Quote:

Original post by kingy Lower barriers to entry (just see how the industry reacts to young, enthusiastic games designers in another thread - its border line hostile) and people who's focus is not just get rich quick.

The games industry doesn't really have all that high of a bar for entry. It does however, like any other industry, have varying levels of playing fields. Expecting to compete with an EA studio with a 100+ employees and a huge budget as an indie developer is just plain nonsensical. It isn't that hard to get a job in the industry as a game designer, but it is hard to get up to the point of being the Creative Director of an established and lucrative studio.

edit: Sandman is not way off the mark. I don't remember the figure, but it is something like 1 in 6 commercial titles are actually profitable. Every publisher has to hope for that one title that sells well to make up for all of the ones that don't.

Quote:

Original post by Sandman Loss leaders are sold at a loss, but they are not designed to lose money.

Six of one, a half-dozen of another. The suggestion is without merit because it's not how the gaming industry works. Sorry.

Quote:

Please indicate where I suggested that Call of Duty 4 was intended as a loss leader.

You didn't. I'm giving you an example.

Quote:

I have no data on how many actual games - if any - are developed as loss leaders, and nor have I claimed to. I was merely pointing out a strategy where taking losses on a product can be desirable for improving profits, and pointing out that the games industry is fully aware of this strategy, and has employed it in some areas of business.

It has not. Other than console sales, a loss-leader strategy has never been used as a successful model in gaming software. Ever. You can't point to data or examples because there are none, which makes me wonder why you would even labor this point. But then again, that's what most outsiders on this board seem to be doing. They pick a ball that they think is pretty and they just run with it, aggressively even. Meanwhile they're blatantly wrong.

Quote:

So which part of what I said is wrong?

Everything. You said so much that is just painfully wrong.

I'm glad to see that there are hopeful, passionate, and enthusiastic people here, but when you're not in the business of game development or publishing, it may be a good idea to speak with less aggression and authority. Because most often you're very, very far off the mark.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid Quote: Original post by QuantifyFun I support your passion. My thoughts... If you won't even be able to support your own living expenses, than you're not really creating a business plan. What you're doing is plotting your move into your grandma's basement and mooching off of her while you try and build a business that may eventually be attractive to others (only if it makes money and gets you out of your grandma's basement). Business plans are typically used to generate investment capital and if you're not making money for yourself it means you're not making money for anyone else either, and no Angel Investor or anybody else with risk capital is going to put money into a venture like that. Think it through. You'll only ever be in a position to support a full-time business if you make money. What exactly are you doing that means you don't expect to make money, and how do you expect that to change after one or more games? Heh. The mooching off relatives by moving into their house might be a bit apt at the moment (just moved interstate, needed a place to stay). [grin] My business plan is for my own benefit rather than as a tool to attract investment, but that's because I'm planning to operate out of my own pocket. I can work on this part-time while I work other jobs to pay the bills, or I can dip into the capital I've saved up over the last few years - I live very frugally and my indie plan will work on a shoestring budget, so I can survive off my own resources for year or two. Moving back on topic: I'm planning my first year to be the startup phase, and as such I'm expecting to lose money while things get established. All the data I've seen suggests that even the most organised indies don't make a profit (read: pay for the time to make the game) on their first game. You've got to build market awareness so they know you exist, and you'll be making some unforeseeable mistakes that you can't avoid until you've dipped your toes in the water. I'm thus budgeting for the likelihood that my first few games won't make many sales. This won't be a business failure if I've planned for them to lead to games that do make enough sales in the future. In a sense, the first games are indeed aiming to make money - but not necessarily through the sales figures associated with their name. It should be fine if I plan my time and resources so I don't spend them all on the likely-to-sell-poorly first game. To sum up - the business plans to make money, but not necessarily through each individual game.

There are barriers of entry to every market. The fact that people can now make small indie games and get them on an iPhone or on XBLA is awesome, but that marketplace is going to see some serious competition as it grows, and you need to be prepared for that.

Example: when there are 100 free-to-play micro-transaction-based MMOs out there, which one will you play? Probably the one that's go the best review scores and that you actually know about (i.e. the most heavily marketed). What that means is that eventually you're going to be competing against EA or Activision for consumer dollars, and they're going to (at least) have the resources to make better games, spend 10X more than you making them, and they will market their games into oblivion.

I'm not trying to discourage you at all! Instead, what I'm trying to do is give you just a bit of advice by suggesting that even the indie or casual or small games markets are very quickly becoming hit-driven, and so unless you're planning on playing with the big boys, it's going to be difficult for you to drive this as a business, even in the long-term. You might create some awareness with a few good games, but they are going to create a whole lot more, and the one drawback to digital distribution is that there is no shelf-life, so your games will always be in competition with theirs. A consumer is always going to have to make a choice between your game and theirs when they decide they have some money they want to spend.

