[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by squaresie

Ultimately, the real test is if an original IP can be marketed on the internet to create a high level of brand awareness and be successful purely from that, offering it as download-only to see if the internet is a viable distribution outlet.

This is something I touched on in The Cold Hotspot - part 3:

Marketing today is more than merely sticking ads in gaming magazines and participating in gaming forum discussions. In actuality it's a veritable amalgam of science, research, psychology, creativity, imaginativeness, and sheer guesswork. It's a complex art of persuasion where, emphatically, being educational, conditional, inquisitive, and tangibly pervasive socially, culturally, and even politically can be critical in selling a product.

One of the strongest trends in marketing today is that of building a kind of 'culture' where your product is the epicenter that pulses out signals. In some ways the desirable lifestyle associated with that product seems to be more upfront and center, with the consumer readily tracing the source of that lifestyle back to the product. That would be one way out of many to get them to notice you. It's hard work, I imagine, building an attractive image.

For the 'geek' culture it may not require as much research because they already know ahead of time where to get stuff and where to talk about it (like the latest preview of a game and their favourite gaming forum). But everyone else (especially since you want them to buy your game or whatever, thereby increasing sales and customer base) needs to first be made aware that there is this sort culture of experiencing this kind of game, and that it's to their advantage to get this game. Sometimes word of mouth isn't enough or it doesn't travel as quickly as other kinds of advertising. This 'Video Games Depot' online store had better have an incredibly progressive and cunning marketing team on staff if they want the products to sell.

[squarejawhero]

Exactly. Gametap is a store I'm watching at the moment - a subscription service for games. I don't quite know how it works, or if it'll work, but it's opening with a big Myst V bang.

Most of the bigger advertising campaigns work off of creating "icons" out of their IP, creating very definitive looks which chime in with the game. If a game is going to work through internet distribution, or word of mouth, the look of everything from the game itself down to the way it's advertised has to be carefull co-ordinated. The most successful indie game of recent times uses clear, graphic work and creates almost cultural iconography out of its characters and setting - Darwinia. Everyone who's seen an advert, or a screenshot, can clearly see that its unique look is its hook, and it sells it on how different it is through the games own unique design. It's easy to pinpoint from a consumer point of view, and most of its buzz was based on internet word-of-mouth.

Other, bigger games - or at least, the more successful - also use clear icons to market themselves. The Orange/Black design of Half Life 2 and oddball central character, the Green/Blue of Halo and Master Chief with his individual armour styling, the three green lights of Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell. These games have very definite images that translate well into marketing - and it's complete purposeful.

Anyway, I'm getting completely off track again.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

...Anyway, I'm getting completely off track again.

Actually, you are VERY SPOT on in that you're bringing to the table the importance of visual design as a strategy, one of many, towards convincing consumers that they want a particular game.

We need to remember, however, that as hardcore gamers we already know how to get our games through means other than traditional retail outlets online or offline. I'm particularly interested in how a source like this ''Video Games Depot' would build up a kind of new culture of getting all kinds of games and supporting strong indie work while being non-intimidating to anyone. Geeks already know all the tech shit and what works and what doesn't. Meanwhile there are huge amounts of people out there who might possibly fall madly in love with simply downloading a game and spending a couple hours, several hours over the weekend, playing them, much in the same way as getting movies from Netflix and having a film noir or Hitchcock marathon on a Saturday evening.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Another thing I was thinking is how 'Video Games Depot' could personalize each client's browsing experience, much like how Netflix does it, recommending a new/existing indie title based on past purchases, linking to community chats about a particular game s/he has recently downloaded, even linking to current news on mainstream sites and game-centric sites (for example, 'Myst teaches young students to be creative', etc.).

To build up an even more positive image, news sites like National Public Radio or Salon.com could be sent press packets letting them know of this hip, budding 'culture of alternative indie game sourcing'. Just an idea...

[SoccerDude28]

The beauty of the Video Games Depot as Lynsie elloquently named it, is that we don't need to sell millions of copies or get a huge fanbase to be profitable. We just can rely on our niche to survive, providing them with what they like to play.
Stuff like gametap is still using big budget games (like Myst), which already go through the retail chain and lose 90% of their profitability to the publisher.

I am a big believer that niche can be profitable, and can provide for a good business model like the Video Games Depot.

[squarejawhero]

Heheh, this sounds like it's actually happening, rather than being a forum concept. It's more like a business plan pitch than a discussion!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Frankly I don't like the sound of Video Games Depot. It doesn't seem to fit the zeitgeist of the times in terms of how the world perceives interactive entertainment, and it sounds too generic, like Office Depot or something. We need a name with a huge powerful impact.

