- 0 Posts
- 26 Comments
My dude, I’m very familiar with the 14% of videogame players new game devs are vying for. And every one of the games you mentioned launched at that price because they were developed by a single dev (two at most) who could profit off of the $10 - $15 dollar space that was below the smaller studios putting out games like Shadow Complex, or Mercenary Kings, or Shank 1+2 for $20.
Now all of those spaces are being crushed together. Mostly due to economic factors. Thats where the biggest problem really lies, in the fact that people just have less money to spend on all that entertainment. Just pointing out that it’s competitive at all is obvious my dude, but the direction its going in is one in where there’s less anything being made (including games) because not as many people have money to spend on anything but necessities.
That’s why AAA is now scavenging at the bottom of the totem pole, and pricing their older games at $10 or less on sale, it’s because the few people that have money find that price point appealing. So it’s now one that not just the people who made Terraria, Braid, etc compete in. The money those devs made previously in that space is now up for grabs to AAA companies that never had anything to sell at that price before.
Theres a very tried and true formula for any business, including making games, and in the last 2 years it has completely broken apart. Mostly due to the Embracer group merger failing, combined with AI, combined with economic uncertainty, combined with AAA companies stabbing indie creators in the back (Subnautica, Disco Elysium). Your game doesn’t have to be a massive hit to be successful, it just needs to have a big enough audience to be profitable. But that audience has shrunk over the years as economies have tightened, and the companies getting squeezed have been invading markets they never had a presence in before.
So it’s just desperate times more than anything. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make a living off of making games. I know dozens of small teams funded by government grants making small games you’ve never heard of to help kids in hospitals learn about their cancer. Or teach kids in underprivileged schools about resource scarcity. Making games as a business goes far beyond entertainment and the hopes of narcissists. It’s an artistic medium like any other, and as such benefits society by making the toughest parts of it more accessible.
There’s plenty of ways to run a company doing just that - and just because the world economy is in free fall doesn’t mean the entire business of making games is something for the lucky few. It’s just for anyone that wants to learn how to run a game company. Which isn’t easy, but extends far beyond the simplistic view you are portraying.
Thanks! 🙂 Appreciate you confirming that. We actually changed the price of our latest game to $10 (from $20) because we launched last December and got buried by AAA selling for $15.
Almost every dev team we talked to this year felt the same about the $20 price. That is, it’s much better to go out at $15 or $10 as a LOT of people see indie games at that price as better than modern AAA. (All while still holding out for classic AAA that go on sale for $20.)
And that being said, I’m totally cool with losing a sale to MGSV or Witcher 3 😁 Just wish the $20 space wasn’t getting so crowded. It’s making it rough for the smaller teams to compete at that price too now.
As an indie dev, this article is fucking stupid.
Want to know why indie games are priced at $10 to $15? Becaue AAA has been putting everything they’ve made in the last decade on Steam and it’s all going for $20 - $25.
Indies can’t launch at that price point anymore because they’re competing with AAA games from 10 years ago that have been discounted to death.
The Steam winter sale is the best example of this, where most people will buy RDR2 for $19 instead of the new mega hit indie that’s $20. So indies have been lowering their price to actually get sales. That’s why team cherry priced Silk Song at $20.
Basically, AAA is now just competing with the bottom part of the market they spent that last decade flooding.
They’re complaining about people actually choosing where to spend their money wisely because that means they might actually have to make a good product if they want to sell a game for $70.
The real question is how a company accidentally steals something like that for a 4th time. (This was the 4th time they’ve been caught doing this).
https://www.thepopverse.com/gaming-marathon-bungie-art-stolen-fern-hook-destiny-2-trailer-gun
So here’s the thing. They can say whatever they want. Stores are still pulling Xbox hardware from sale. That is the canary in the coal mine. Microsoft isn’t coming back to the market after that. Especially not with an overpriced console that has no exclusives.
Their current trajectory, is almost identical to that of Sega’a post Dreamcast.
Sega did the same with Dreamcasts still on the shelf, had them discounted and removed from sale in stores while announcing they were still working on more hardware.
One year later: just kidding. SEGA now only make software / Sonic games.
Microsoft is absolutley just about to do the same with Halo and Xbox.
Here’s an article from Sega in 2001 about the death of the Dreamcast being overrated because of Segas future hardware plans (that later never materialized).
