"Indiependence Day" - the Anti-Sale
Jul. 3rd, 2015 02:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
owsf2000Um. I don't mind mind devs doing this so long as they don't whine about how they don't actually make any money.
I mean seriously, these large sales they seem to be whining about are the exact things that even put them in a spotlight to begin with. I looked over the list of games that will have "0% off" and I recognized all of maybe 1 or 2 of them. And how did I recognize them? By the devs putting themselves into the humble bundle and other such steam sales. If they didn't do that, they'd STILL have none of my money. (World of Goo is the main one I remember, and I in fact have it from a humble bundle iirc - however even after all this time I've yet to actually play it. Gratz to them for managing to get a little bit of my money despite me not actually playing their game. I can see why they'd be upset.)
Indiependence Day is a response of sorts to the deep-discount game sales that we all take for granted, and that are especially prevalent among indie games. "Players have been conditioned, through bundles and mega-sales, not to pay full price," the site states. "And although money isn’t the primary motivating factor for a lot of us, if the dynamics of the industry don’t change, indie games will become an unsustainable model. Indie games have been such a source of creativity and originality over the last 10 years, and we want to keep them going!"
Complete horseshit imo. Indie games are sustainable. If you budget yourself like a AAA title (all of which need a serious crash course in budgeting) then you'll have only yourself to blame.
You want to know why people are getting conditioned to only buy on sale? It's because most games released these days are overpriced, underdeveloped, unfinished, and often bugridden and chopped up. Why would anyone want to take a risk on an indie game at full price when you have 0% assurance for proper QA being done (or really any QA being done at all.) when even the big name publishers can't deliver a quality game anymore after pouring 200 million into themarketing hype depar development team.
And trust us, we're actually pretty cool about potential QA fuckups from indie groups. Many are small and it'd be stupid to realistically expect them to have the resources to catch most things pre-release. But that doesn't mean we should be expected to pay more than we feel comfortable paying, so if you're asking too much expect to lose some sales until you lower the price tag to what the market expects.
"Help stop the race to the bottom." hah. Nobody's telling you to drop your prices to a buck or less, you're doing it on your own just to get that extra sale. You want to stop the race, stop putting your shit on sale. Just don't whine when nobody buys it.
*addition*
I'm reading over the comments in the article and it seems a lot are saying similar things, although I can't say I agree with the tone used by some of them. I'm not sure what the point is of trying to call indie devs "hipsters" and other such things. They're bent out of shape that they can't sell their crap without putting it on a drastic sale, I can see that. But I don't understand this "hipster" thing - I can only assume the people parroting it in the comments are 12.
And I'm glad to see at least ONE person had the balls to comment on the "Last Supper" image used on the Indiependence Day site. It's pretty much all Nintendo and Capcom characters. What the fuck is indie about that? "Implying that indie games isn't already unsustainable as a livelihood; they've been inspiring for TEN years?; that last supper image of AAA game characters; featuring World of Goo, a game that's already made zillions for it's dev... my cringe, it is strong."
Another comment brings up that the AAA publishers also brought up this exact same argument years ago. I remember reading it back then and thought it was just whines from big business wanting more money. And I pretty much still think that, especially as prices continue to spiral up and DLC continues to blossom from the branches.
*addition 2*
I really seem to be ranting on this don't I. That's because I am. Anyway, a little more digging turned up their source for the indie devs making less than 12k/year figure. It's from Gamasutra's review over here. Notice however it says SOLO Indie devs. (1 person projects) are the ones that went down to less than 12k/year. This is also the LARGEST group, consisting mainly of hobbyists, and they're the the group that's going to produce fewer games and likely less polished games. By contrast, members of an indie team (Which I suspect many of the games in the list are..) "fared better than solos, earning an average of $50,833, up 161 percent from 2012’s $19,487."
Fuck, I'd love to earn 50k/year. Why did the Indiependence Day site neglect this information? :P The indie TEAMS are the ones that are trying to make it as a business, and it's looking like they're doing fairly well for themselves.
Gamesutra's review also shows that most indie groups apparently avoid crowdfunding options (Their fault) and many did not attempt to find ways to obtain additional revenue outside of the game sales themselves (Again their fault. This doesn't necessarily mean in-game DLC mind you. Soundtracks, artbooks, promotions, t-shirts, etc can all bring in extra revenue if they actually gave a shit.).
"Fifty-seven percent of indie game developers (including both solo indies and members of indie teams across all pay ranges) made under $500 in game sales. On the other end of the spectrum, 2 percent made over $200,000 in game sales." - This should be expected. You have insane levels of competition crawling out from every rock. The amount of money people have to spend doesn't increase simply because the number of games available to buy increases. This is why you're putting your game on sale in the first place, because it's the only way you're going to have a chance at being seen in the crowd.
And no, I don't take that as meaning we should restrict people's ability to release a game by requiring some kind of authorization process to "weed out the crap". That's what the free market is for.
Yeah, I think that's the last I'm going to say about this. Probably, maybe.