But anyway, Soccsie, realistically it may be necessary to include commercial big name titles to help keep the store in business. Its strongest feature, however, would be its reputation for supporting indie talent and its commitment to sustaining this culture of indie games support worldwide.

As far as pimping the store to non-geeks, I can visualize a 30 second commercial on The Discovery Channel or something. A loving mom tucks her little boy and girl in bed and kisses them good night. Moments later the kids get up and sneak their way into the den to spy on her, and see that she's downloading and then playing a game of Bone on the PC with a cup of hot tea. Then the little girl begins to yawn and her older brother smiles and takes her up back to bed. The caption at the end shows the .com address of the store.

[SoccerDude28]

If only I had the money

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

If a game is going to work through internet distribution, or word of mouth, the look of everything from the game itself down to the way it's advertised has to be carefull co-ordinated. The most successful indie game of recent times uses clear, graphic work and creates almost cultural iconography out of its characters and setting - Darwinia. Everyone who's seen an advert, or a screenshot, can clearly see that its unique look is its hook, and it sells it on how different it is through the games own unique design.

I believe that's the wrong attitude. If we concentrate on image and icons, we won't really move that far from where we are now. Gamers know that what matters is gameplay, and those that don't should be educated, that should be the main selling point. Otherwise games would remain slaves to image and marketing. Many books have beautifully designed covers that may boost sales a little, but they advertise and sell mostly by what's inside.

Btw, Darwinia may be the most successful indie game on the mainstream market (maybe exactly because it's playing by its rules), but that's hardly the case with indie/casual market.

Another thing that's bothering me, if there's ever a unified game-selling portal, it should be a joint community effort. A non-profit organisation maybe, I don't know that much about economy and politics... Otherwise too much power could end up in the hands of just one company.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Another thing that's bothering me, if there's ever a unified game-selling portal, it should be a joint community effort. A non-profit organisation maybe, I don't know that much about economy and politics... Otherwise too much power could end up in the hands of just one company.

No one seems to be talking about one unified game-selling portal period, least of all me. But someone has to be the first one to do it, naturally, with competitors setting up shop in the future. It's healthier that way for both developers and consumers. And for some reason a non-profit online distributor sounds wrong to me, but perhaps a co-op might work. I dunno.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I believe that's the wrong attitude. If we concentrate on image and icons, we won't really move that far from where we are now. Gamers know that what matters is gameplay, and those that don't should be educated, that should be the main selling point. Otherwise games would remain slaves to image and marketing. Many books have beautifully designed covers that may boost sales a little, but they advertise and sell mostly by what's inside.

Btw, Darwinia may be the most successful indie game on the mainstream market (maybe exactly because it's playing by its rules), but that's hardly the case with indie/casual market.

Another thing that's bothering me, if there's ever a unified game-selling portal, it should be a joint community effort. A non-profit organisation maybe, I don't know that much about economy and politics... Otherwise too much power could end up in the hands of just one company.

You're completely off-track with what I'm saying here, I never said it was the ONLY thing to advertise. I was merely following up on what Trep was talking about.

But even then, gameplay is a very, very nebulous thing to advertise. People don't respond well to promises of how it plays, as that's a very hard thing to convey. Give a misleading idea about the quality and content of your product and it can backlash in ways you can't imagine. Consumers are slaves to marketing and imaging - the most successful adverts in print and television are ones that make use of strong imagery and phrasing. Regardless of whether you personally think it's important, unfortunately it is, and that importance cannot be denied. We're not talking about book covers, where the product is already in your hands (most book advertising is terrible anyway), we're talking about spreading a message.

You have to draw people in, make them interested before you can educate them. Look at the recent Nintendo DS adverts - "touch me". The initial advertising was designed specifically to make people ask questions, with a teenager going around using the power of his finger to interact with the environment around and no sign of the device itself. The later ones -

http://www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=24119

- introduced the console, but only after they'd reeled people in with mystery. You have to make people want to know what something is, before they know what it is. Then you educate them. You can't advertise gameplay unless it's in a very clever, easy to read formula, as in this case. The advert tells you how the machine works, how it's played, before the machine is mentioned.

Gamers know what matters is gameplay, but you want to rope in more than gamers too. You want to give EVERYONE a reason to try out your product - the more the merrier. Open up your market, don't batten down the hatches of exclusivity... after all, if you're in business, you're there to make money. Otherwise, what are you investing your time, effort and expenses in? Love of the game? That's how businesses can fail, sadly.

edit - a non profit organisation dedicated to gaming is a thing of dreams. Everything needs money to run. Until games have dedicated libraries funded by authorities, which is doubtful that's going to happen anytime soon, it's pure fantasy. And before people bring up place like Underdogs, there's the question of legality.

