Lately I've watched Thrive. It's a documentary about the bad government, greedy corporations, our diabolic bank system and suppressed scientific results - everything garnished with some esoterism. It sums up to the conclusion: the establishment has a master plan to enslave us all.

I'm not sure what to make of this movie. These stories about "all bigwigs are deceitful" are so common these days. Especially all the mentioned great inventions which never went public puzzle me. A perfect cure for cancer found in the early 20th century pharmacy companies want to keep secret? Clean energy supply out of thin air? Come on.

perpetuum mobile

Seriously?

However, it made me ponder how the establishment can do bad things to their own people. We know that political and financial decisions don't get made for the public benefit. They get made for the decision makers, to keep them in power. Therefore bad things happen to the common people regardless what they want from their leaders. Democracies grow into oligarchies, it's the old game.

The question for me was: why is money more important than people?

A single word took shape in my mind: apathy.

Apathy is the absence of emotion towards other beings. When someone has no emotional connection to an other being (s)he will see it like an object and treat it that way. Insects are a simple example. Would you have concerns squashing a fly when it gets annoying? What about killing spiders just because they look disgusting? Humans don't see themselves in these animals and therefore have no empathy for them. Killing them is not killing. It's removing distraction.

It gets more difficult when animals get bigger and "mammal". Dogs, cats, pigs, cows, dolphins - whatever has a recognizable face and "voice". How easy is it to kill a dog, especially when it squalls in pain? If you don't have a problem ending a dog's live just for fun please consult a psychologist. Otherwise read on.

The point is: when there is no emotional bond and no compassion towards an animal or human being it's easy to exploit it in any way we want. This apathy seems to be the root of most problems we have with our establishment(s). The often demonized money isn't the problem. It's just a catalyst for unethical behaviour. When leaders are too far apart from the people they (have to) guide and decisions get made out of selfishness regardless if they harm others we have reached apathy. When I don't see the pain I create, when I don't have a relationship with the victims or simply can ignore their fate (best masked with statistics where the starving are just a percentage) I'm able to exploit these "insects" at will and squash them when no longer needed.

At this point it's time to lead over to games.

Imagine how pirates get copies of your game. Usually somewhere from a server, from a generic Internet link. There is nothing there pointing out that you invested months or even years making this game. The pirate doesn't know you or just has no empathy for you. There is no emotional connection. The monetary loss for you is not the his/her problem. Pirating your game this way doesn't feel wrong.

A complete different experience for a pirate would be getting into your flat with a picklock, hacking into your PC, copying the game and leaving without a trace. The result is the same as downloading it from a server. No physical theft happened, the game is still on your harddisk. No immediate harm was done to you. Despite the same outcome as a download the pirate feels that (s)he acted unethically. It gets even worse when the pirate is a friend of yours. How unscrupulous would that be?

It's easy to exploit others as long as the harm does not affect ourselves. This becomes more difficult when we have an emotional connection to the victim.

That's the hook game developers should utilize for less piracy. Building a relationship with the audience is vital. There are several things a game dev can do:

  • start a blog where you talk about your work, your thoughts and opinions,
  • communicate with your audience, e.g. in forums,
  • support clients personally - no call center shit,
  • share your knowledge,
  • help out,
  • be friendly,
  • etc.

A load of true fans, interested in you and your work, sounds like the ultimate goal. Empathy and trust are critical for this endeavour. People with a positive emotional connection to you will be happy to spend money on your games. It's no longer buying stuff, it's supporting a person or team they feel connected to. That way spending money feels more like help than trade.

That's the way I would love to spend my money!

 

Cheers,
Thomas

 

Some time ago Cliffski gave a talk at the World of Love conference. You can find the video here or just go with the presentation slides.

Rule #12 in this talk is an interesting fact of the business world:

The steps from idea to sale don't sum up, they multiply.

The (indie) game business has some core steps:

  1. idea analysis aka prototyping
  2. design
  3. code
  4. art
  5. marketing
  6. sales management

Representing the quality of these steps in percent - 0% for not existing, 100% for godlike - gives us a sequence of factors. Their multiplication gives the quality of the overall business execution:

80% * 90% * 80% * 70% * 70% * 90% = 25%

The bad news is that this factor chain is just as strong as its weakest link:

80% * 90% * 0% * 70% * 70% * 90% = 0%

Ouch! If any factor comes close to zero it will dump your sales. PANIC!!!

Calm down. Finally it's not as bad as it looks. Hardly any factor will drop to zero in your own project. Rookie projects will have some pretty low factors. That's not a problem but an opportunity. Like it's done with combos in beat 'em ups. Initially you won't exceed doubles or triples. But over time your skills improve and scoring 10x becomes second nature.

So, what's the problem with the following factor chain?

100% * 100% * 100% * 100% * 100% * 100% = 100%

Perfect! What should be wrong with it?

