''Commercial'' doesn't mean quality.

[Mouser]

Don't ever say steam should quality control the games they sell, that is just not gonna happen, and why? Because they collect there $100 fee for being able to sell your game on steam, they are making money, doesn't matter to them if the game is $%^ or not, have you seen the online section on steam??? Those games have been dead for years!!! It's all about the money and never gonna change.

Yes, Valve is a company concerned with making money. No surprise there.

The $100 isn't part of that (well it is, but indirectly). When Greenlight launched there was no fee. Everybody and their cousin's dog suddenly had a game that they wanted to show the world and they were absolutely flooded with unspeakable abominations that should never have seen the light of day.

Putting a cover charge in helps keep the riff-raff out. Is it perfect? Of course not, but at least people have to pony up _something_ to show they're at least halfway serious about their title. To cap it off, as Nathaniel pointed out, the money goes to charity, so everybody wins on this one, except people who truly can't afford the $100 - not as much of an issue in the US, but for some foreign indie's that can be a huge hurdle. Knowing this community even the little that I do, I believe that if such a person showcased a really good game here [the blood, sweat, and tears have to come first], and shared that, somebody would step up to help them get their foot in the door.

@ Others in general:

As for 'market saturation' and all that, welcome to the real world of entrepreneurship.

If it were easy, everyone would be doing it - which would quickly lead to market saturation and so the cycle goes (it's never really easy, but perception is much more important than underlying realities in much of economics). The big difference is software development in general has very low startup costs compared to most other businesses (they also have much lower capital assets). You don't need to take out three mortgages on your home to get started.

The 'luck' factor comes into play if you're trying to be the first to open up a new market. The first guy to look at his heavy gravel driveway and think, "Hey, I bet I could put these things in little boxes and people would buy them for pets!"  That guy was lucky. The success of Minecraft? Lucky (not that it was successful at all, but the enormity of the success). J.K. Rowlings? The planets and half the Milky Way aligned above the Pub or where ever it was she went out every morning to force herself to write every day (hey - there's that blood, sweat, and tears things again!) when she finally finished the first Harry Potter.

Most people don't ever see the work that goes on before the success. Read a bio of Hugh Hefner sometimes. The stuff he went through, the things he endured (once of the first to not back down from fighting racism, even though it cost him a large part of his audience early on). Years and years of toil before Playboy became anything close to a success. Remember Steve Irwin, Crocodile Hunter? Years of living in swamps tracking down croc after croc with nothing to show for it until he amassed enough experience to be able to do what he did. Stephen King has enough rejection letters from publishers to wallpaper a good sized apartment: he considered himself successful when the editors would add a bit of handwritten advice in the margin of the boilerplate letter.

 

[Nathanial]

 Stephen King has enough rejection letters from publishers to wallpaper a good sized apartment: he considered himself successful when the editors would add a bit of handwritten advice in the margin of the boilerplate letter.

I see somebody read "On Writing". Good book. And those are very good points.

And remember: don't staple your papers. Use a paperclip

 

[crimcrim]

Yet I'm probably richer than you from game making so meh. Good luck anyway, if you succeed, good for you. I like results, words have no effect on me. When results back up your words, I will congratulate you.

If all you care about in a discussion of quality is the amount of money generated, that says a lot about you as a developer. Sorry champ.

Oh, that's cool. I havn't heard of you, what have you released? I might be interested in checking it out, since most of us who play these niche titles also play 'actual' games too.

Please point out where I said I released a title. I give advice based on my knowledge of the industry from working in it. You can choose to take or ignore this knowledge or be smug, it doesn't affect me.

Don't ever say steam should quality control the games they sell, that is just not gonna happen, and why? Because they collect there $100 fee for being able to sell your game on steam, they are making money, doesn't matter to them if the game is $%^ or not, have you seen the online section on steam??? Those games have been dead for years!!! It's all about the money and never gonna change.

$100 is absolutely nothing in the scope of a commercial developer. Mouser and Nathanial covered what it's actually used for

Also @whoever was talking about luck in game development, not to say Nathanial was wrong in saying you're incorrect. You're partially correct.

Luck plays a huge part in "hitting the market at the right time". This is mostly exclusive to mobile development where the profit margin is between 5%-6%. Hitting the market at the right time (Flappy Bird as an example) can net you thousands of dollars. But...do you really want to base your financial situation off of luck? I mean game development as a whole is a hefty risk in general but basing most of it off of luck is ehhh. Do what you want I guess.

