![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Indiependence Day" - the Anti-Sale
Jul. 3rd, 2015 02:20 amUm. 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.