I mean seriously, these large sales they seem to be whining about are the exact things that even put them in a spotlight to begin with. I looked over the list of games that will have "0% off" and I recognized all of maybe 1 or 2 of them. And how did I recognize them? By the devs putting themselves into the humble bundle and other such steam sales. If they didn't do that, they'd STILL have none of my money. (World of Goo is the main one I remember, and I in fact have it from a humble bundle iirc - however even after all this time I've yet to actually play it. Gratz to them for managing to get a little bit of my money despite me not actually playing their game. I can see why they'd be upset.)
Indiependence Day is a response of sorts to the deep-discount game sales that we all take for granted, and that are especially prevalent among indie games. "Players have been conditioned, through bundles and mega-sales, not to pay full price," the site states. "And although money isn’t the primary motivating factor for a lot of us, if the dynamics of the industry don’t change, indie games will become an unsustainable model. Indie games have been such a source of creativity and originality over the last 10 years, and we want to keep them going!"
Complete horseshit imo. Indie games are sustainable. If you budget yourself like a AAA title (all of which need a serious crash course in budgeting) then you'll have only yourself to blame.
You want to know why people are getting conditioned to only buy on sale? It's because most games released these days are overpriced, underdeveloped, unfinished, and often bugridden and chopped up. Why would anyone want to take a risk on an indie game at full price when you have 0% assurance for proper QA being done (or really any QA being done at all.) when even the big name publishers can't deliver a quality game anymore after pouring 200 million into the
And trust us, we're actually pretty cool about potential QA fuckups from indie groups. Many are small and it'd be stupid to realistically expect them to have the resources to catch most things pre-release. But that doesn't mean we should be expected to pay more than we feel comfortable paying, so if you're asking too much expect to lose some sales until you lower the price tag to what the market expects.
"Help stop the race to the bottom." hah. Nobody's telling you to drop your prices to a buck or less, you're doing it on your own just to get that extra sale. You want to stop the race, stop putting your shit on sale. Just don't whine when nobody buys it.
*addition*
I'm reading over the comments in the article and it seems a lot are saying similar things, although I can't say I agree with the tone used by some of them. I'm not sure what the point is of trying to call indie devs "hipsters" and other such things. They're bent out of shape that they can't sell their crap without putting it on a drastic sale, I can see that. But I don't understand this "hipster" thing - I can only assume the people parroting it in the comments are 12.
And I'm glad to see at least ONE person had the balls to comment on the "Last Supper" image used on the Indiependence Day site. It's pretty much all Nintendo and Capcom characters. What the fuck is indie about that? "Implying that indie games isn't already unsustainable as a livelihood; they've been inspiring for TEN years?; that last supper image of AAA game characters; featuring World of Goo, a game that's already made zillions for it's dev... my cringe, it is strong."
Another comment brings up that the AAA publishers also brought up this exact same argument years ago. I remember reading it back then and thought it was just whines from big business wanting more money. And I pretty much still think that, especially as prices continue to spiral up and DLC continues to blossom from the branches.
*addition 2*
I really seem to be ranting on this don't I. That's because I am. Anyway, a little more digging turned up their source for the indie devs making less than 12k/year figure. It's from Gamasutra's review over here. Notice however it says SOLO Indie devs. (1 person projects) are the ones that went down to less than 12k/year. This is also the LARGEST group, consisting mainly of hobbyists, and they're the the group that's going to produce fewer games and likely less polished games. By contrast, members of an indie team (Which I suspect many of the games in the list are..) "fared better than solos, earning an average of $50,833, up 161 percent from 2012’s $19,487."
Fuck, I'd love to earn 50k/year. Why did the Indiependence Day site neglect this information? :P The indie TEAMS are the ones that are trying to make it as a business, and it's looking like they're doing fairly well for themselves.
Gamesutra's review also shows that most indie groups apparently avoid crowdfunding options (Their fault) and many did not attempt to find ways to obtain additional revenue outside of the game sales themselves (Again their fault. This doesn't necessarily mean in-game DLC mind you. Soundtracks, artbooks, promotions, t-shirts, etc can all bring in extra revenue if they actually gave a shit.).
"Fifty-seven percent of indie game developers (including both solo indies and members of indie teams across all pay ranges) made under $500 in game sales. On the other end of the spectrum, 2 percent made over $200,000 in game sales." - This should be expected. You have insane levels of competition crawling out from every rock. The amount of money people have to spend doesn't increase simply because the number of games available to buy increases. This is why you're putting your game on sale in the first place, because it's the only way you're going to have a chance at being seen in the crowd.
And no, I don't take that as meaning we should restrict people's ability to release a game by requiring some kind of authorization process to "weed out the crap". That's what the free market is for.
Yeah, I think that's the last I'm going to say about this. Probably, maybe.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 06:07 pm (UTC)I looked down the list of games as well, and I will list here the ones that I've heard of:
- Axiom Verge. I've heard it's pretty cool (http://cinemassacre.com/2015/04/11/axiom-verge-ps4-mike-ryan/), but I haven't bought it yet because I've been waiting on a price drop.