It reads almost exactly like the one you just posted from Microsoft.
Very true. They are still acting identically as if they were shutting down console production. The only difference between Dreamcast and Xbox is that Xbox is willing to lie to keep their shareholders oblivious.
Sega at least put their units on sale with honesty, yet Microsoft is acting like their Xboxes selling for 279 at Sam’s club is just a temporary thing.
Actually. It happened with Sega after the Dreamcast. Almost beat for beat:
Sega: We’re so going to make a cooler next Gen console. Sega: Yeah our games are leaving stores, but just you wait until we announce what’s NEXT! SEGA: J/K no more new consoles, Sega just makes games now.
Microsoft is likely going to turn Xbox into a brand the same way Sega was forced to.
The funniest part about this comment is that’s how GAME pass has always worked. They offer it to titles for a lump cash payment in lieu of sales. Now that they own Activision, therefore BOPS6, they care about those lost sales.
When they didn’t make enough software for the last decade for it to be a problem for their bottom line, they didn’t.
But it sure as shit effected literally every game ever on Game Pass. It is and always has been a literal loss leader for every single game on it, they just now give a crap because one of those bigger games is finally theirs.
When Hi-fi rush exploded in popularity, it was because it was discovered on game pass. Where it then went on to be played by millions, while the team behind it made nothing, so Microsoft closed the studio. Literally because the game wasn’t profitable enough after MS decided to force shadow drop it on game pass at launch.
But sure, BOPS6, “lost” them millions on Gamepass and they care about how Gamepass affects the sales of that title.
I’ve never seen a company speed run leaving the console market as fast as Xbox is. Gives me post Dreamcast Sega Vibes.
Jesus fucking Christ. Can you imagine what would happen if they announced an original Metal Gear remake, made trailers, hyped it up, got Kojima to talk about it after coming back to help a bit even.
But then they pull some Phantom Pain shit, and after launch turns out it’s actually Metal Gear 6 directed by Kojima.
Please. Someone who knows Kojima tell him. I want to believe.
Interesting strategy! And thank you for describing it in detail as well! If I sounded condescending at all, it was certainly towards Microsoft 😉 But you’re right - that path is worth pursuing for that value proposition. It’s a safer path than others as well.
Agreed it’s almost destiny that the futon will be dueced. But at least this approach could make things interesting 🤘
I agree this is clever, and a decent shot at evolving what an “Xbox” is. I just think it’s spreading the brand thin when it’s already been stretched far. While it would be very convenient and cool to have a certified Xbox machine, outside of CoD or Overwatch, there’s not much software that makes the Xbox brand as a recognizable game service valuable.
Basically, If all Microsoft has to offer on our Xbox PC’s are CoD and Overwatch, then that is what the name “Xbox” will be worth. I would not say either of those games have a bright future, let alone one that’s uniquely identifiable as “Xbox.”
So while I agree that Microsoft is making sure everything can be an Xbox, I disagree that will increase its brand value. I think, if anything, it will just further dilute the value of Xbox as a service or name that people relate to for games. If the only games offered are ones that have shrinking crowds, then what else is growing them that Xbox offers?
Imo, more entry points into having an Xbox doesn’t mean there’s more of a reason to enter.
So in ten years Xbox won’t exist as a brand at all? I agree. No need to take the bet.
I think what you’re describing is exactly what Microsoft is doing. Except I think it’s incredibly short sighted from a business, consumer, and brand perspective.
IMO, It’s basically the brand equivalent of seppuku.
With no functional distinction between Xbox and Windows, you just get the entirety of the Xbox ecosystem silently competing with all of Steam. But even worse: it’s now just the word Xbox on Windows. And everyone really hates Windows at the moment. It’s bleeding OS marketshare to Linux like nothing I’ve ever seen.
So they want to put the entirety of Xbox recognition on a Platform (PC) that their console users won’t be familiar with, and the OS they’re integrating it with is actively losing users. Mostly to Linux. Which Steam has an entire OS built on top of that anyone can use for their games for free.
So the consumer choice for PC users will be between:
-
Steam OS based on Linux for free. Runs all steam games and has a desktop mode for all other apps.
-
Windows 11 for $hundreds, smaller pool of games + worse performance.
I don’t think people are going to choose option 2 just because the word Xbox is in it somehow. Some might, but this is just HBO becoming MAX all over again, but without the escape plan of returning to HBO.