Well, there is no way to get higher. That's the end of interest and boredom is going to start. Time for an other challenge with lower factors in the chain.

I'm happy that there is so much space up to the ceiling of perfection. Opportunities for getting better.

 

Cheers,
Thomas

 

What are adult gamers? These are simply people who already left puberty behind and are earning their own money. I don't know if students should be included. They still suffer from some kind of monetary puberty. But after they got their degrees they are cordially welcome in the community of adult gamers.

old-gamer-couple

So why should you aim for these people instead of the game addicted teenage crowd?

Money

Adults with a steady income are happy to pay a game's price when it's worth it. When you have +2000$ a month at your disposal (taxes and other harassments not deducted) you don't have the need to pirate games.

The funny thing is that today's youth has more money than ever. Nonetheless they cry for free lunch when it's about low budget games. Hilarious.

Coolness

Everybody knows a poser. My neighbor was such a bloke. Back in our younger days he always told me about the new games for his NES. It was very funny because I knew he was lying all the time. The best example was when he told me about the new Super Mario Bros 5. What a dork!

Kids and teens try to impress others with their toys. Adults do the same with swanky cars, jewels or talking about their lays during the last weekend. But they don't brag about their latest video game. Well, most do not.

Indie games often don't have (the need for) fancy AAA graphics. Therefore they hardly serve as status symbols for youngsters.

Appreciation

Today's adult gamers grew up with blocky graphics, annoying bleeps from speakers, epic loading times and laborious software/hardware handling. They are more likely to accept mediocre visuals or technical problems than kids which were never confronted with those "problems". Modern devices like the iPhone are trendy, easy to use, reliable and kill tolerance for humbler technology.

Aim for adults who tolerate weaknesses because they know it can be much worse.

Nostalgia

What should I say? Everything done here.

Sociality

"Kids can be cruel."

Young, inexperienced human beings don't hesitate telling you the truth. Unfiltered. They experiment with bullying, violence, defamation and other immoral acts, just because they don't know yet what the gain and consequences will be.

Grown-ups should be able to express themselves in a polite manner. This way discussions and feedback are much more pleasant and accommodation becomes possible. One of the shortest killer phrases for any professional discussion is:

"That's shit!"

It's a conversation stopper. Nobody likes to be slammed.

Adults are more likely to act politely than children who did not yet cut their teeth in sociality or are going to get their teeth broken in the near future.

 

Adult gamers have money, are forgiving and friendly. So go for them!

 

Cheers,
Thomas

 

I've just read this article about the success factors of Minecraft. It's a good one listing the drawbacks and, even more important, the points of success. The weak points would have made each game publisher laugh his/her head off - back in Minecraft's embryonic state. Today we know it's a winner. This story already gets trite.

A key point of Minecraft's success seems to be the alignment of the game to its players. That sounds logical. If you throw larvas into a pond full
of Piranha hardly anything would happen. But some raw meat would make the pond's surface seethe.

Now I'm not sure what Nordenfelt is going to be: larvae or meat? Neither do I know if the gaming waters are crowded with flesh eaters or larvae munchers. So there is no clue if the meal I'm cooking has any nutritional effect. Where is the cookbook with the recipes?

As far as I can see there is only trial and error combined with own believes. It's old wisdom to create games you would like to play yourself. The absence of experience of newbie game designers emphasizes this conclusion. It would make no sense writing a turn-based strategy game if you only know platformers. You won't have the experience nor the feeling for strategy stuff.

Trial-and-error is the fate of a designer's first X games. Like a band playing awful first gigs until they become better and develop their own style. Hopefully X is close to zero for all of us.

Enough babble. Back to the stove!

 

Cheers,
Thomas

 

...when big publishers start to scale down their projects.

greedBig players like EA, Blizzard or Ubisoft increasingly suffer from blockbusteritis. Tens or even hundreds of man-years go into their games, always hoping for the next big hit. This hope is not due to grief (well, not directly) but to make their games break even. Not every game pays for itself so other, more successful games have to carry them along. This forces game factories to rely on trusted concepts like established brands and sequels. Bringing about innovation's downfall.

During the last decade indies came out of their niches and showed how success aside innovation can be achieved with small budgets. Now the big question arises:

Why do big studios not follow this well-trodden path?

They have hordes of programmers, artists and designers at hand. Rearranging them in small teams would distribute the pressure to succeed on multiple legs. Failed projects would cut less deep wounds. Management would become more easy. Bleeding edge tech wars would be gone - maybe a disadvantage for hardware sellers.

The graphics arms race is no excuse any longer. It is over or at least halts in front of the the uncanny valley.

After pondering a while I came up with these possible answers:

  • It had always been like that!
  • That's peanuts!
  • success (speak $$$) of one large project outweighs the success of several small projects summed up
  • stakeholders don't want their companies to experiment (innovate) with their cash

Do you have an answer why they haven't invaded indie lands yet?

 

Cheers,
Thomas