Another Market Research!!!

[TransatlanticFoe]

I'd absolutely support a physical release on PC or DC though, and have done so. Crimzon Clover would be worth it at 4 times the price. And I've paid retail prices for DC independent releases, rising sharply for limited edition shiny fancy stuff.

Out of interest, as this is something I've considered - if one of us put up a kickstarter or something simply for a physical run of one of our games (on the basis that you have to buy in bulk) -- would you pledge towards something like that? Given that Kickstarter is risk free and you'd basically only end up paying if there was enough community support in a game to make the first physical run happen.

Well, there is risk with Kickstarter. Obviously if it fails to meet demand my money stays with me. But even after a successful funding there's no guarantee the product will appear and by that time my money could be gone. Even operating on the goodwill basis that the money's actually used, it could easily run out before the project is complete and there's no guarantee the funds are even there to refund - although with the higher profile cases of this happening, backers have been offered refunds out of the owner's pocket.

Once you start contracting out programming, that's the high risk area for me - because they can get paid with the backers' money and the project might not get completed. If a community project involved enthusiast programmers then there's less chance of the money vanishing should the project abort.

tl;dr
Yes, I would probably support the project anyway.

[n0rtygames]

Although in the case I'm proposing - there's zero risk as the product itself would already be available digitally and I'm really only talking about doing a kick starter to cover the costs of publishing once a master copy has been made. It would literally be a case of placing an order as soon as payment was received.

You have to remember that I'd probably not want to lose the trust of a potentially recurring customer base for a one off profit of $500 or whatever. Fish vs Net...

[TransatlanticFoe]

In that case, absolutely.

[Ed Oscuro]

But you know whats not free, the Devs, the Artists and the Musicians time... time they could have been holding down a day job instead of making a game for you... time they could have just spent doing whatever they would have felt like, but they chose to make a game...

Nothing is free when it comes to talent!

I get what Obiwanshinobi is saying (I did have to re-read the sentence a couple times, lol negations) but I think that the presumption should be that things have gotten much more expensive. Especially since that's exactly what developers have been saying since the mid-2000s. It's only going to get worse. For the newest high-resolution systems, there will be more and more use of digital technologies to cut down the time people actually spend with their hands on things. More digital references (or programmed equivalents), more automation in the generation of shaders and visual effects (improvements in lighting engines may help a good deal), and so on. Using automation would seem to help - but these trends tend towards complexity spiraling out of control; think of dozens of critters onscreen with their own minds and possibly complex relationships, versus a dozen or so simple sprites marching in place on a grid, waiting for their turn, or DOOM monsters just rushing towards you. Even the automation isn't guaranteed to work in every case.

My #1 complaint with most stuff today, aside from a lack of imagination in many titles, is that quite often you see that things were just thrown in with no thought as to the big picture of how they all fit together. Too many titles focus too little on balance issue, so that there is no risk and reward (Deus Ex games' most useful weapons are usually the ones you start with - silenced pistol, baton, silenced pistol...) balance; others balance everything in that it's all a mush with no distinguishing features from choosing Sword A or Sword B; and yet others just make it a simple progression from bad -> better. It's easier to see, then, why so many of Valve Software's FPSes still use a very limited and traditional weapon set.

Also, when you look at stuff from the 90s, and especially even earlier stuff, there's a big difference between being able to program something entirely in C, or even assembly, for a fixed resolution target platform, versus today today where you have to spend resources on even "for granted" stuff like locking down a server backend enough to prevent easy score cheats, or engineering your game so that it accepts expansions and online bugfixes.

[n0rtygames]

Too many titles focus too little on balance issue, so that there is no risk and reward (Deus Ex games' most useful weapons are usually the ones you start with

That's really interesting to hear you say that actually - since I see things from an almost entirely opposite point of view. I feel too many modern games focus TOO much on the balance side of things.. That's a statement that's probably going to require some defense and explanation I'm sure!

