Tomn
Posts: 148
Joined: 4/22/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JDM
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tomn
quote:
ORIGINAL: wombat778
For the folks that disagree with Matrix's business model and that strongly believe there is a great untapped wargamer market out there, it seems like the right capitalistic answer is to start up a competing business. Pull together a business plan, a pitch, and some funds/investors. Then, go out and find some new wargamer developers and sell them on your business plan. If the developers agree with your ideas for a low price/mass audience business model, it shouldn't be impossible to convince them to sign with you (particularly if you are willing to provide them with development funding). Seriously, people create start-up businesses all the time, and it really isn't that hard to do if you are willing to take a risk with your time and money.
This is true, but not all of us here are exactly in a position to drop everything and go full-time into a start-up. Particularly since one would argue that it'd be easier to self-publish a wargame as a dev through crowdfunding first, and then try to go into publishing with some credentials behind you. Not everyone who sees a problem is in a position to do something about it directly.
That said, I will certainly be keeping an eye out on Kickstarter for any promising candidates, and I encourage everyone here to do the same. Thanks to crowdfunding, one is no longer required to risk everything to put your money where your mouth is.
HI Again Tomn I realise that you are not in a position to drop everything and leap into a start up. It's not any easy route. I started my first start up some 45 years ago, had to mortgage the family home to do it, so I really do get your point. Matter of fact what do you do for a living, you're obviously a pretty knowledgable business type, so I cannot help but ponder?
On the startup/kickstarter issue or developers trying to go it alone, what is your assessment of what went wrong here. http://tinyurl.com/qhw276u And see this one as well.
http://flippfly.com/news/race-the-sun-a-month-after-launch-losing-steam/ Personally I think they are both credible games. The sadness is that I am seeing a spate of such situations and would you believe that presently I have 6 developers in my in box who would like to place their games with us. Two of these tried to make it on their own and are on their last legs. Our problem is that we are not a distributor and we can't just drop their games onto our site as per the Steam or GOG business models, but I expect you know the difference. AS I am sure you are aware our business model means that we will have to work with these games and support the development teams for up to the next 12 months or so. I am really interested in your take here and wonder how you might play it?
Personally I think
Well, as it happens, I'm a medical copywriter (and, I'm hoping, future novelist). Not precisely the best credentials for arguing business practices in the gaming industry, you might say, but I'm of the opinion that two and two makes four whether it comes from the mouth of a beggar, a king, a child or a mathematician. It seems to me that in any argument, it is much better to discuss every point as it comes instead of judging them based on who they came from - and if you disagree with anything I've said, I hope you'll make your specific objections clear, and I will in turn tackle them as best I can.
To begin with, please allow me to clarify my position in the post you quoted - I find that the majority of disputes are commonly resolved by the simple expedient of making it clear what is being argued, to prevent people talking past each other. I am saying that Kickstarting and self-publishing IS difficult - that was in fact the point of my post, as the person I was responding to was suggesting that those who feel that Matrix Games is misguided should simply make their own start-up and take off. I disagree with this - one needs a certain combination of skill, talent, and luck to successfully self-publish, and it isn't something anyone can just dive into and expect to succeed. At the same time, however, Kickstarter DOES improve the luck of those who have the requisite skill and talent, and at the very least unlocks them from the absolute need to go to a publisher. I say, then, that it is entirely possible that someone with that skill and talent will eventually go to Kickstarter with a solid idea for a good wargame and a clear project plan, and that when this happens, it would only be beneficial to the wargaming industry for everyone here to crowdfund that baby until it explodes.
Now, let's take on the two examples you have given. You are attempting, correct me if I'm wrong here, to demonstrate that trying to self-publish is fraught with risks, that it isn't as easy as it looks, and that it isn't really a viable alternative compared to publishing with Matrix Games. The first two are unquestionable, and the reason why is pretty clear - a lot of start-ups are extremely poorly thought-out. If you've ever heard of "Your Kickstarter Sucks," well, it becomes clear why many Kickstarters fail (did you know someone actually tried to run a Kickstarter to promote a "New Black"? It's true!) Yet this doesn't exactly eliminate self-publishing or crowdsourcing as a potential source of competition to Matrix Games, and I don't believe the examples you've chosen support your point. Let's take a closer look and see how that goes.