[Kolorabi]

I don't understand what makes the portals Kostikyan talks about in his article different from the ones allready in place (Reflexive Arcade, Garagegames, et.c.).

Btw, Darwinia may be the most successful indie game on the mainstream market (maybe exactly because it's playing by its rules), but that's hardly the case with indie/casual market.

Darwinia is an eye-catching game, but I doubt it's even the most successful indie game on the mainstream market (actually, I have the feeling that Introversions first game, Uplink, was more successful).

Also, what is an indie game? Does a game have to be entirely self-published in order to be called "indie"? Or entirely self-funded? Or does it just have to have been created by an independent developer (eg. Valve, 3D Realms, Remedy, Nadeo, Cyanide, House of Tales, et.c.)?

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by Kolorabi

I don't understand what makes the portals Kostikyan talks about in his article different from the ones allready in place (Reflective Arcade, Garagegames, et.c.).

Also, what is an indie game? Does a game have to be entirely self-published in order to be called "indie"? Or entirely self-funded? Or does it just have to have been created by an independent developer (eg. Valve, 3D Realms, Remedy, Nadeo, Cyanide, House of Tales, et.c.)?

An indie game would probably be a game that isn't attached to a publisher.

As for the portal it would be different from the others because it would be more marketing focused that people might have actually heard to the site. Never heard of those ones above.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

No one seems to be talking about one unified game-selling portal period, least of all me.

Costikyan does

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

You're completely off-track with what I'm saying here, I never said it was the ONLY thing to advertise. I was merely following up on what Trep was talking about.

Weren't you off-track? Okay, fair enough. Still, I hope we do agree that styling isn't what games should be designed around. In other words, marketing should take the most advantage of game's imagery, but it shouldn't dictate it itself. If we choose to go for quirky looks just because we think it would be easier to penetrate the market that way, we might end up with a lot of empty shell games. That's all I meant, your Darwinia example just ticked me off for some reason.

But even then, gameplay is a very, very nebulous thing to advertise.

I agree, I've been thinking about it a lot today. And it gets worse if your game is truly original, if the gameplay is really abstract. Maybe in 10 or more years when hyperfast Internet is available to everyone, ads and banners will actually be playable. You just click on a banner, it expands over your whole screen (no additional loading required) and you play a tiny portion of the game, just to get the hang of it. Maybe not.

We're not talking about book covers, where the product is already in your hands (most book advertising is terrible anyway), we're talking about spreading a message.

I'm not sure I understand what you meant by that. I mostly decide which books to buy by reading reviews online or in printed magazines, the book is still as far from my hands as it can be

Look at the recent Nintendo DS adverts - "touch me".

Exactly, how could indie developers ever compete with such advertising campaigns? They don't have the resources. There has to be another way of getting to people. Costikyan touches onto some, but for revolution to work there has to exist a critical mass of people. Is there such a critical mass? If not, how to get enough people on your side when most of them seem to be perfectly happy with the shallow glitz they're getting? Can developers lead the riots without consumers backing them? Holly Batolution, so many questions! Find out next week - same time, same channel!

Gamers know what matters is gameplay, but you want to rope in more than gamers too. You want to give EVERYONE a reason to try out your product - the more the merrier. Open up your market, don't batten down the hatches of exclusivity...

Yet, if we believe Costikyan, adverts aimed at non-gamers don't bring in a lot of new people - most growth comes from younger generations entering the world of gaming for the first time. Maybe that's why marketing is mostly aimed at kids/teens?

But I have to admit I have issues with that theory. I know a lot of people who quit playing games as they grew older because that's not something you're supposed to do once you're over 20. More importantly, some kids have never been exposed to electronic gaming or they just never cared about it much. Yes, smart marketing can definitely draw some people in, but for real numbers we'll have to wait for games to become generally accepted as an art form - and I don't think that will come through marketing. Like you said, most book advertising is terrible, but almost everybody reads.

edit - a non profit organisation dedicated to gaming is a thing of dreams. Everything needs money to run. Until games have dedicated libraries funded by authorities, which is doubtful that's going to happen anytime soon, it's pure fantasy. And before people bring up place like Underdogs, there's the question of legality.

Sadly, I might have to agree with that. On the other hand, people also used to say Open Source has no future

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

An indie game would probably be a game that isn't attached to a publisher.

That sounds very strange to me. In that case Uplink, for instance, isn't an indie game, as it was published by Strategy First in North America. And both Space Tripper and Mutant Storm has been published in Britain, both by Sold Out and Mastertronic. Starscape has been published in Russia by a company called Snowball. Alien Shooter will be released in Britain by Dusk2Dawn Interactive. Starships Unlimited has been published by Matrix Games in the US and Just Play in Europe. Et.c.