- World of Goo. Got it for cheap during one of the first Humble Bundles I ever bought. Never finished it. Glad I didn't pay full price for it. ...though, now that I think back on it, I think I did buy this on WiiWare when it actually first came out as well, probably at full price, and I kind of regret doing that now, for multiple reasons. Steam tells me that I apparently haven't even touched the PC version at all, as of yet.
- Little Inferno. Got it, I'm pretty sure, during another Humble Bundle. Actually finished this one, and it's cool for what it is. Still glad I didn't pay the full price for it, though.
- And Yet It Moves. Got it during one of the early Humble Bundles, I think. I've played it for a grand total of 3 minutes, according to Steam. I couldn't tell you the first thing about what the game actually is, not without first cheating and looking up info on it.
- Boot Hill Heroes. Saw this one mentioned on Steam at one point, probably via a release notification email or something, and I put it on my Steam wishlist, but haven't bought it yet, because the (at the time) full price was still too rich for my blood. The current full price of $8.99 is getting relatively close to what I'd be willing to pay normally, though, even without a sale.
- The Path. First game I ever bought on Steam (for full price, mind you, which I'm pretty sure was actually higher then than what they're asking as full price now). I think it's a pretty (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/247809.html) cool (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/248110.html) game (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/249033.html).
- Universe Sandbox^2. Bought the original "game" on Steam for $2.73, messed with it for 23 minutes according to Steam, haven't touched it since, and sure as shit am not buying this sequel or whatever it is for goddamn $25.
- Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty. Uh, this counts as an indie game? Huh? I have the original Oddworld games that I bought for cheap on GOG, but haven't played them yet, and won't be getting this new one until at least after I someday break down and play the old ones, which may or may not ever actually happen.
- Defender's Quest: Valley of the Forgotten. Got this one for $5.57, because it was on sale on Steam one day and I thought it looked interesting, and it is, if you like tower defense games. I've beaten it at least twice. I might have been willing to pay a bit more for it if I'd known it would be as interesting as it was, but definitely not the $15 they're asking now.
- Bit.Trip Runner 2 or whatever the hell it's called. I got the original during yet another Humble Bundle. Haven't touched it yet. Won't be buying the sequel, at least not at the $15 they're asking now.
So, yeah, out of all the games in that "anti-sale," the ones above are the only ones I'd ever heard of beforehand, and out of those there is only one (maybe two if I'm remembering correctly on World of Goo) that I bought at full price when it first released, and the rest I only heard about at all due to Humble Bundles or Steam sales.(Splitting into two comments for length, because LJ arbitrarily disallows comments longer than 4300 characters, for whatever asinine reason.)
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 06:08 pm (UTC)I have to ask, would these devs rather I buy their games on a sale, or would they rather that I simply not buy their fucking games at all? Because 99.999% of the time, it's going to be either one or the other of those two scenarios. In one case, they make money from me, even if it may not be as much as they'd like. In the other case, they make no money from me at all whatsoever. In most cases, if the game never goes on sale or otherwise never sees a price drop, then I never buy it. It really is that simple. If they don't like that, then tough fucking shit, and whining about it like this certainly isn't going to make me think favorably about them or their games the next time I do see it on sale, as there are plenty of games I don't buy even if they're marked down to just a dollar or two or whatever.
If they can convince other people to buy their games at full price with this lame gimmick, then yeah, sure, whatever, good for them and more power to them and all that, but I personally didn't see a single game on there, aside from the ones I already own or which I already had on my Steam/GOG wishlist beforehand, that I give a single, solitary shit about, not even just to put on my wishlist in hopes of a later sale. If I do happen to see them later during a Steam sale or something, then maybe I'd give them the time of day at that point, but until that time, they can fuck off with their needy, greedy, "woe is me" horseshit.
And yeah, as you noted, these guys definitely aren't (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/579520.html) the (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/592787.html) first (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/593647.html) to bring up this vacuous argument that these sales somehow hurt the industry. Seriously, the day that Steam and GOG stop offering these big 50%-75% off sales on games, for whatever reason, will be the day that I simply stop buying games at all, period. And I'm sure I won't be the only one. We'll just have to see how much that "hurts the industry."
I also fully agree with you about the lack of a need for quality controls or whatever to weed out shitty games, like some have called for (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/760895.html). I've gotten burned on buying shitty, broken games (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/702725.html) in the past, but it was my own fault, and I don't blame Steam for making it available for me to buy. Typically these days, though, I don't buy shit at all, even the stuff that might be on sale for a dollar or two, without first looking up reviews (both "professional" and "user-based") and also looking at gameplay videos and such on Youtube and whatnot. If, after all that, the game still looks interesting and not obviously broken, then maybe I'll give it my money. The only things I'd want to have weeded out are the outright scams that occasionally show up on Steam and whatnot, but then those usually are fairly quickly removed from sale and the buyers who got suckered refunded their money. Usually.
(Lastly, I have never understood the whole "hipster" thing (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/526859.html) either, and I agree with your assessment of those who use it. It is a word that by this point has apparently lost any and all meaning as far as I can tell, except as a vague, generic, all-purpose insult.)