Tom Sloper said:
None of us can predict how any individual of varying tastes and industry knowledge will react to a gorgeous demo with crappy audio.

No, but I'm hoping that there's a generality to be had there. Much as one might say in general (if I'm not much mistaken) that it's important to include a budget in one's pitch: this may not be true in absolutely all cases, but it might nevertheless be a reasonable guideline.

But if not, then fair enough!

I take it, then, that you disagree with Frob's suggestion that one can say that “good publishers” are likely to recognise that audio can be swapped out, and that I am, after all, seeking development resources?

Tom Sloper said:
Make your placeholder audio be non-crappy.

You say that as though it's easy! XD;

As I said, audio is not my strong suit. Further, I'm finding it rather difficult to discover royalty-free audio that fits my project.

Hiring someone would likely solve the problem--but it looks like that's likely to be expensive, and, well, funding is one of the reasons that I'm looking for a publisher during development.

Now, if a lack of high-quality audio in my pitch-demo is very likely to result in my not finding a publisher, then it might be worth expending the resources--whether in taking significantly more time to either make or find audio myself, or in taking the chance of spending that much money. But if such a lack isn't likely to cost me a publisher, then doing so would seem unwise.

Hence my looking for advice here!

Tom Sloper said:
In general, you can use the term “vertical slice” and then describe it with the kind of detail you did above, and nobody can say your use of the term is bogus.

…

Okay, that's rather reassuring--thank you for that! ^_^

So, noting to myself: Be explicit and clear about the nature of the pitch-demo!

Thaumaturge said:
No, but I'm hoping that there's a generality to be had there.

In general, no audio at all is better than crappy placeholder audio.

Thaumaturge said:
I take it, then, that you disagree with Frob's suggestion that one can say that “good publishers” are likely to recognise that audio can be swapped out, and that I am, after all, seeking development resources?

In general, good publishers are unlikely to review your submission at all. But no, while I can argue semantics with frob, I don't disagree on this point. Imagining myself in the scenario, I go “wow, that audio is really crappy, just like Mr. Thaumaturge said in his submission letter. He could have just left out the audio rather than assault our ears. In fact, why don't I just mute the speakers while we watch the rest. Gee, this is great, it looks great, it plays great, it's what our customers are looking for so it works with our product line, we should fund it."

That wasn't easy to imagine, but I managed it!

Thaumaturge said:
if a lack of high-quality audio in my pitch-demo is very likely to result in my not finding a publisher

Stop. Just stop. This train of thought is off the tracks, flying through nevernever land. If you can't make non-crappy audio, don't make any audio at all. And add a line or a sentence about lack of audio in the proposal or written pitch or whatever you're sending along with the demo itself. (To this imaginary publisher who will receive your submission.)

I just know I'm going to regret this, but I'm clicking the Post button now so I can get on with my morning.

Tom Sloper said:
In general, no audio at all is better than crappy placeholder audio.

Ah, interesting, and unexpected. Thank you for that!

I suppose that this does leave me still a little uncertain about audio that lies between “utterly horrifying” and “actually decent”, I will confess. But I get the impression that you mean to include that too, which is the assumption that I'm going to go on for now, I think.

Tom Sloper said:
In general, good publishers are unlikely to review your submission at all.

Really? Why so?

(My last pitch seemed to get at least some eyes from various publishers, as I recall. It was, admittedly, further along in production, but you seem to be suggesting that publishers aren't likely to look far enough to find out even that much.)

Bearing in mind, I should note, that I'm talking about good indie publishers, not good AAA publishers--that's a distinction that I don't think that I've been clear on, with my apologies!

Tom Sloper said:
Stop. Just stop. This train of thought is off the tracks, flying through nevernever land. If you can't make non-crappy audio, don't make any audio at all. And add a line or a sentence about lack of audio in the proposal or written pitch or whatever you're sending along with the demo itself.

Ah, that's useful information to know--thank you!

Tom Sloper said:
I just know I'm going to regret this, but I'm clicking the Post button now so I can get on with my morning.

I'm… (Genuinely) sorry to read that you're finding this discussion so untoward. :/

If you prefer to step away from it, then that would be fair.

Thaumaturge said:
I should note, that I'm talking about good indie publishers, not good AAA publishers

Okay then! Then I don't need to give you the link to my FAQs about mainstream publishers' reluctance to receive outside submissions at all (FAQs 1, 11, and 21 at https://sloperama.com/advice/)

The whole deal about finding and working with publishers is knowing what you want from them, and what they can provide.