I would consider any game that's been funded by the developers from start to finish to be an "indie" game.

As for the portal it would be different from the others because it would be more marketing focused that people might have actually heard to the site. Never heard of those ones above.

Well, that - I think - is just because they haven't marketed themselves well enough to people not allready interested in indie games. And anyway, if the only difference is "more marketing", then that's not a particularily big difference IMO

[Martin Gantefoehr]

Also, what is an indie game? Does a game have to be entirely self-published in order to be called "indie"? Or entirely self-funded? Or does it just have to have been created by an independent developer (eg. Valve, 3D Realms, Remedy, Nadeo, Cyanide, House of Tales, et.c.)?

I my view, the latter. An indie game is a game created by an independent (not publisher-owned) game development operation. This, if I've read carefully enough, is also Costikyan's definition.

At the moment, these operations have to sell their games (complete with IPs) to publishers to get funding, market exposure (marketing) and shelf space (distribution) for their games.

This is what Costikyan wants to change. The money to self-fund games can be generated by the (higher) revenues going to the developers, once there are no more publishers and/or retailers in the monetary chain.

Of course, this is where the whole theory has its very weak spot. A condition for the model to work is that "the first game" (if you will) is funded by other sources than a publisher (investors, VC, bank etc.).

I have no experience with venture capitalists whatsoever -- but as far as bank institutes are concerned, I can say that the New Econonmy crash has put games somewhere near the top of every banker's blacklist, and in Germany, a game developer has about the bank reputation of an unemployed person.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Another thing that's bothering me, if there's ever a unified game-selling portal, it should be a joint community effort. A non-profit organisation maybe, I don't know that much about economy and politics... Otherwise too much power could end up in the hands of just one company.

I don't think the idea is to be noble and start a company to save the game industry. No one in his right state of mind will do that. No, the middle man internet website should be a private company, because it needs all the money to sponsor and market these games. It will definitely take parts of the sales, just not the crazy 85-92.5% profits that some of the publishers get.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Kolorabi

I don't understand what makes the portals Kostikyan talks about in his article different from the ones allready in place (Reflexive Arcade, Garagegames, et.c.).

The major difference that I can think of...

I have never heard of Reflexive Arcade or Garagegames

[nihil]

Originally Posted by Martin Gantefoehr

Of course, this is where the whole theory has its very weak spot. A condition for the model to work is that "the first game" (if you will) is funded by other sources than a publisher (investors, VC, bank etc.).

This is not the only weak point I see - imagine the indie developer has luck and he finds another source of funding, lets say a bank credit.

If the game does well then and he gets a fair share of the selling price (as there is no more publisher and retailer), he will perhaps very soon break even.

But what happens if the game flops?

I know, every game developer is absolutely sure that he is working on the next uber-game, but unfortunately reality proves many of them wrong, and then he will become real problems.

And if there is no more publisher, who cares for all the boring stuff then? Quality assurance for example? How many indie developers can excessively test their game on bugs and compatibility issues? Who cares for voiceovers? Who deals with all the gaming mags to get reviews? And so on ...

I think the whole idea of indie development is nice, but not for bigger projects (and I consider most adventures as such, unless you want to play games that look and feel as if it was still 1992 or so).

Lots of people in here often said that they want adventures go new routes, realtime 3d, physic engines, more freedom to explore the game world and so on - how shall that work with a little indie budget, consedering the developer doesn't want to risk to be indepted for the rest of his life.

[Martin Gantefoehr]

But what happens if the game flops?

Well, there is no insurance for this.

If you run a business, it'd better be profitable. Of course this is always risky, but higher revenues per unit mean lower risk of failure, and earlier money to fund the next game.

The 'boring stuff' is a of course an important cost factor that will have to be added to the cost of the development. Games are expensive. I guess Costikyan is well aware that the path he's suggesting isn't an easy one.

You aren't much better off with a flop when in a contract with a publisher, though. You've got paid for the development time, but now you don't own the IP anymore, you won't see any additional royalties, and you are pretty much instantly out of cash.

This is why one-product-at-a-time developers often break right after completion of a game: Zero self-held captial, no revenues from the product to expect, and no publishing contract in sight for a new game (because the former game just flopped under the eyes of the entire world).

The publisher might still see a project like that break even. Since the publisher gets a lion share of the revenues in the standard publishing model, it can happen that a game flops catastrophically for the developer, but still at least breaks even for the publisher (who also doesn't only have one product in the market, and can spread the risk).