Thread: [GD-Design] Indie - Publishing Services?
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-design
|
From: y o g i w p <yo...@gm...> - 2003-02-25 18:31:23
|
Strange, google doesn't give useful results on this one :( Anyone know good publishing services? Specifically, we need ones that specialize in small 2D puzzle/arcade games. Dexterity.com doesn't do it anymore, and GarageGames.com only publishes torque-based games (CMIIW). At this point (small team just starting indie) we don't want to worry about publishing. |
|
From: Brian H. <bri...@py...> - 2003-02-25 20:04:59
|
I feel bad that this has come up on numerous occasions and I= haven't said anything since I'm an ardent indie, so I'll pipe up now. First thing first -- I'm trying to work with the IGDA to= establish a strong indie forum and presence at igda.org where indies can get= together and discuss stuff just like this. We've held off on= doing a gam...@li... since having a Web site= with other resources would be really nice. Secondly, there are no really strong places that specialize in= third party publication of indie titles. If you want to go the puzzle= game/downloadable market, your best bet is RealArcade. If you= want to go for a more mainstream retail presence, you're going to have= to target value and/or second/third-tier publishers, and you'll= likely have to have a nearly finished product. Brian |
|
From: Mike W. <ge...@ub...> - 2003-02-25 21:18:13
|
> > >GarageGames.com only publishes torque-based games (CMIIW). > this is not correct, they will publish games that are not torque-based, or so they claim. one of the games they opened their doors with wasn't torque-based in fact, however it was developed by one of the owners of the company so that might not be a good example. another is andre lamothe's www.xgames3d.com - haven't heard much from him lately however...after that lawsuit, i'm not sure how well they are doing. [shameless plug time] my company is currently preparing a publishing site for the game engine we support as well, but the goal is definitely to have games with other engines included as well. email me offlist (mi...@ub...) if you would like more information. not sure how far into development you are, but we'll have the doors open in about a month. it won't be the end-all-be-all publishing solution, but will give indie developers an easy way to get their games promoted and available for sale online. the deal will be similar to the garagegames.com and xgames3d.com publishing deals. [/shameless plug] i agree with brian's comment however, that this is a market that is just waiting to explode - this is the primary reason we've decided to make the move. cheers mike w www.uber-geek.ca |
|
From: Dave M. <dm...@od...> - 2003-02-25 21:38:29
|
Mike Wuetherick wrote: > >GarageGames.com only publishes torque-based games (CMIIW). > > > this is not correct, they will publish games that are not torque-based, > or so they claim. one of the games they opened their doors with wasn't > torque-based in fact, however it was developed by one of the owners of > the company so that might not be a good example. Close. I'm shilling for my friends here, so I'm going to be ana^H^H^Hprecise. :) Of the 4 games GG is currently publishing, it breaks down like this: Chain Reaction (Torque): Developed w/ Jeff Tunnell's Monster Studios Marble Blast (Torque): Developed in-house Robot Blast (Custom): Developed by Lunkwill Labs, an indie Orbz (Torque): Developed by 21-6, an indie Monster Studios is an indie, but obviously pretty closely tied to GarageGames. I'm sure they would love to talk to anyone who's interested in publishing games online, Torque-based or not. ...dave |
|
From: Brian H. <bri...@py...> - 2003-02-25 22:13:42
|
>another is andre lamothe's www.xgames3d.com - haven't heard= much >from him lately however...after that lawsuit, i'm not sure how= well >they are doing. What lawsuit? >[shameless plug time] >my company is currently preparing a publishing site for the= game >engine we support as well, but the goal is definitely to have= games >with other engines included as well. Actually, can you go ahead and describe some more on-list what= this is about? Hard to say it's "off-topic", although maybe this= should migrate to gamedevlists-general as a more appropriate forum. Brian |
|
From: Mike W. <ge...@ub...> - 2003-02-25 22:56:19
|