At least think about that :-)

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun There are barriers of entry to every market. The fact that people can now make small indie games and get them on an iPhone or on XBLA is awesome, but that marketplace is going to see some serious competition as it grows, and you need to be prepared for that. Example: when there are 100 free-to-play micro-transaction-based MMOs out there, which one will you play? Probably the one that's go the best review scores and that you actually know about (i.e. the most heavily marketed). What that means is that eventually you're going to be competing against EA or Activision for consumer dollars, and they're going to (at least) have the resources to make better games, spend 10X more than you making them, and they will market their games into oblivion. I'm not trying to discourage you at all! Instead, what I'm trying to do is give you just a bit of advice by suggesting that even the indie or casual or small games markets are very quickly becoming hit-driven, and so unless you're planning on playing with the big boys, it's going to be difficult for you to drive this as a business, even in the long-term. You might create some awareness with a few good games, but they are going to create a whole lot more, and the one drawback to digital distribution is that there is no shelf-life, so your games will always be in competition with theirs. A consumer is always going to have to make a choice between your game and theirs when they decide they have some money they want to spend. At least think about that :-)

We might be moving a bit off-topic (what was the topic again? [smile]), but I'd say this has been true for a while. There's always been the mainstream going for the lionshare of the market, and even in the casual arena there's Popcap and the portals to compete with. The casual scene has always been hit driven.

I've still got some work to do on my marketing plan before it's all systems go in 2009, but I think the strategy I've got planned has a decent shot at working. It does however involve significant amount of free content which ties somewhat into the loss-leader discussion [wink]. And if it doesn't, I'll have an exit strategy prepared and I'll chalk it up as a learning experience.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid Quote: Original post by QuantifyFun There are barriers of entry to every market. The fact that people can now make small indie games and get them on an iPhone or on XBLA is awesome, but that marketplace is going to see some serious competition as it grows, and you need to be prepared for that. Example: when there are 100 free-to-play micro-transaction-based MMOs out there, which one will you play? Probably the one that's go the best review scores and that you actually know about (i.e. the most heavily marketed). What that means is that eventually you're going to be competing against EA or Activision for consumer dollars, and they're going to (at least) have the resources to make better games, spend 10X more than you making them, and they will market their games into oblivion. I'm not trying to discourage you at all! Instead, what I'm trying to do is give you just a bit of advice by suggesting that even the indie or casual or small games markets are very quickly becoming hit-driven, and so unless you're planning on playing with the big boys, it's going to be difficult for you to drive this as a business, even in the long-term. You might create some awareness with a few good games, but they are going to create a whole lot more, and the one drawback to digital distribution is that there is no shelf-life, so your games will always be in competition with theirs. A consumer is always going to have to make a choice between your game and theirs when they decide they have some money they want to spend. At least think about that :-) We might be moving a bit off-topic (what was the topic again? [smile]), but I'd say this has been true for a while. There's always been the mainstream going for the lionshare of the market, and even in the casual arena there's Popcap and the portals to compete with. The casual scene has always been hit driven. I've still got some work to do on my marketing plan before it's all systems go in 2009, but I think the strategy I've got planned has a decent shot at working. It does however involve significant amount of free content which ties somewhat into the loss-leader discussion [wink]. And if it doesn't, I'll have an exit strategy prepared and I'll chalk it up as a learning experience.

Best of luck! :-)

At least you're -doing something-, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for many of the would-be designers out there that refuse to mod because "it be too hardz".

Quote:

Original post by kingy I commend that attitude. This is what we need. Lower barriers to entry (just see how the industry reacts to young, enthusiastic games designers in another thread - its border line hostile) and people who's focus is not just get rich quick. Cos those same people do not really care if the industry fails as there will be another one they can put their money into if it does.

You fail.

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun Best of luck! :-)

Thanks, I'll probably need all that I can get [smile].

And at its core, we're probably arguing similar things. Since my goal is to become self-employed doing work that I love, while I am preferring to work on projects I believe in I am framing this as a business which does ultimately boil down to money and the realities of the market.

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun You don't make games for a living -currently-, which kind of precludes you from speaking to this point.

My point was that some people may in fact make games for a loss, simply because they love to do it. If I was wealthy beyond the need of a job, I wouldn't give it a second thought. Giving my products away for free would just mean more people get to experience them.

As a creative developer, that's what it's all about. Evoking something in the masses. Getting a rush out of enriching the experience of so many people. Building your own universe to let thousands of people explore it. How does money even compare to that?

Quote:

The point is simply that we need to pay the bills and that involves turning a profit. Period.

Well, I would agree with that. But that's not how your original statement ("It's all about making money") made it sound. It's not all about making money. At least not for everyone.

For one thing, there are easier ways to make money, if that was the long term goal. Game development is extremely complex and involving. You're likely to put far more "work" into it than you would any normal job, to get the same cash results. But for those of us who don't consider it work at all, it's a pretty nice career choice.

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun It has not. Other than console sales, a loss-leader strategy has never been used as a successful model in gaming software. Ever.

Perhaps not; but there certainly have been business models that follow a relatively similar principle. You've already brought up Battlefield Heroes' microtransaction model; at the end of the day, isn't the client software essentially a loss leader for the DLC?

Quote:

Quote: So which part of what I said is wrong? Everything. You said so much that is just painfully wrong.

I'd like you to quote an example.

Do it the easy way, make a movie and have a bunch of Devs come to you.