4 ms·

This is a really excellent point, doubly so when three of the bullet points in the article about what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the

This is a really excellent point, doubly so when three of the bullet points in the article about what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself (namely, hire a PR firm, take out a pricy internet ad, hire an image consultant). Advertising your game is great and all (although I seriously question if their PR/ad markets were well researched before their money was spent, because their ROR on those dollars was essentially nil) but you HAVE TO have a good game in the first place or else no one is going to want to play it. After reading the article it seems like they were more interested in going around saying "hey we made this game and we really really want you to pay us money and play it!" instead of making a kick-ass game in the first place.

Udo 11y ago
> what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself There are genres where this could and does work, but not in the niche Sunset is playing in. > although I seriously question if their PR/ad markets were well researched before their money was spent I agree, and it's an easy trap to fall into for anyone. Spending money in all the wrong places is always a danger, and the problem is that the people you are paying of course won't tell you even if they know you're making a mistake. > instead of making a kick-ass game in the first place I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is. Development shops and teams of all sizes can exhibit work dynamics where problem areas get ignored and sub-par stuff is getting churned out. In a big company this might be due to politics and power structures. In small shops this might be because you don't want to disappoint a close friend. Somebody at that company should have said "this is a good idea, and a promising prototype, now let's get back to the drawing board and keep iterating". In retrospect I don't get the bitterness expressed in the article. It's not like they lack talent, and it's not like they're drastically under-appreciated for unknowable reasons. Those would be reasons to quit. But not this. This is something you can learn from and improve on.
- angelbob 11y ago
  What I took from the article was that this just isn't going to make enough money for them to deal with it. Iterating gets expensive, fast. And apparently they're not making back the money they put in. I think that's fair. There's a limit to how much you should have to spend to entertain other people if they're not (collectively, after expenses) paying you.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is Behind every terrible work of art is a creator insisting that it's brilliant. Artists love their art the way parents love their children. That means they're not really reliable judges of its quality, so a key to success for them is finding people who can be objective, and learning to listen to them.

Udo 11y ago

> what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself There are genres where this could and does work, but not in the niche Sunset is playing in. > although I seriously question if their PR/ad markets were well researched before their money was spent I agree, and it's an easy trap to fall into for anyone. Spending money in all the wrong places is always a danger, and the problem is that the people you are paying of course won't tell you even if they know you're making a mistake. > instead of making a kick-ass game in the first place I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is. Development shops and teams of all sizes can exhibit work dynamics where problem areas get ignored and sub-par stuff is getting churned out. In a big company this might be due to politics and power structures. In small shops this might be because you don't want to disappoint a close friend. Somebody at that company should have said "this is a good idea, and a promising prototype, now let's get back to the drawing board and keep iterating". In retrospect I don't get the bitterness expressed in the article. It's not like they lack talent, and it's not like they're drastically under-appreciated for unknowable reasons. Those would be reasons to quit. But not this. This is something you can learn from and improve on.

angelbob 11y ago
What I took from the article was that this just isn't going to make enough money for them to deal with it. Iterating gets expensive, fast. And apparently they're not making back the money they put in. I think that's fair. There's a limit to how much you should have to spend to entertain other people if they're not (collectively, after expenses) paying you.
smacktoward 11y ago
> I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is Behind every terrible work of art is a creator insisting that it's brilliant. Artists love their art the way parents love their children. That means they're not really reliable judges of its quality, so a key to success for them is finding people who can be objective, and learning to listen to them.