Brian Hook wrote: >>another is andre lamothe's www.xgames3d.com - haven't heard much >> >> >>from him lately however...after that lawsuit, i'm not sure how well > > >>they are doing. >> >> >What lawsuit? > > they got sued for a bunch of games that were very similar to existing games, extremely ancient ones like centipede, that type of thing, clones if you might say. that was a few years ago. i believe it was hasbro that was suing them, as they did for many other developers (gt interactive, etc) they used to have a page on their site that had a bunch of info to try and help them raise money to fight it, but i didn't hear of any followup... tried to find the page, doesn't seem to be there...his horrible music on the site drove me away before i could look too much further ;} >>[shameless plug time] >>my company is currently preparing a publishing site for the game >>engine we support as well, but the goal is definitely to have games >>with other engines included as well. >> >> > >Actually, can you go ahead and describe some more on-list what this >is about? Hard to say it's "off-topic", although maybe this should >migrate to gamedevlists-general as a more appropriate forum. > will do - posting a followup for those seeking more info there. mike w www.uber-geek.ca |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-02-26 06:33:08
|
After the recent discussions about indie games and getting them published
I got a bit curious.=20
Can single persons still make games that get published more officially
than "downsuck from here and pay me 25=A4"? Is it worth even to try to get
something published? Is the games bussiness as evil as the music bussiness
where the developers end up with virtually nothing except bills?
No, I don't have anything I'd like to get published. H*ll, I'd have to be
happy if someone would even download our game for free! :)
--
Voodoo is a very interesting religion for the whole family, even those
members of it who are dead.
-- Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens
=09=09 =20
|
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-26 07:31:50
|
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:32:01 +0200 (EET), Jan Ekholm wrote: > >Can single persons still make games that get published more >officially than "downsuck from here and pay me 25=A4"? As a generality - no. You have the VERY infrequent outlier such= as Chris Sawyer (RC Tycoon), but even then he almost didn't get published. But that is so rare that to even call him an= exception would be minimizing the completely rarity of such cases. >Is it worth even to try to get something published? Sure, go ahead and try, but just be prepared for rejection and heartache. The fact of the matter is that retail games today= require a ton of money and time to make because of the expectation of the= consumer (and publishers) about the size and scope of such games.= "Value" games have no inertia in the market simply because the= cost of shelf space is high enough that most retailers would rather= stock a $50 title than a $20 title in the same slot. If a market is large enough to be financially interesting then= it's usually already heavily mined by the big publishers, almost definitely to the exclusion of the smaller indies. The few= bastions of borderline commercial indie gaming -- Palm Pilots, PocketPC --= are so niche that major publishers have almost no interest in= pursuing them. And, as a result, it's tough to make a living as an indie= selling into that space. >Is the games bussiness as >evil as the music bussiness where the developers end up with >virtually nothing except bills? Possibly even more evil, because in the music industry at least a= band can tour and pocket a good chunk of that change. In the traditional game industry the typical developer is living advance= to advance, and even with a huge hit they're often screwed in the process. For example, many starving developers will gladly: - grant ownership of IP to the publisher - grant right of first refusal on subsequent projects to the publisher - grant minority ownership to the publisher It's a rough industry, and maybe 1/20 developers would be= considered "successful". Look at the all the recent studios that are= closing, often after shipping successful products (Sunstorm (?) who made= Deer Hunter; Presto who made Myst 3; Rogue who made Alice in= Wonderland; Looking Glass, list too long to enumerate; etc.) This is why if someone is really thinking about being an indie,= they need to think long and hard if they want to fight on the= "system's" turf. It's a losing battle there. -Hook |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-02-26 08:31:05
|
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Brian Hook wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:32:01 +0200 (EET), Jan Ekholm wrote:
>>
>>Can single persons still make games that get published more
>>officially than "downsuck from here and pay me 25=A4"?
>
>As a generality - no. You have the VERY infrequent outlier such as=20
>Chris Sawyer (RC Tycoon), but even then he almost didn't get=20
>published. But that is so rare that to even call him an exception=20
>would be minimizing the completely rarity of such cases.
Ouch.
>>Is it worth even to try to get something published?