Take Quakeworld for instance - pretty much the grand-daddy of the modern FPS. Nothing about that was actually balanced. The Rocket Launcher was a hugely destructive weapon from which a single shot could send you flying across the map and leave you a sitting duck for a followup rocket or well placed lightning gun to pin you in the corner. The three tiered armour system coupled with the layout of the maps and the fairly limited weapon set meant that the gameplay pretty much revolved around protecting one region of the map (dm6). Other maps, such as DM4 were even less forgiving once a player had the upper hand. Since then though, map layouts have become more forgiving in order to give players more of a fighting chance to regain control - as opposed to having to learn the hard way as I did back then.... 40+ to negative figures in the early days....

It could be that we're arguing the same thing here and we just have different understandings of what it means to be "balanced" of course.. In my mind - a well balanced should create a huge divide between the highly skilled players and casual players - with a steep learning curve to progress from casual to even remotely skilled.

Back to the world of shmups though - balance is an entirely different ballgame. You're not relying on a story to carry your players experience and the competitive aspect is your player vs your program, as opposed to other players directly (scoring is something else). It's hard to design clever and original bullet patterns that excite players, provide a challenge and can be navigated. It's tricky to time the powerup placement in your level so that the player constantly has a feeling of becoming more powerful while the game becomes significantly harder. Then there's the painful task of testing all that to recreate how a variety of players might approach the game and then finding that middle ground. Too hard and people are going to start dropping out.... too easy and it's going to be hard to get people talking about your game when it can be 1CC'd while eating ice cream using your spare hand. I've been working on my bloody shmup for far too long as I *still* don't feel like I've gotten the formula nailed correctly...

Something I think a lot of new developers should really adhere to is the old rule of "If it aint broke, don't fix it". I know this won't sit well with everyone - but there are sections of DFK that basically really bore me to the point where I don't even want to put in the effort to beat the game. Sections where it's painfully obvious that the most optimal way through the game is to use a hyper to just coast through that section instead of actually dodging. Where as I can quite happily crash and burn over and over again on DDP, or DOJ BL since bullet cancelling is at an absolute minimum and carries a price with it (be it dropping score through bombing in DDP, or rank increase in DOJ). This is really just personal taste. I guess I'm just drawn to games that punish me over and over until I put in the time to get better at them.

Sadly, companies do have to cater for the audience of today. I've worked with people who've just hit 20, who say their first gaming love was Halo for christ sakes. They've never put a coin in an arcade slot and don't get the reference in "The Lost Viking" minigame in SC2... These players are easily frustrated, want a simple pick up and play experience and generally won't spend time practising a game - hence why everything is spoon fed and so easily accessible.

..rant over.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think I anticipated your comment where I talk about Sword A and Sword B. Well, I think we can come to agreement if I simply say that balance doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a top tier, nor should that have been intended. Quake or Quake III is a good example; if the map is well designed there will be a lot of risk involved in getting a quad damage or a special weapon. This is perfectly fine and normal; the better portion of Unreal Tournament and Quake multiplayer game play is based on holding a route to special items. If, on the other hand, it was just up to chance if you spawned with a double shotgun in mazelike portion of a DOOM II map or spawned nearby with a pistol only, or if you spawned in the open with a long run to a regular shotgun and the area was surrounded by sniping spots that also were protected heavy weapon spawns, you could say that those map designers were probably stupid.

Having the game give you a pistol after the first mission that is useful for killing almost everything organic in the game, even at range, with plentiful ammo and no sound signature, and having every "awesome" weapon relegated to only rare use cases - that doesn't seem balanced to me. Both original and Human Revolution flavors of Deus Ex have this problem where the pistol is the best lethal weapon in the game. (For Deus Ex: The Tarsus Chronicles, it's the baton and the spy drone / aggressive defense drone, probably.)