Destroying a console AND brand just to compete with Steam with an inferior product is incredibly dumb, and incredibly Microsoft.
RIP Xbox.
Did they bother looking at the history of console launches that were above $600?
You know, all those household names like 3DO, Jaguar, and CD-I, that prove how historically there is NOT a big audience for expensive consoles.
Good ol Playstation even learned their lesson with the PS3.
And now in the middle of a global recession, one where people are even turning on Nintendo for price increases - Xbox is releasing their most expensive console ever with no exclusives, and not a single reason to use this new “Xbox” because game pass is available on everything else.
I’m sorry. But whoever is left at Xbox needs to pull their head out of their ass and breath real air.
This move is out of the 90’s with crossbranding that smells of desperation. WHY would you call it so many names? WHY the ROG Xbox Ally? And not the Xbox Ally?
You really just had to slap the corporate partnership with ROG in the name of the product at the front like that? People smell that bullshit ten miles away now, as it basically the equivalent of putting corporate flowers on a devices grave. Like the Verizon Blackberry Storm, or the ATT Nokia NGage.
FFS “XBOX ALLY” is a great name! They could have even called it the “Xbox ALLY by ROG”
Now it’s going to be another “Xbone” situation because Microsoft can’t unincorporated their brain from making terrible decisions.
The ROG Xbox Ally is an overbranded ununique afterthought of a console designed to milk Xbox nostalgia from people that don’t have the budget or desire for an expensive portable PC.
I wish Vegas took odds over the potential failure of this console, because it’s almost certain how much of a failure this thing is going to be at launch.
Just my 2 cents. Haters better tell me how many of these they’re planning to buy at launch to scalp.
What incentive does a rich billionaire have for starting a business? Money? They have billions.
The only business they start are for themselves / the benefit of other businesses they own. Their wealth accumulates, and it is spent only to perpetuate its growth. It does not find its way into new businesses. It does not create new sector growth.
However, the people that want billions and don’t have it have a hell of an incentive to start a business and run it well.
I made the indie game INK INSIDE, which is based on a lost cartoon pilot I pitched to Nickelodeon in 2015.
Instead, I turned it into a cartoon show action RPG staring Brian David Gilbert.
It has a completely unique combat mechanic that’s a combination of beat-em-ups and bust-a-move. It’s big on narrative, loot, and world building and even has live action segments.
We’re on sale at 50% for only $10.
Would love for you to check it out, as it seems like you might really enjoy it based on the other games in your cart!
PS - Game works great on Steam Deck! (We just don’t have the green check yet because it takes Valve forever to provide them)
They didn’t include much race variation in the base game because doing so would require additional modeling and texturing for NPCs that would behave identically. For an indie studio, adding new characters, even NPCs, is costly to time and budget, so that work doesn’t happen unless there’s a need for that specific NPC to be that color.
This is why there’s so little representation in older games. That shit used to be way more expensive to make happen.
At any given time, there’s about 400 million people playing game on the planet. Of those people, only 14% play NEW games released within 12 months.
It used to be 30% 10 years ago. Now it’s less for a variety of factors, but one of them is less people have the income and budget they used to.
You are in that 14%.
Which is great - but the games you buy as part of that 14% are based on your taste. Not if they are exceptionally good, only if they are exceptionally good to you.
So making games that are “exceptionally good” for an audience isn’t easy because your audience doesn’t even know what they want beyond a genre. I’m sure you could tell me about the games you like and prefer to play, possibly even a genre of games you love.
But if I asked you to tell me what game COULD be exceptionally good in that genre, you might not have an answer. Just other games to compare it to. And if you do have an answer, there’s no telling if it would actually be popular with a bigger audience that genre enjoys.
Making “exceptional games” isn’t a bar to be crossed that makes a game money. Rather a game is “exceptional” once it finds an audience that feels that way about it. Games that have broad appeal have broad audiences like Call of Duty who all feel that game is exceptional too. Many who play it would argue which one in the series was the most “exceptional” and wouldn’t have a great answer for what to make as a better version of that game.
People like what they play, and exceptional games are only exceptional to the audience that plays them. So it’s not so much about making something exceptional, but making something that has an audience that thinks it’s exceptional.
And finding that audience is the hard part. Especially when only 14% of people who plays games are even looking at what you’ve made.
But it’s not impossible. Just difficult these days.