It seems many people usually think of the publisher that fronts them a pile of cash so they can work on the game, then pays for the costs of marketing (which can be significant, often as much or more than development costs), manages all the distribution, and the payment processing, and the returns, etc. While this type of thing exists, it also isn't that great for the developer. The contracts are skewed heavily in the favor of the publisher because they are taking the brunt of the financial risk.

If you're bringing a completed game to a publisher and asking them only for distribution and marketing, which can mean a half-million dollars or more (sometimes much more) on marketing, that is less financial risk for the publisher. They'll still take their cut and recover their investment plus aim to make a profit, but the contracts can be more rewarding to the developer.

There are some predatory publishers out there, where they get a contract for revenue but aren't actually bound to do anything more than post the game buried on a website. Beware of those, and a good lawyer can help you find and avoid those contracts.

And on the farthest extreme, a model more common back a couple decades ago, the publisher wasn't paid on commission but paid directly by the studio. Go back a couple decades and this was the norm, when you went to a store to buy boxed games in the ‘80s and ’90s the “self published” games the studios paid a small fortune to publishing companies to get in store shelves. Before being bought up, companies like Westwood and Maxis and Trilobite and many others would pay most or all of the costs to get their published products out, so the contracts were mostly for the costs of the publisher to do the work and not for publishers to recover money.

The more you want from a publisher, the more funding, the more they pay for marketing, the more they pay for distribution, they more they pay for payment processing, and on and on, the more those costs increase the worse your deal will be and the less likely you'll get it.

In any event, you want your pitch to be the best it can possibly be. If you know something is bad you really should fix it before you submit it. If you have something you know is good but will need to be swapped out, call out that you understand it will be swapped before publishing. I was imagining your audio was something compelling but unlicensed, such as having an epic rock song in a racing game that you don't think you could license but fits well with the game. Publishers know they can swap out audio with something that is licensed. If instead you've got crappy music or sound effects that detract, fix that, replace it with something amazing and call it out as something that needs to be swapped out or licensed.

Tom Sloper said:
Okay then! Then I don't need to give you the link to my FAQs about mainstream publishers' reluctance to receive outside submissions at all (FAQs 1, 11, and 21 at https://sloperama.com/advice/)

Correct! (Although I have read them at some point in the past, if I recall correctly.)

frob said:
The whole deal about finding and working with publishers is knowing what you want from them, and what they can provide.

You do make good points.

And, yeah, if I were in a good position to finish the project entirely by myself, then I would likely only approach a publisher much further down the line. (I don't think that I'm much of a marketer, so I'd likely still want a publisher for that, at least.)

But as it is, I do think that it would be wiser for me to seek more aid--including financial--from an indie publisher. While--as you imply--being careful (and legally-advised) about any contracts offered.

On which note, it might be worth my sharing one piece of advice that I've been given toward submitting to indie publishers, if I recall correctly (and that from someone working at an indie publisher, I think):

Simply put, submit widely, hoping to get multiple offers: the more contracts you have on the table, the better your position to negotiate.

frob said:
In any event, you want your pitch to be the best it can possibly be. If you know something is bad you really should fix it before you submit it.

Hmm… That does seem like fair advice.

frob said:
If instead you've got crappy music or sound effects that detract, fix that, replace it with something amazing and call it out as something that needs to be swapped out or licensed.

So, better sound-effects that are of good quality, but ill-fitting, than sound-effects that are well-fitted but of poor quality? That does make some sense.

Either way, however, I think then that I'll have another look at my finances and reconsider the option of hiring someone to provide sound-effects for the vertical slice, I think…

frob said:
I was imagining your audio was something compelling but unlicensed, such as having an epic rock song in a racing game that you don't think you could license but fits well with the game.

Aaah, I see! That does make sense!

(And that does prompt me to make a mental note to mention in my pitch that the music that I'm using is what I've managed to find royalty-free: fine enough, I do think, but perhaps not always ideal, and perhaps to be swapped out in at least some cases.)

Thank you again for all of your advice! ^_^

No, you want high quality audio that also fits the game.

Call it out as something either needing a license or replacement.

frob said:
No, you want high quality audio that also fits the game.

Of course. However, I'm not sure right now of how feasible that is. :/

(I'm not going to use unlicensed work, I intend. And royalty-free audio, while potentially of good quality, tends to be poorly-fitting (that I've found thus far).)

However, I hear you, and will think on this, I intend.

[edit]

(Come to think of it, even if I were to go with unlicensed sounds, I would presumably still end up in much the same position as I end up in when using royalty-free sounds: with audio that's of good quality, but not fitted to the game.)