"Balance" is probably a big issue these days because of the intention of many games to differentiate player types and what they can carry. You don't get in-level weapon pickups in a Battlefield game, unless you pick up another soldier's kit and everything is instantly changed, from your pistol type to special items. Balance here doesn't mean that both will win against the other in an open field - sniper usually will have an advantage over other types - but again it is highly contextual based on other players and the surroundings. Alone, engineer types are often less powerful (although in BF2 they got some nice Boom Sticks, especially of the DAO-12 revolver or Pancor magazine types; they can defend themselves well in close quarters) but their use is mainly in keeping big machines running well. Likewise, Special Forces are not as good in a firefight as a regular Assault class rifleman, but if you see a jeep rushing towards you, you'd probably better get out of the way before he jumps out and detonates the C4 stuck to the hood. This type of "balance" has been very influential, and I think it influenced your conception of the term. CoD probably more so.

There is also the matter of many games having a more "scientific" approach to level design than before. Valve Software is famous for this. Does it make the game better to look at "heat maps" to try to tweak the game parameters? Sure. It's not their intention to make the probability of a kill (or getting killed) totally random spread out across the map, but I think it's reasonable to try to eliminate some cases because they provoke the wrong feeling in the player, like "why did I get shot through that building by somebody on the other side using bullet penetration, but I am safe if I stand a little off to the side?"

There is a strong presumption on the part of many "PRO GAMERS" with their heads up each others' Ahems that it is Proper And Good to exploit the game to its fullest, always, and that it is appropriate that the game should revolve around a display of those talents, so that all exploits are sacred; in fact, we probably should have more of them, if they involve skill. After all, there is nothing that says that other people can't do the same if they are/get good enough; we do similar things to shooting games here (Gun Frontier lol). But for those games, you have to look at the developer intention - Counter-Strike is meant to be something close to a simulation of close-quarters combat, not a shooting gallery based on your ability to line up two planes, one in front of you and the other behind it, or to time footsteps for wallbang headshots. You also have to look at the population - nobody's feelings get hurt when somebody else deconstructs Gun Frontier scoring (just when we find out about it, so I guess that one's on the developer). But for the Pro Gamer to insist that everybody else who bought the game should have no greater expectations of the gaming experience than to be cannon fodder, well, they can go fuck themselves. They don't own that experience, certainly not based on the share of dollars supporting the experience. Rant over!

[Obiwanshinobi]

I have I suspicion that developers nowadays try to think too much like producers and publishers (whose job is to dictate when possible and to obey when necessary), too little about people's needs and wishes. Isn't making games a dream job after all?

[hermit crab]

Sadly, companies do have to cater for the audience of today. I've worked with people who've just hit 20, who say their first gaming love was Halo for christ sakes. They've never put a coin in an arcade slot and don't get the reference in "The Lost Viking" minigame in SC2... These players are easily frustrated, want a simple pick up and play experience and generally won't spend time practising a game - hence why everything is spoon fed and so easily accessible.

I really have to question this... Certainly from a personal point of view I can say that I used to get frustrated much easier back in the 80's/90's than I do now. In fact it's only now as an adult that I've really learned to appreciate the "repeat the same shit over and over again for slight progress" type of gameplay.

But even in general, different people like different kinds of games. Even the same person likes different kinds of games at different times. Some people like Sonic some people like Shinobi, lots of people like them both. You've met people who's first love was Halo and enjoy that kind of game but there are possibly literally millions of people who's first love was Angry Birds and they are playing the same levels over and over, for score!

The only thing that has changed is that the amount of people playing video games has gone from maybe a million to like a billion people. Even really niche titles have the capability to sell same amounts as blockbuster hits did back then. It's just that if you release a game with oldschool gameplay/aesthetics you are competing against thousands of games that were released during the last 30 years. Games that people can easily play free of charge with an emulator...

P.S. Games don't get much more easily accessible than arcade style games.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Even really niche titles have the capability to sell same amounts as blockbuster hits did back then. It's just that if you release a game with oldschool gameplay/aesthetics you are competing against thousands of games that were released during the last 30 years. Games that people can easily play free of charge with an emulator...

You can say that, or you can choose to believe that kids today are no good and the games you could make would be too good for those kids.

[n0rtygames]

But for the Pro Gamer to insist that everybody else who bought the game should have no greater expectations of the gaming experience than to be cannon fodder, well, they can go fuck themselves. They don't own that experience, certainly not based on the share of dollars supporting the experience. Rant over!

Well indeed. I just enjoy a nice masochistic experience myself.. I don't mind being "cannon fodder" - plenty of people do though!

everything hermit crab said

I think you've kinda hit the nail on the head there, though I'm not sure why you'd be questioning what I said with a supportive argument.

Games from the past were surely difficult and frustrating with a high learning curve. You said yourself, you found games frustrating when you were younger, but as you've grown older you've come to appreciate them a whole lot more, right?

So based on the logic that a younger mind is going to find themselves getting frustrated with a game that's too punishing. For example, a friend of mine had a PSX - but no memory card. He completed Resident Evil 2 without saving. Went to school, left it on. His mother hoovered up and unplugged it - he had to start again. He got a crap rating for sure based on time - but it was quite an achievement to do a single run through without dying. In modern resident evils you have a very forgiving checkpoint system and constant saves occurring on the device.

Another example might be something like Tomb Raider. In the older versions, you had specific save points - much like Resident Evil. The modern iterations see you able to fail the same jump over and over, respawning just before the jump and really suffering no major setback as a result.

This is what I mean about spoon feeding. A survival horror with infinite respawns end ammo in abundance completely wrecks the survival aspect of the game. The constant respawns in TR turn sequences that were previously tense carefully planned jumps in a slow paced game with an isolating environment in to a far easier experience.

The only thing that has changed is that the amount of people playing video games has gone from maybe a million to like a billion people. Even really niche titles have the capability to sell same amounts as blockbuster hits did back then. It's just that if you release a game with oldschool gameplay/aesthetics you are competing against thousands of games that were released during the last 30 years. Games that people can easily play free of charge with an emulator...

Sorry, but the same people playing CoD4 or Halo won't even be aware of the existence of something like DOJ. Where as the people on this board enjoy their shmups, they enjoy new shmups and will continue to buy them. Jamestown was an interesting one though - as it offered more of a party game aspect for four players which meant it could be marketted to casual gamers. I think you're probably over exaggerating the competition there and painting this picture that the same billions of people now playing games would even be looking at shmups with serious interest, unless I'm misunderstanding? I probably am!

You can say that, or you can choose to believe that kids today are no good and the games you could make would be too good for those kids.

Or more that I want Bubble Bobble, Quake and Street Fighter... the kids of today grew up with Halo.

Ever had your parents say that modern music is "just noise"? Ever found yourself looking at some of the music that came after your teenage years and thought THAT was just noise? Same thing really...

[Obiwanshinobi]

Dunno, there was a time when Metal Slug in the arcades had almost no real competition for my money. No guns, no swords, no sorcery - no buy.
These days I play arcade racers quite a lot and regret not having played SCUD Race at all when it was around. Car games used to be nowhere near my area of interest back when. GTA made the first indentation, but it had guns. First racer I bought, almost by accident, only to get hooked and finish it - Jak X - also had guns. Can't really find any "generation this", "generation that" explanation here. Namco 1vs1 fighting games still do precious little more than looking good for me (even though Soul games have swords). I don't miss those cabs.

[hermit crab]

Games from the past were surely difficult and frustrating with a high learning curve. You said yourself, you found games frustrating when you were younger

Sorry, I should have been more clear! What I meant was that, while some games were difficult and frustrating, others were not. Likewise nowadays games of various levels of frustration are released. RE or TR may have gone into one direction but when you look at the big picture there's all kinds of stuff out there..

I think you're probably over exaggerating the competition there and painting this picture that the same billions of people now playing games would even be looking at shmups with serious interest, unless I'm misunderstanding? I probably am!

While it's unlikely that all of the billion people who play video games now in 2012 would be interested in shmups, if even 1% of them are that's still a whole lot more people than were interested in the 80's, when it was the most popular genre..

[O. Van Bruce]

About the complexity problem developers have to face when making an indie game...

Isn't there a consumer base big enough that disregard aspects like graphics and flashy things? There are some awesome games out there that present you with very simple layouts and they are succesful.

The main problem right now in gaming is that the industry has been so prolific that there are virtually no new ideas to implement. In the end everything ends up being classified as a "random game-clone A" or random game clone B"...

Dunno... "recent" and original games are few....

[Obiwanshinobi]

Having the game give you a pistol after the first mission that is useful for killing almost everything organic in the game, even at range, with plentiful ammo and no sound signature, and having every "awesome" weapon relegated to only rare use cases - that doesn't seem balanced to me. Both original and Human Revolution flavors of Deus Ex have this problem where the pistol is the best lethal weapon in the game. (For Deus Ex: The Tarsus Chronicles, it's the baton and the spy drone / aggressive defense drone, probably.)

I was into cRPGs when I played Deus Ex and it never felt like an action game to me. Action adventure maybe, but really "just" a cRPG.

SPOILERS ALERT

Took my character's martial prowess for granted and while I >think< I killed Anna, >assassinated< would be a more adequate word in our case. Gunther seemed more threatening, so I sucker-punched him into oblivion (tried to do the same with most of the game's scary looking dudes).

SPOILERS OVER

You compared most low-brow games around (Quake and Quake III) to the most quixotic kind. Sort of like comparing Diablo to Hitman (personally I cherish Diablo and have never got on with Hitman), or building castles of sand to playing hide & seek, turn-based to real-time and so on. Would you make the exact same demands on such different forms of entertainment?
In Deus Ex, I think, getting a virtually most effective weapon at start would be only a problem if it made the game no fun. Then again, if it was all about making use of said weapon (which Deus Ex isn't), and made that one thing tons of fun, imbalanced weaponry would be just as minor issue.
The question seems to be "can a good Deus Ex game be possibly balanced the way a good Quake game should be?" or "should Deus Ex make for a good Quake-style game?" One is about killing or getting killed. The other one... less so (hey, not all activities must have goal to be enjoyable).

[nasty_wolverine]

So, just to be back on topic...
What media, and platform do you like your shmup on? and how much would you pay for it??

[Obiwanshinobi]

PC preferred, Wii and PS2 close second. GBA third (first really, but I do not dare hope and physical release would barely make ANY sense, no matter how I look at it, though printed CD with a ROM would make SOME, but you don't wanna mess with Nintendo, do you?) Up to 30$ (not without trying before if I had any suspicion it's a wannabe-doujin CAVE shmup clone).

[TransatlanticFoe]

Physical release for me, so that's basically DC or PC.

[nasty_wolverine]

So I did some analysis on some digital distribution methods and portals

Code: Select all

Portal          Commission   YearlyFees     Notes
Desura -        30% -        none -         you need to install a client, payment to devs only after $500 on sales
XBlig -         30% -        $99/year -     Xbox360 only
Windows Store - 30% -        $99/year -     for Windows8 only
IndieVania -    0% -         none -         DRM free downloads, maybe dying

I would like to add steam to the above list but i dont have much details on it...

I think IndieVania wins out in terms of devs withs it no commission no fees model, however it does seem to have very limited popularity, and also in consumer perspective with its DRM free games... It also allows devs to charge the minimum they can while still keeping all the profits..

Plus I found this - i think its decent from the video - http://www.indievania.com/games/overdriven-0

edit: I take that back, IndieVania seems to be dying...

[Obiwanshinobi]

GOG act quite proud of their "no DRM" policy and letting you back up the wares physically. They already seem to have some "brand loyalists".

[TrevHead (TVR)]

I like my budget games as digital download and AAA's and top tier arcade games as boxed, plus I like the XBLA collection disks. Since the 360 is getting close to retirement I starting to look more towards steam and PC for digital releases. Plus the fact online play is a total waste of time on XBLA since no one uses it, and MS and Sony charging $40k per patch really harms indies like Skullgirls. Cudos to Ninty for not doing the same and been indie friendly with the WiiU.

Since I don't have a legit copy of Crimson Clover or Hellsinker I would like to buy a localised boxed version of them (if not digital), I might also be temped with a Refrain / Samidare or Siter Skain collection if cheap enough.