too).
dmpk2k 13y ago
Just a few years ago Valve was being lauded for giving developers a viable new channel that took a very small slice of the pie (~30%) compared to what had come before (>90%). Plus the indies that have managed to get on have consistently noted that the before & after revenue is like night and day. Not soul-sucking. There are other things to complain about Valve, but 30% for their services is not one of them.
- angersock 13y ago
  One hardly pines for the days where you'd cut a gold master and hope (hope!) that you could convince users to patch things if there was a bug or try to figure out with how to get a massive number of physical units shipped. Steam has provided a tremendously better experience in all aspects to the old methods of selling and maintaining games.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Valve's cut was never smaller compared to competitors. There's a reason why they insisted on all the terms of their deals (and sales numbers) being secret; they are still really brutal about not being able to share contract terms or revenue numbers. Hell, I shipped a fucking game on Steam and I don't know what the % we gave them was (though I could probably figure it out by doing enough math on the sales numbers...) One thing I do know (second-hand information, but from an expert) is that they even demand a huge cut from F2P games, despite the fact that F2P games have their own download, patching and payment infrastructure. They literally charge as much as they can possibly get away with, even when they offer near-zero service. The quality of the services Valve offers for your money is also fairly low. The Steam API breaks constantly (usually because they are haphazard about changes and have near-zero automated or manual testing), is poorly documented, and is infrequently maintained. Valve can and will ship a Steamworks update that breaks a core part of your game, and leave it broken for weeks no matter how often you complain - unless you happen to have the phone number of someone at the company, or send them numerous emails. The APIs that do work are slow and limited. It's better than nothing, certainly, but not so magnificent that it's worth 30%, especially if you compare it with something like GAE or EC2.
  - 13y ago
nemothekid 13y ago
Can you give another example other than Minecraft? Saying Minecraft was successful because it was self-distributed is about as useful as saying Zuckerberg is successful because he dropped out of school.
- TillE 13y ago
  Mount&Blade. Exact same model (reduced price beta, all sales direct), before Minecraft. As with most types of entrepreneurship, the answer is to look for niches rather than chasing massive pop culture success.
  - BystanderX 13y ago
    It's almost like people here don't actually play anything but AAA games..
jlees 13y ago
I mean you have an (open) product, put it out there, advertise it however you want (personally or outsourced) and hope that those that experience it think its worth continued funding. It sounds so easy in theory, doesn't it? Getting a game in front of people who enjoy it enough to give you money is hard. Very hard. Raph's ideas from 2006 around direct relationships and celebrity are still very much on target today -- that's how most successful creators seem to manage it, beyond the randomness of viral outbreaks. (I count entering/winning the IGF as a form of celebrity.) Beyond that, advertising it is a spray-and-pray that will likely suck up more of your money than you'll ever make, and net you a bunch of high-churn players who don't give a toss about what you've created. Not every game has an obvious niche audience to go after, not every creator welcomes or invites celebrity, and sometimes the weirdest, most un-game-like things hit a nerve nobody was expecting. My mind keeps circling back to the 'people who bought x also liked..' problem, as mentioned by Greg Costikyan [1]. Discovery is broken, and so on, but it's not discovery - as in players actively seeking out games - I open any store on any platform and I'm inundated with choices. It's being discovered that's broken, being discovered by an audience who will truly appreciate what you've created. The hard part is slicing the gaming landscape, and individuals' different experiences of the same game, to such depth that a Pandora-like algorithm could work effectively -- or relying on independent curation and journalism to step in and highlight the gems among a sea of overwhelming noise. (If anyone wants to hack on the recommendations side of things, let me know!) [1] http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/GregCostikyan/20140324/213784/2014_GDC_Rant_We_Had_a_Good_10_Years_But_the_Walls_are_Closing_In.php http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/GregCostikyan/20140324/213784...
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Google Play Store does do "people who bought this also bought...". It's useful to me in discovering things I want. I'm a little skeptical of that rant you linked. Anyone blaming the audience's "lack of taste" is going to have a hard time of it, in games or music or books or movies or whatever. You just don't get to do that. You have to make things that satisfy you and the audience both. If you don't, that's your failure, not anyone else's.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
eloisant 13y ago
Considering what Steam or Apple provide, I don't think 30% is a rip-off. You get hosting for both your page and downloads, update mechanism, statistics, a DRM that users don't hate, payment mechanism that users trust and already have their credit card registered... All that costs money if you want to do it own your own, and you also get some exposure.

by zanny 13y ago

RKoster 13y ago

Other storefronts... That would be nice if people could make money on those other distribution channels. Unfortunately, they can't, by and large. Most people don't find the effort worth it to even sign up with Amazon, which has a huge addressable market. I have never even seen a sales report with money from fdroid. For devs who are trying to make a living just from games, anything other than Steam, iOS, and for some people, Google Play, is basically irrelevant. Unless you land in a Humble Bundle. As far as the loyal audience, yes, I agree with you on that, even mentioned it in the article. But that's not a living wage for most, and the latest research says that sort of environment is more susceptible to a hit-driven winner-takes-all market. That leads to an ugly place as regards the income levels for the typical dev.