>
>Sure, go ahead and try, but just be prepared for rejection and=20
>heartache. The fact of the matter is that retail games today require=20
>a ton of money and time to make because of the expectation of the=20
>consumer (and publishers) about the size and scope of such games. =20
>"Value" games have no inertia in the market simply because the cost=20
>of shelf space is high enough that most retailers would rather stock=20
>a $50 title than a $20 title in the same slot.
Heh, I don't aspire to get anythin published, it was more general
intesrest that made me ask. I know I could never do anything that anyone
would want to buy.
Actually, I think there is one genre where one person could do a great
game: strategy games. I don't mean RTS games, those have nothing to do
with "strategy", but real hardcore strategy games. Not much has happened
in that field for ages, except maybe for Combat Mission that introduced
the concept of a fully 3D battlefield. One person with a few good ideas
could very well create something very new within this field, and there
*are* people that buy these games, although not as many as those buying
the mainstream "sequel games".
>>Is the games bussiness as
>>evil as the music bussiness where the developers end up with
>>virtually nothing except bills?
>
>Possibly even more evil, because in the music industry at least a=20
>band can tour and pocket a good chunk of that change. In the=20
>traditional game industry the typical developer is living advance to=20
>advance, and even with a huge hit they're often screwed in the=20
>process.
>
>For example, many starving developers will gladly:
>
>- grant ownership of IP to the publisher
>- grant right of first refusal on subsequent projects to the=20
>publisher
>- grant minority ownership to the publisher
Ugh, I'm glad I make my living coding boring bussiness apps. :)
>It's a rough industry, and maybe 1/20 developers would be considered=20
>"successful". Look at the all the recent studios that are closing,=20
>often after shipping successful products (Sunstorm (?) who made Deer=20
>Hunter; Presto who made Myst 3; Rogue who made Alice in Wonderland;=20
>Looking Glass, list too long to enumerate; etc.)
Yes, the dumb mass only buys sequels. All EA games for instance are just
sequels to known concepts.
--=20
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
-- Terry Pratchett, Small God=
s
|
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-26 08:41:52
|
>Actually, I think there is one genre where one person could do= a >great game: strategy games. Absolutely, and there are indie developers that are doing pretty= well in that area. BattleFront, StarDock and Strategy First all come= to mind. However, titles of this type -- turn-based strategy, 4-X games, etc. -- do not tend to sell particularly well, but maybe enough to sustain a very small team of developers. Maybe. Even so, the cost to develop games of this type are far from= trivial. Even accepting that "design > tech/art", you still need a lot of= content. The one area where maybe you don't need nearly as much content is= when you build "toys" instead of "games", i.e. think in terms of= The Sims, RC Tycoon and what not. Also, competitive on-line play= lets players effectively provide their own content. It takes much,= much longer to develop a 20 hour single player game than it does to develop a decent competitive on-line game, at least in terms of content. Hell, on-line games have a lot of things about them that make it= even easier -- no need to support save games, pause or even AI (unless= you support bot play or want NPCs thrown into the mix). -Hook |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-02-26 09:33:18
|
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Brian Hook wrote:
>>Actually, I think there is one genre where one person could do a
>>great game: strategy games.
>
>Absolutely, and there are indie developers that are doing pretty well
>in that area. BattleFront, StarDock and Strategy First all come to
>mind. However, titles of this type -- turn-based strategy, 4-X
>games, etc. -- do not tend to sell particularly well, but maybe
>enough to sustain a very small team of developers. Maybe.
Battlefront sold the first Combat Mission only over the web. You got a CD
and a manual. I think it sold pretty well, and after a while it appeared
as a boxed game in shops over here. But CM managed to really revolutionize
WW2 wargaming with their introduction of realistic 3D modelling.
>Even so, the cost to develop games of this type are far from trivial.
> Even accepting that "design > tech/art", you still need a lot of
>content.