 

[Napoleon]

Games can't have standards because they can't be measured. You can't even measure it by bugs or crashes because even popular games and best sellers sometimes have major crashes&compatibility problems. I bought GTA 4 twice and it NEVER worked for me. Failed on 2 computers due to bad porting. To me that game scores lower than any RM game. Or Dark Souls II: not fully compatible with Logitech controllers, only 360 controllers. Also major problems with keyboard&mouse. And don't get me started on Sim City 4...

All I can say about networking is that you can find people anywhere. My lawyer for example has connections with software dev. and distribution and such. Who would have known? Accountants, Family, Managers, Lawyers, Hairdressers, etc. just about anyone that likes&trusts you and who is well-connected himself can get you started regarding distribution, marketing, finances, etc. IT doesn't have to be gaming conventions or even IT related at all. Basic communication can wipe most of the luck factor off the table.

 

[Nathanial]

This will probably be my last post on this subject because I feel like I'm in an infinite loop.
 

Luck plays a huge part in "hitting the market at the right time". This is mostly exclusive to mobile development where the profit margin is between 5%-6%. Hitting the market at the right time (Flappy Bird as an example) can net you thousands of dollars. But...do you really want to base your financial situation off of luck? I mean game development as a whole is a hefty risk in general but basing most of it off of luck is ehhh. Do what you want I guess.

 
Fair enough. That's valid. Which is why I said "sometimes". But to label that broadly across the entire game market is just silly. Flappy is a good example. 
 
I think I understand where you come from overall. Even though I can see why you turn people off and people automatically label you hostile.. and in turn start making the most ridiculous counter arguments that make me facepalm so much the skin on my forehead is starting to peel. 
 
A lot of commercial RM games seem to rely on "luck". Some developers, such as (from what I gather) yourself, myself and more put time, energy, money and resources into our games to make it the best they can be. To not be labeled simply as "another RPG Maker game" based on your tilesets. 

We put time and effort into presentation. We do research. We make friends in higher places to learn. To prepare our games. 
 
Does that mean we'll do any better than an RTP game pushed on Steam? No... but if you really do everything you can and work the network to the best of your ability.. you most likely will. In fact, I've not seen a game (RM or not RM) that did very good marketing..  very good presentation.. etc... and NOT do well. 
 
Anyone else can argue the exact opposite for whatever reason they want. I draw it down into two (overgeneralized/very broad to a degree, I admit) groups and not everything applies to everyone in these "groups" but I find most of them go hand in hand:
 
Group 1
 
Those that make the game they want to make using the RTP. They don't have a lot of background or knowledge in the field. Maybe they don't have connections, nor do they spend the time to get them.  They don't care to put in market research or study failed commercial games by others to learn from them. They just make what they want to make with the tools/resources they have. Maybe they don't have the money to invest or don't want to risk it. Hell, maybe they're just after a quick buck and just don't care. One way or another, these games 'look the same' and more often than not, are put together in a lazy manner ("hell they'll buy it anyway"). That's not always the case, of course. Regardless, they're attacked by the Steam community. These people turn around and complain that the Steam community is so awful, full of idiots and they're all unfair. They'll just take their game elsewhere (usually to a niche market) and make their money somewhere else.
 
Group 2
Those that put time, money and effort into their game to make it truly unique and stand out. To have long term sales. They can sometimes be embarrassed or agitated by the people in group 1 feeling that they flood the market with half-assed RTP games where there often (more often than not) seems to be minimal effort and is a matter of "throw it at the wall, and hope we're lucky enough that it sticks" or "my story will sell it" (although it has happened before). (I personally feel there's no point being "embarrassed" by the flood of RTP games... your game should stand on its own if its made right/well)These people would rather lose money, time, and effort making a game they're proud of and doing everything in their effort to make it FOR the market they're targeting (Steam). Some of them come across as more "uppity" than members of group 1. Maybe it's too much pride. Even games made by people in group 2 can be identified as "another RPG Maker game" and be attacked. But their sales are usually much better than the people in group 1. And there's usually more people defending their game.

Generally, the biggest difference between the two: Group 1 makes a game for themselves, Group 2 makes a game for their audience.

 
Nobody is right or wrong. Make your game how you see fit. Share your ideas with others and try to help each other learn. If it falls on deaf ears and it turns out to be good advice, that's on them. Flat out attacking others is unnecessary. If the people from Group 2 want to laugh at the people from Group 1 and be embarrassed/frustrated that's their right. If the people from Group 1 want to think the people from Group 2 are jackasses that don't know what they're talking about, that's their right.
 
At the end of the day, good luck to everyone and let your sales figures speak for what you stand for. Or not. It just depends on how you roll and how important it was to you in the first place. I've had a poem in my signature for months that always comes to mind when it comes to creating anything, or when thinking about success. How much will it really matter in a few hundred years if at all? Your empire, your success, can be jack **** then.

Me? I'm making something for long term sales. I study the market, I see what fails. Every RM game on Steam that has a negative thread: I'm there... reading.. and learning from your failures. I'm reaching out to people in higher places that can provide insight and help me do better. Doing what I can to interact with my audience/player base in person. To see first hand what they think of what they're playing based on their facial features and first time reactions. It makes it much more personable and is quite the experience! It drives me. I have not come this far to fail. One way or another, I'm going to make it all worth it. Not just shrug it off and go "oh well". I'm developing the game I want to make. It excites me. But I'm also developing it to sell to the audience I'm targeting.

 

[Shion Kreth]

Please point out where I said I released a title. I give advice based on my knowledge of the industry from working in it. You can choose to take or ignore this knowledge or be smug, it doesn't affect me.

Oh, I just believed you must have and had met with great success to marginalize and speak down to people who're successfully making a living off of selling games they've made, you should probably avoid doing that; it comes across as a need to build yourself up stemming from a lack security. For now I think I'll look to more.. proven sources for my knowledge thanks, but do keep me apprised of your progress on that commercial release, champ.

 

[Nathanial]

Okay, everyone needs to stop talking down to each other or this thread will be locked. Talking down to/attacking someone that makes games you don't agree with, or talking down to/attacking someone that hasn't proven themselves yet... you both could look very foolish one day, and this thread doesn't need that kind of flat out hostility.

Kilim: For all you know Aldorea's games will be more successful than anything you'll ever make.

Shion Kreth: For all you know Kilim could have good points and will one day completely obliterate Aldorea's games in sales figures. 
 

Both of you, stop it. 

 

[Indinera]

I will add making a living off indie games is OF COURSE much more meaningful than flat-out self-boasting like "I do this, I think that, I have this" which at the end of the day amount to nothing more than mere *opinions*... hmm great for you to have opinions, every single person on Earth also have them, yet not every single person on Earth can make a living off RM games. Just putting things back in place.

 

[Shion Kreth]

Anyone else can argue the exact opposite for whatever reason they want. I draw it down into two (overgeneralized/very broad to a degree, I admit) groups and not everything applies to everyone in these "groups" but I find most of them go hand in hand:

Group 1

Those that make the game they want to make using the RTP. They don't have a lot of background or knowledge in the field. Maybe they don't have connections, nor do they spend the time to get them.  They don't care to put in market research or study failed commercial games by others to learn from them. They just make what they want to make with the tools/resources they have. Maybe they don't have the money to invest or don't want to risk it. Hell, maybe they're just after a quick buck and just don't care. One way or another, these games 'look the same' and more often than not, are put together in a lazy manner ("hell they'll buy it anyway"). That's not always the case, of course. Regardless, they're attacked by the Steam community. These people turn around and complain that the Steam community is so awful, full of idiots and they're all unfair. They'll just take their game elsewhere (usually to a niche market) and make their money somewhere else.

Group 2

Those that put time, money and effort into their game to make it truly unique and stand out. To have long term sales. They can sometimes be embarrassed or agitated by the people in group 1 feeling that they flood the market with half-assed RTP games where there often (more often than not) seems to be minimal effort and is a matter of "throw it at the wall, and hope we're lucky enough that it sticks" or "my story will sell it" (although it has happened before). (I personally feel there's no point being "embarrassed" by the flood of RTP games... your game should stand on its own if its made right/well)These people would rather lose money, time, and effort making a game they're proud of and doing everything in their effort to make it FOR the market they're targeting (Steam). Some of them come across as more "uppity" than members of group 1. Maybe it's too much pride. Even games made by people in group 2 can be identified as "another RPG Maker game" and be attacked. But their sales are usually much better than the people in group 1. And there's usually more people defending their game.

Generally, the biggest difference between the two: Group 1 makes a game for themselves, Group 2 makes a game for their audience.

How about some examples of games that fit into each of those categories for us lacking group 1 members that are aspiring to improve? Mainly I'm curious which games you'd classify as group 2 games, because I'd be very interested in finding out just how much better those games do sell.

As an aside just to add to the thread, I'm a customer too, and I'm entirely content buying games that use the rtp if they're fun to play like: eternal eden, last dream, dawn's light, and so on, it seems silly to me that people who are discerning about graphics would be buying 'old school' 640x480 resolution pc rpgs. On that topic, while the aforementioned games are some of my favorites,. (presumably)Group 2 games like alpha kimori and deadly sin, both heavy on custom assets; creators definitely taking pride in their work and trying to stand out, really didn't do it for me. I'd need to see some compelling sales trends to buy into this elite perspective; otherwise I'm keeping my perspective on the two groups being one that knows what's fun to people, and the other that doesn't as much, and that is not learned through market research or connections to triple A game studios(they go under all the time).

 

[Indinera]

(presumably)Group 2 games like alpha kimori and deadly sin, both heavy on custom assets; creators definitely taking pride in their work and trying to stand out,

Deadly Sin has less custom assets than Millennium, just saying. Millennium has custom music, artworks, enemies and tilesets. All monsters in DS are default for instance. Sometimes I wonder if people take the time to really give a look at what is original and what is not.

 

[Shion Kreth]

Deadly Sin has less custom assets than Millennium, just saying. Millennium has custom music, artworks, enemies and tilesets. All monsters in DS are default for instance. Sometimes I wonder if people take the time to really give a look at what is original and what is not.

I honestly don't even know what the xp rtp looks like since I don't work with xp, and there are fewer xp games that I know, 

 

[Indinera]

That's OK. I've noticed a lot of people don't really know what is original and what is not. I think how they see the dev heavily conditions how they are going to see the game, regardless of its features.

 

[Kes]

I have hesitated to join in this debate as someone who is still a bit new as a dev.  However, I think some important features tend to get squashed out in this sort of conversation.

I fully accept that how a game looks is important - it is literally the first thing that a potential customer sees.  They don't know your story, they haven't experienced the gameplay.  All they've got is the visuals, both of the game and of any supporting presentational material - videos, for example.  The visuals are quite likely to drive a significant proportion of the short term sales.

However, as devs we should also be concerned about such things as long term sales, the building up of a fan base who will be interested in buying the next game because they enjoyed the first, the ability to fit in to a range of portals, not just one (even if that one is Steam). As an aside, I think I remember seeing at one time that Steam required you to demonstrate that a game had sold well on other outlets before they would accept it.  That automatically means that games were not 'new' unless you had a publisher who could bypass the requirement.  Just mentioning it, as the age of games being released was a subject of some posts here.

Back to my main point.  Yes, visuals are important, but unless everything else is firmly in place, all we will have will be a one-hit wonder, or a flash-in-the-pan, call it by whatever term you like.  Long term sales will be negligible, it will be difficult to build up a solid fan base and so on.  Now, you can criticize Aldorlea games for the visuals (though as the post above this one points out, at least some of that criticism is thoroughly misplaced), but the other elements are solidly in place - excellent game play, engaging stories and characters.  

As someone who hopes to make more than just one game I look around me to see what supports longevity.  I have played a huge range of commercial rpgmaker games, and I've seen so many devs produce a couple of games and then go out of business and, frankly, I'm not surprised by some of them going under.  The ability to produce good games, one after the other, in a reasonable time frame, on a reasonable budget so that you can turn a profit even in a difficult market is something that many devs lack - at least judging by the number going under.  Those that can manage to do this - Aldorlea is one, but there are others - have something to teach us, even if we don't like their visuals.

 

[whitesphere]

Even a free RPGMaker game still costs potential users one of their most important possessions --- their free time.  I would argue that, for commercial games, the free time is a far more important consideration than the, say, $10 the game costs.

As for quality, that is somewhat subjective.  Even among popular commercial RPGs, like Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger, opinions can and do vary wildly.  

How do I personally define quality?  For the games I make (I'm still in progress on my first one), it means:

* The game is easy to get into (i.e. no difficulty spikes)

* The story is very engaging, well planned, and well told

* Puzzles in the game must be fair, with hints available if needed

* The gameplay itself is well balanced through the entire game

* The maps are good quality and feed nicely into the story (this requires the most work on my part as my mapping skills are amateur since I've only started making RPGs 2 months ago)

* Events must account for all relevant conditions (i.e. if I kill the king, the woman NPC who was thirsting for his blood because her children died, congratulates the player)

Note I'm not caring about graphics, per se.  The RPGs I love have, by today's standards, meh graphics.  But I love their stories so I get sucked in and don't even see the graphics anymore.  Instead, I experience their stories.  To me that defines a good RPG.

 

[Solo]

Note I'm not caring about graphics, per se.  The RPGs I love have, by today's standards, meh graphics.  But I love their stories so I get sucked in and don't even see the graphics anymore.  Instead, I experience their stories.  To me that defines a good RPG.

Yes, yes, and yes, forevermore.

 

[Shelby]

You say charity they say tax write off...

 

[Nathanial]

You say charity they say tax write off...

It's donated directly to Child's Play. 

 

[crimcrim]

I will add making a living off indie games is OF COURSE much more meaningful than flat-out self-boasting like "I do this, I think that, I have this" which at the end of the day amount to nothing more than mere *opinions*... hmm great for you to have opinions, every single person on Earth also have them, yet not every single person on Earth can make a living off RM games. Just putting things back in place.

No. Your opinion means just as much as mine and anyone else. You chastise me for boasting yet do the same? Unacceptable. Your games target their own niche, and a relatively small one at that. You don't understand the inner workings of the actual commercial development world and I'll be damned if I'm going to let these guys take any of your advice. If they're targeting your niche? Sure, go for it. But why would they shoot low; they should always shoot higher and better themselves. I want this cycle of RM being a casual dev tool to break, because it deserves more than that.

As to your comment of your exquisite indie developer lifestyle: quality over quantity. If your games are of such high caliber and are huge commercial successes across the board why do you have to make so many to stay afloat. Food for thought.

Also wanted to jump on this:

I'd need to see some compelling sales trends to buy into this elite perspective; otherwise I'm keeping my perspective on the two groups being one that knows what's fun to people, and the other that doesn't as much, and that is not learned through market research or connections to triple A game studios(they go under all the time).

If you're content with staying in the first Group that Nathanial mentioned, yes. I agree. The over the top nuances that come hand in hand with commercial development aren't really worth the time. However if you want to make your living off of game development and have long term sales for your game then it's wrong. First off, what is good game design and what is fun is entirely subjective; one group does not know more than the other about what is 'fun'. Second of all, anyone who has these connections I applaud heavily. Marketing is the hardest part of game development, and the one that all developers struggle with the most. I've done PR for games, it sucks ass. Contrary to popular belief, the cream of the crop will not rise to the top without marketing. The game market is just too saturated at this point, specifically Steam.

 

[Indinera]

you have to make so many to stay afloat

This is a sheer example of how wrong you are about something, and generally about everything. You talk, you brag endlessly trying to sound convincing and having the world fit to your delusions, and you don't know anything. Excuse me, but I'm a man of achievements. Until you have something to show me other than your blablabla, I have zero reason to give you any relevance, because you just talk bs all the time. What I quoted is merely an example of many of your godawful wrong assumptions.

 

[crimcrim]

This is a sheer example of how wrong you are about something, and generally about everything. You talk, you brag endlessly trying to sound convincing and having the world fit to your delusions, and you don't know anything. Excuse me, but I'm a man of achievements. Until you have something to show me other than your blablabla, I have zero reason to give you any relevance, because you just talk bs all the time. What I quoted is merely an example of many of your godawful wrong assumptions.

Can you read my post. I'm not talking about your damn market. I'm talking about the actual market, one that you've never been in since you're so smug to dismiss someone because they haven't made as much money as you in game development.Likewise for you then. We're both on different sides of this (though I would argue that's because we aren't targeting the same audience). Our difference? I refuse to publish mediocre games under my name and truly believe RM can be taken to the next level. I'm not going to let you twist other people into thinking your games are the end all of what RM is capable of, let alone good.

And the quality over quantity argument still stands. Just because you gloat about sales data doesn't mean it's true. Quite frankly the money you've made (based off what you said in the thread) is really negligible compared to developers in the industry.