jib 13y ago
Isn't this the same problem that music has though? The vast majority of musicians don't make a huge living from creating their own music. You either do it for the joy of it with the hope of possibly being discovered. Struggling artist etc. With the main difference being that software developers skills are also hugely wanted in other markets, which musician skills normally aren't. On some level, its a question of how you both eat the cookie and have it, right? What independent game developers want is some guarantee of a base income, but also with the option to cash in big if they do make it big. Maybe there is an opportunity there - I'm not sure if a credits organisation is what you're looking for. But maybe something like a self-organised fund that will buy stakes in individual projects, where the stakes are paid out more in a salary style? Semi-organised group of indie-game developers that guarantee a (lowish) living income to all in the group in exchange for a relatively large chunk of any large windfalls to support the future. If games are actually sustainable then something like that feels like it could stand a reasonable chance, right? Assuming you get past a critical size and have some name recognition. Could also move into the same benefit areas that unions do. Essentially something like your own very light-weight union/co-op.

speeder 13y ago

"How about just not selling your soul to soul sucking distributors like Apple" Alright, I have a mobile game company, currently very unprofitable. Also we have our stuff on iTunes, because that is the only way we know to distribute on iPhone and iPad. Tell me sir, a way to distribute to our end users easily, and I will PROMPTLY figure how to do it. (by the way, we are already on Google Play too, and almost any random android store you can think, even ones that net us 1 download per month, even carrier stores at the other side of the planet too).

dmpk2k 13y ago

Just a few years ago Valve was being lauded for giving developers a viable new channel that took a very small slice of the pie (~30%) compared to what had come before (>90%). Plus the indies that have managed to get on have consistently noted that the before & after revenue is like night and day. Not soul-sucking. There are other things to complain about Valve, but 30% for their services is not one of them.

angersock 13y ago
One hardly pines for the days where you'd cut a gold master and hope (hope!) that you could convince users to patch things if there was a bug or try to figure out with how to get a massive number of physical units shipped. Steam has provided a tremendously better experience in all aspects to the old methods of selling and maintaining games.
kevingadd 13y ago
Valve's cut was never smaller compared to competitors. There's a reason why they insisted on all the terms of their deals (and sales numbers) being secret; they are still really brutal about not being able to share contract terms or revenue numbers. Hell, I shipped a fucking game on Steam and I don't know what the % we gave them was (though I could probably figure it out by doing enough math on the sales numbers...) One thing I do know (second-hand information, but from an expert) is that they even demand a huge cut from F2P games, despite the fact that F2P games have their own download, patching and payment infrastructure. They literally charge as much as they can possibly get away with, even when they offer near-zero service. The quality of the services Valve offers for your money is also fairly low. The Steam API breaks constantly (usually because they are haphazard about changes and have near-zero automated or manual testing), is poorly documented, and is infrequently maintained. Valve can and will ship a Steamworks update that breaks a core part of your game, and leave it broken for weeks no matter how often you complain - unless you happen to have the phone number of someone at the company, or send them numerous emails. The APIs that do work are slow and limited. It's better than nothing, certainly, but not so magnificent that it's worth 30%, especially if you compare it with something like GAE or EC2.
- 13y ago

nemothekid 13y ago

Can you give another example other than Minecraft? Saying Minecraft was successful because it was self-distributed is about as useful as saying Zuckerberg is successful because he dropped out of school.

TillE 13y ago
Mount&Blade. Exact same model (reduced price beta, all sales direct), before Minecraft. As with most types of entrepreneurship, the answer is to look for niches rather than chasing massive pop culture success.
- BystanderX 13y ago
  It's almost like people here don't actually play anything but AAA games..

jlees 13y ago

I mean you have an (open) product, put it out there, advertise it however you want (personally or outsourced) and hope that those that experience it think its worth continued funding. It sounds so easy in theory, doesn't it? Getting a game in front of people who enjoy it enough to give you money is hard. Very hard. Raph's ideas from 2006 around direct relationships and celebrity are still very much on target today -- that's how most successful creators seem to manage it, beyond the randomness of viral outbreaks. (I count entering/winning the IGF as a form of celebrity.) Beyond that, advertising it is a spray-and-pray that will likely suck up more of your money than you'll ever make, and net you a bunch of high-churn players who don't give a toss about what you've created. Not every game has an obvious niche audience to go after, not every creator welcomes or invites celebrity, and sometimes the weirdest, most un-game-like things hit a nerve nobody was expecting. My mind keeps circling back to the 'people who bought x also liked..' problem, as mentioned by Greg Costikyan [1]. Discovery is broken, and so on, but it's not discovery - as in players actively seeking out games - I open any store on any platform and I'm inundated with choices. It's being discovered that's broken, being discovered by an audience who will truly appreciate what you've created. The hard part is slicing the gaming landscape, and individuals' different experiences of the same game, to such depth that a Pandora-like algorithm could work effectively -- or relying on independent curation and journalism to step in and highlight the gems among a sea of overwhelming noise. (If anyone wants to hack on the recommendations side of things, let me know!) [1] http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/GregCostikyan/20140324/213784/2014_GDC_Rant_We_Had_a_Good_10_Years_But_the_Walls_are_Closing_In.php http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/GregCostikyan/20140324/213784...

waterlesscloud 13y ago
Google Play Store does do "people who bought this also bought...". It's useful to me in discovering things I want. I'm a little skeptical of that rant you linked. Anyone blaming the audience's "lack of taste" is going to have a hard time of it, in games or music or books or movies or whatever. You just don't get to do that. You have to make things that satisfy you and the audience both. If you don't, that's your failure, not anyone else's.
- kevingadd 13y ago

eloisant 13y ago

Considering what Steam or Apple provide, I don't think 30% is a rip-off. You get hosting for both your page and downloads, update mechanism, statistics, a DRM that users don't hate, payment mechanism that users trust and already have their credit card registered... All that costs money if you want to do it own your own, and you also get some exposure.