Of course, but that genre is a bit more realistic. Players don't demand
state-of-the-art multithreaded texturewhizbangs with Cg and THX 6.3 sound
in a teratexel DVD engine. Only games with no real playable content need
that. :)
--
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
-- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
|
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-02-26 09:43:01
|
> Of course, but that genre is a bit more realistic. Players > don't demand state-of-the-art multithreaded texturewhizbangs > with Cg and THX 6.3 sound in a teratexel DVD engine. Only > games with no real playable content need that. :) Ummm, do you want a digest of the "graphics" sections of Celtic Kings reviews (by the way, published by the aforementioned StrategyFirst)? "outdated", "AOE clone", "not up to modern standards", "plain", etc... Not having a whizbang teratexel engine costs you automatically on the order of 10 (on a 100 scale) in review score. |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-26 10:06:52
|
>Not having a whizbang teratexel engine costs you automatically= on >the order of 10 (on a 100 scale) in review score. Yes, it does, but there's a massive -- and I mean MASSIVE -- disparity between reviews and sales. There is a very strong perception that whiz bang technology is= what sells a game, or that huge reviews correlate to massive sales,= when in fact this just isn't the case. There are many games that had= been ignored by the gaming media which sold very well -- Zoo Tycoon,= RC Tycoon, The Sims, Harry Potter -- and there are many well= reviewed games that simply didn't sell nearly as much as you would have expected (Homeworld, NOLF). I'm not doubting that reviews are important, but solid gameplay,= word of mouth, and a niche genre really can compensate for a perceived= lack of cutting edge content and technology. If you look at the top 10 selling games, almost none of them= would be considered technologically advanced. Everquest is the most= popular 3D on-line game in the world, and it uses vertex lighting, single-pass technology ca. 1997. BF1942 and MOH:AA both have= sold very well using fairly average engines by today's standards. Computers are getting faster, but many consumers simply aren't= opting to upgrade. My home system is a P3/1000, and will probably stay= that way for some time because I just don't see a compelling reason to= upgrade. Many consumers feel this way. There are strong markets for: - niche genres - targeting lower end hardware - games with lower cost and lower barrier to entry/complexity We sell _puzzle games_ for $20 and we're surviving quite well. Hardcore gameers laugh at us because, hey, Candy Cruncher isn't 1/10th as cool as Serious Sam, and yet it's the same price. But= our consumers DON'T CARE, because they're not buying our games= thinking "Man, this puzzle game is a rip off because Serious Sam is the= same price!", they're thinking "Hey, this is fun, I finally found a= game I can relate to!" As much as grizzled old game developers really hate to admit, the= fact remains that gameplay, in the end, is what sells. Maybe not= gameplay _we_ find compelling, but gameplay that the average= computer user finds compelling will sell copies. I'd bet almost anything that if RC Tycoon 2 had vertex-shaders,= it would have sold 1/10th the amount. Brian |
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-02-26 10:13:10
|
> >Not having a whizbang teratexel engine costs you > automatically on the > >order of 10 (on a 100 scale) in review score. > > Yes, it does, but there's a massive -- and I mean MASSIVE -- > disparity between reviews and sales. > > There is a very strong perception that whiz bang technology is what > sells a game, or that huge reviews correlate to massive sales, when > in fact this just isn't the case. There are many games that had been > ignored by the gaming media which sold very well -- Zoo Tycoon, RC > Tycoon, The Sims, Harry Potter -- and there are many well reviewed > games that simply didn't sell nearly as much as you would have > expected (Homeworld, NOLF). Yes, of course, but the bad-reviews/good-sales game you mention have huge marketing behind them, which would not the case with indie games. |
|
From: Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...> - 2003-02-26 15:27:38
|
> We sell _puzzle games_ for $20 and we're surviving quite well.
> Hardcore gameers laugh at us because, hey, Candy Cruncher isn't
> 1/10th as cool as Serious Sam, and yet it's the same price. But our
> consumers DON'T CARE, because they're not buying our games thinking
> "Man, this puzzle game is a rip off because Serious Sam is the same
> price!", they're thinking "Hey, this is fun, I finally found a game I
> can relate to!"