Your first link, "Fuel Overdose," is a combat racing game for the PS3, and the interview is with the understandably somewhat bitter creator. A quick look at Metacritic suggests a very middling score, and the article notes various localization costs - one supposes that he either thought that would be critical, or was forced to do so to get onto the PS3 store. He insists that he has received unfair media attention, and that not enough people have tried to promote the game when it came out. He doesn't seem to have been trying to cover any very particular niche, and was limited to the PS3 store - where, apparently, his offering was diluted by being placed next to general multimedia offerings (I'm ignorant of how this works myself, not owning a PS3, so if anyone could go into further detail on how it works, that would be appreciated).
In short, we have someone who made an apparently mediocre game (you can hardly argue that it requires a special breed of mind to understand and enjoy a combat racing game!), who decided to or was forced to invest in localization, who did not make a particularly unique or outstanding game covering something rarely covered (he's competing with freaking Mario Kart!), and who was being marketed on a distribution platform that doesn't cater exclusively to games. I'm sorry to say it, but the picture being painted here doesn't really suggest that he would have done much better if he HAD gotten a publisher, if indeed he could have found one. Proof that Kickstarter is not a sure, instant path to riches? Certainly, and in some circles a well-needed one. Proof that Kickstarter can't compete with established publishers? Not hardly.
Now let's take a look at Race The Sun. This seems to have been managed much better and much more professionally than was Fuel Overdose. This is a procedural racer that was developed for the PC and which was distributed using their own website - and not a whole lot else. It was received much more favorably than Fuel Overdose by the critics, and had professional PR helping them along. However, despite their initial plans to get onto Steam, Steam had yet to accept them at the time of that posting. Yet even without Steam's help, they managed 771 sales - more than Fuel Overdose managed despite having access to a larger distribution platform. Unlike Fuel Overdose, I think we can say that what we have here is foundationally a very solid game.
Yet it only managed 771 sales. Why? The developers are unambiguous about this: They failed to get on Steam, or any other major distribution platform. Steam was no act of desperation, but rather an integral part of their plan all along, and when it failed to materialize, their plan naturally fell with it. Yet even then they are not without hope - they are continuing efforts to get on Steam (and I'll Greenlight 'em after this post - they seem to have made an interesting production), and have made further efforts to get onto other distribution platforms despite the apparent stigma of earlier games they produced for the iOS, which has typecast them. If they fall through entirely before they can find a distributor (and the tone of their post doesn't seem to suggest that they're in imminent danger of this), or if they get onto Steam and then flop horribly, then something may indeed be proven. For now, though, all that is proven is what was proven above - Kickstarting is not an ironclad guarantee. Not only that, but the link heavily suggests that Steam and other such distribution platforms remains the great hope and most vital factor in the success of small indie niche games.
So have we any conclusions to draw from the links provided? In essence, two: Kickstarter doesn't guarantee success, and Steam is important to indie or niche success. Not only do these points not contradict the argument I have made, they support them. Certainly we can see that Kickstarting IS a risk, but nothing we've seen here suggests that a Kickstarted wargame cannot become a viable non-Matrix competitor.
Now, what of these developers you speak of that you're currently dealing with? I certainly hope you're not asking me to provide detailed business plans based on a paragraph's worth of information, of which the only information about the actual devs or games that I have is that "They're not doing well and they tried to self-publish." The greatest business mogul in the world could hardly offer much in the way of good advice without a penchant for pithy, generalized turns of phrase and a great deal of luck. Did they try at Kickstarter? Did they attempt to invest their own money? What subjects are they covering? What angle are they attempting? How far along are they? Who have they sought support from? Without I know all of this and more, how can I possibly say anything of worth?
But of course, it's hardly likely that you're asking me for actual advice, and are simply trying to demonstrate that self-publishing carries risks. Well, and so it does - I've not sought to argue that. You might be trying to say that self-publishing is so risky that it isn't worthwhile to try it at all, but to that I answer this: Do you choose to publish EVERY game offered to you, and does EVERY game so offered and published bring back enough money to keep the devs producing more games? I'd be surprised were that so! If it isn't, then we can see that even publishing with Matrix Games is a risk, and no sure bet. Given that both crowdsourcing and Matrix carries their own risks, then (though I grant that crowdsourcing has greater risks), if a developer truly believes that he has an idea good enough to stand on its own, and if he truly believes that he can gain a good enough return on investment by distributing through Steam instead of sticking to Matrix's older policies to justify the risk, why should he not crowdsource? And if this developer puts up a good product, why should we not fund him?
|
Printable Version
RE: Pricing Suggestion - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread