if bills is nothing to do with games why AAA studios are still making games, making sequels from big hits and remaking old games? making four, five or six part of a game when it’s boring already in the sequel?
indie developers don’t have a lot of resources to test their projects, friends didn’t work for test, alpha, beta or anything like that, people you don’t know that’s where you will get the good feedback to let you your career progress in the right way.
Steams market access is massive and as a portal the draconian requirements of what is good or bad to make it through Green Light made it difficult for an Indy developer to get their game into the market place so customers could decided what is good and what is bad by voting with their wallet. And yes this would included games out for the quick buck, just like any other industry who have access to the free market place, not based on a individual or group “opinion” but rather as an opportunity for others to judge based on their own needs and interests.
If I was to included my own interests as to what makes a good or bad game MindCraft would not stand a chance because I’m all about he eye candy and 8-bit graphics doe not do it for me.
I usually avoid this kind of discussions but this made me cringe.
Game developers, just as film makers for example, have ethical responsibility of being capable to judge quality of their own products. Feedback that you are going to get from a general public is going to be very rarely useful, as majority of your customers didn’t studied game design, art and etc. The game have to be good - mechanically and for this you don’t need to have experience of publishing 20 games. Publishing experience is necessary to get a proper exposure and marketing in general. But you don’t need it to make a good game as a game itself, not a trade mark or recognizable IP.
Yes, some people will take this route but they are not going to become another Rovio just by publishing 50 games in 7 years. This is a backwards logic. If you dissect Angry Birds, bit by bit, you will see how well it’s designed and engineered, this is why it got such a huge success. It’s not just luck or some small fixes here and there based on feedback of your customer from previous years. It’s a result of professional skills both in development and in marketing. A lot of work to do one product right. The whole story of Rovio with making so many games before Angry Birds is specifics of mobile market, its not a grand strategy of becoming pro by publishing a ton of amateurish products.
Yes, you need feedback, but you don’t need to have a game on steam to get feedback. I do not pay much attention to new stuff on steam BECAUSE there is so much, BECAUSE the quality is usually low, and BECAUSE there is hardly ever anything new or unique… just the same **** rehashed.
i know that we don’t need to released a game on steam to get feedback, we can get a lot of feedback in the process of developing the game, but after your judge and when you released the game without any “bugs and/or errors” you will still get feedback (bad and good) you can’t avoid that.
still the best game developer companies got bad and good feedback after releasing a game, it’s impossible to make a game that will like everybody.
that will depend of each person, just an sample, you can like assassins creed franchise, but for me, after playing it, is kind of boring, no body can know how much a game will like the others people because is your vision and all the people think different.
I thought we were talking about indies… What AAA studios do is out of this discussion - this year shown that recognizable franchise, marketing and hype is enough to sell for huge profit before even first reviews appear.
Back to greenlight and indies. Very small amount of players are going to give you any feedback at all. The kind of feedback you get is rarely useful. You can have a number of systems in your game mechanics, each affecting each other. It not always obvious for players how one system influence another. They need to understand really really well how your game works, perhaps even better than you know it yourself, to give you valuable feedback. Which isn’t the case most of the time.
Liking/disliking a game is irrelevant. It simply translate into how well your marketing aligned with what people want (or expect from you) and how your product satisfies those needs. This is rarely have anything to do with how exactly you’ve made a certain game system. People can hate COD’s match making system, but they still will play it because they get almost exactly what they want with a good production quality.