This remark about _puzzle games_ reminds me a discussion I had with some
friends about what is sometimes called "desktop games". I wonder how much
people are willing to pay for this kind of games ?
A lot of people are playing MineSweeper, FreeCell, and other windows games
during compilation, printing of a rapport, waiting for the end of a
rendering, and so on...
Do you think there is a market for decently made games of this kind ?
Mickael Pointier
|
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-26 20:42:06
|
>This remark about _puzzle games_ reminds me a discussion I had= with >some friends about what is sometimes called "desktop games". I >wonder how much people are willing to pay for this kind of games= ? $15-20 seems to be the sweet spot, but I doubt any real research= has gone into pricing models. >Do you think there is a market for decently made games of this= kind >? Er, yes. Most of our business model (www.pyrogon.com) is= predicated directly on targeting that player base. Word games, puzzle= games, card games, etc. Brian |
|
From: Mike W. <ge...@ub...> - 2003-02-26 21:27:00
|
Brian Hook wrote: >>This remark about _puzzle games_ reminds me a discussion I had with >>some friends about what is sometimes called "desktop games". I >>wonder how much people are willing to pay for this kind of games ? >> >> > >$15-20 seems to be the sweet spot, but I doubt any real research has >gone into pricing models. > > i'd have to say that charging less than that and you are ripping yourselves off as the developers. there was an excellent writeup from the indie games conference (i think) that had a much better explanation of why - but by charging MORE, you actually will increase your sales because people associate quality with cost - charge too little and no one will purchase it. >>Do you think there is a market for decently made games of this kind >>? >> >> >Er, yes. Most of our business model (www.pyrogon.com) is predicated >directly on targeting that player base. Word games, puzzle games, >card games, etc. > > look at how popular the online versions of these types of games are - the yahoo games, the msn gaming zone, all that - they are packed with people playing these types of games... i'd have to definitely say there is a market for this type of game... mike w www.uber-geek.ca |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-02-27 06:42:36
|
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Mike Wuetherick wrote:
>there was an excellent writeup from the indie games conference (i think)
>that had a much better explanation of why - but by charging MORE, you
>actually will increase your sales because people associate quality with
>cost - charge too little and no one will purchase it.
A pretty interesting but off-topic analogy might be software that
bussinesses depend on. I've seen many IT managers say that they can't use
free Linux software, because "it's free, we have to have a price tag, the
higher the better". The same may to a certain extent hold for games.
<snip>
>look at how popular the online versions of these types of games are -
>the yahoo games, the msn gaming zone, all that - they are packed with
>people playing these types of games...
>
>i'd have to definitely say there is a market for this type of game...
Many wants games that are easy to pickup, play for a few minutes/hours and
which then can be dropped. I still play a few occasional games of online
chess, as one game can be played in 3-5 minutes without any hassle. It's
also easy to just throw a disk into the PS2 and game away during the
commerical breaks of shows you watch on TV.
One should take the "ease of playing" into account too. Not everyone wants
complex monstrosities that take ages to start, setup and play. Almost any
current "big game" falls into that monstrosity category.
--
"Bingeley bingeley beep!"
-- The Personal Disorganizer, Terry Pratchett in Feet of Clay
|
|
From: Mike W. <ge...@ub...> - 2003-02-27 06:49:43
|
> > >Many wants games that are easy to pickup, play for a few minutes/hours and >which then can be dropped. I still play a few occasional games of online >chess, as one game can be played in 3-5 minutes without any hassle. It's >also easy to just throw a disk into the PS2 and game away during the >commerical breaks of shows you watch on TV. > >One should take the "ease of playing" into account too. Not everyone wants >complex monstrosities that take ages to start, setup and play. Almost any >current "big game" falls into that monstrosity category. > > exactly. i think this is one of the bigger draws of games like counter-strike even - you can jump in and play for 5 minutes or 5 hours ... and have as much fun both times... that instant accessibility is a major factor. i have almost stopped playing single player games for that reason - don't have enough time to set aside for a 60 hour epic anymore...at least until deus ex 2 comes...or doom 3 i think it doesn't matter if you are designing a puzzle game or an action fps, allowing the players to jump in and play as easily and simply as possible is something important to consider... mike w www.uber-geek.ca |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-26 10:12:01
|
>Ummm, do you want a digest of the "graphics" sections of Celtic >Kings reviews (by the way, published by the aforementioned >StrategyFirst)? Out of curiousity, did your company independently develop this= title and then shop it around? It sounds like you're not happy with the reviews, but when I read= them they seem fairly positive. In fact, I'd say= "congratulations!" to your whole team given that it has sold well in Europe (your= Spain blurb caught my eye). www.gamerankings.com shows that you got 4.5/5 from GamesDomain, 87/100 from Gamespy, 8.4/10 from GameSpot, etc. Not too shabby I= say. Brian |
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-02-26 10:21:56
|
> >Ummm, do you want a digest of the "graphics" sections of > Celtic Kings > >reviews (by the way, published by the aforementioned StrategyFirst)? > > Out of curiousity, did your company independently develop this title > and then shop it around? > > It sounds like you're not happy with the reviews, but when I read > them they seem fairly positive. In fact, I'd say "congratulations!" > to your whole team given that it has sold well in Europe (your Spain > blurb caught my eye). > > www.gamerankings.com shows that you got 4.5/5 from GamesDomain, > 87/100 from Gamespy, 8.4/10 from GameSpot, etc. Not too shabby I > say. Thanks! We shopped it to publishers on several rounds, but found a sensible deal when it was almost done. The reviews are mostly positive, yes, with avg of 80% according to GameRankings, but the sales outside Spain are nothing to write home about. So I know first-hand the correlation between sales and review scores is very weak. But in almost all reviews there was a mention of how dated the graphics technology was. If the reviewer had an overall favorable impression of the game, it was along the lines of "dated but OK", otherwise it was "too dated to compete". |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-26 10:44:03
|
>But in almost all reviews there was a mention of how dated the >graphics technology was. If the reviewer had an overall= favorable >impression of the game, it was along the lines of "dated but= OK", >otherwise it was "too dated to compete". Not to belabor the point -- and without having seen your game= even once -- then I would think that the design wasn't sufficiently different for the reviewers to retain interest. Take that same= type of engine and do a radically different design, or at least one= that makes people sit up and realize that it IS different, and you're= onto something. Brian |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2003-02-26 11:13:02
|
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:
>> Of course, but that genre is a bit more realistic. Players
>> don't demand state-of-the-art multithreaded texturewhizbangs
>> with Cg and THX 6.3 sound in a teratexel DVD engine. Only
>> games with no real playable content need that. :)
>
>Ummm, do you want a digest of the "graphics" sections of Celtic Kings
>reviews (by the way, published by the aforementioned StrategyFirst)?
>"outdated", "AOE clone", "not up to modern standards", "plain", etc...
As I already said I am not including silly RTS games into the category
"strategy games". RTS games should be called something else, maybe
"realtime clickfests" (RTF)...
--
Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs.
-- Susan Sto Helit, in Hogfather (Terry Pratchett)
|
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-02-26 10:26:58
|
> >Actually, I think there is one genre where one person could > do a great game: strategy games. One advice from the trenches: if you start out doing a strategy game, make sure it doesn't hit the market right between the then-current iterations of BlizzardCraft and Age Of Ensembles. :-) |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-02-26 10:42:09
|
>One advice from the trenches: if you start out doing a strategy >game, make sure it doesn't hit the market right between the= then- >current iterations of BlizzardCraft and Age Of Ensembles. :-) A-ha, but that assumes you're writing a game that competes with= them stylistically, and I would submit that that is a losing battle no= matter how good you are =3D) A better example might be the aforementioned Combat Mission or= CA's Medieval: Total War. The Total War stuff has sold very, very= well, and I think it's partly because it wasn't the same resource management RTS that everyone else has written a million times. It also really pushed the envelope with having so many units on screen, which looked awesome. Brian |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X