Hi folks, just learned of Dexterity through an IGDA forum thread. Lot of content I'm missing out on here. But anyway here's my take.

Everybody get wraped around the issue of what takes a game to the top of the charts and can, in its own right, sell more then a hollywood production. Well heres my 2 cents.

Game Developing is an art, always will be, its creating something that.... most ... of us can relate to. And Like all great art, including artist, what makes it stand the test of time?(AND GET CENSORED or BLACK listed at rental retailers (IE GTA3, and the rest, also one of the highest sold games to date).

Well I can tell you here, its inovation, plain and simple, and he who can come up with the best makes multi-milions.

Coming into my prime (ie getting my Bachelors in 2004) I have something to revlutionize the gaming market. I know it will, so look out.

But thats my 2 cents. So if you wana make your mark, inovate; tweak so bad you cant reconize the original, don't copy. Or just come up with an idea nobody has come up with.... and write it down!!!

Thx for you time folks!

*the man in the black suit arrives*

Okay you hippy idealist, get into this friendly black car with black tinted windows and lets go for a ride

*and our newcommer is never seen again*

Viva la revolution!

(just kidding, welcome to the boards)

Joseph Lieberman

Yes, I think you're dead right; certainly that's the book I preach from... but yet it's not that simple.

Innovation alone won't cut it. It'll need to be well polished, playable, fun, intuitive, appealing and good value for money. And even that's not enogh, because it'll also take good marketing and good customer service to make a success. And even THEN, it probably won't make you a ton of money until you build up a good solid customer base.

But I look forward to seeing your masterpiece, good luck!

I don't normally read "Fast Company" magazine, but I read a recent issue while waiting in a lobby for the belts on my car to be repaired . They had a great article on why innovation is not as directly tied to success as people tend to think (focusing a lot on Apple and Xerox PARC, but giving lots of examples).

The points they make generally apply directly to game creation too. If you look over the history of pretty much anything, it is very rare that the first person blazing a trail into new terrority ends up with the most success. It is often the better funded, or better marketed, second or third contender into a specific space that ends up taking the prize. We try not to believe this because we're almost programmed to believe that innovation == success, but if you look at the history books objectively, it is an inescapable fact.

Of course, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't try to innovate (nor was "Fast Company"), just that you shouldn't buy wholesale into the fallacy that the world will really beat down your door if you create something innovative.

Well, that last post kind of goes against the positioning thing. To some extent I both agree and disagree.

Positioning would say that you gain most success by being first at something, hence having most correlation in people's minds with the type of product.

For instance, the first to bring fast-food to the masses, McDonalds, has the most mindshare when it comes to fast food.

Think of it like this as a simple test. If you were in a quizz show and was asked "name a fast food franchise" who would you pick? probably 90% of people would say McD.

Now what youre saying is also true, that sometimes contenders can come along later and put more money into it and win.

Kinda like the XBOX vs PS2 thing :)

I'm not entirely sure there is any particular correct way in these terms. Both being first AND being biggest and best kind of helps.

I guess in terms of smaller companies, they ARE better off innovating and being first, by nature of the fact that they can never be the biggest.

The fact that someone can come into the market and steal it from you is secondary to the fact that you made considerable progress during the intervening time, so at least you had your time in the sun. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to create such a great amount of buzz that we eventually create a noticable market and one of the big players comes along and buys us out?

It seems to me, looking at history, that first mover & positioning theory holds up but only for traditional business where there are very large infrastructure costs just to get in the game. When you're selling bits that can fairly easily be duplicated (not in terms of code theft, but by creation of similar games/software) by a motivated competitor it doesn't quite mean as much.

But I do agree with your points.

I'm not saying indie game developers shouldn't try to innovate, they certainly should go for an angle of originality... I'm just saying that if someone thinks that innovation is the primary factor to monetary success (and Drac seems to, as he believes the innovator "makes multi-milions.") their view of reality may be incorrect.

Good point actually.

I never thought about it, but the cost of actually developing a market must play a part in the validity of the positioning effect.

I can see that positioning has some value to warn us off certain things (like trying to use one brand to explain multiple games, or trying to produce spin-offs).

Hmm.. I should really re-read Ries's book again :)

Interesting topic, mainly because I agree that many people seem to believe innovation or being revolutionary is the keys to victory.

But it's of my opinion (after doing a bit of research and reading a lot of case studies), the keys to victory for an Indie is creating a Polished game, aFun game, and then actively Marketing the game.

With a few exceptions, most Indie games that get very few sales fail to do one or more of those things. And the Indie games that receive high sales almost always meet all those things.

If you notice, "Creating an Innovative game" is missing from my equation. That's because an innovative game that isn't polished or even fun to play most likely won't sell a lot simply because it's innovative. Conversely, there are a lot of games (RealArcade and other big online publishers are full of examples) that are polished, fun to play, and are marketed well, but aren't necessarily innovative (in fact many of them are outright clones), yet they sell multitude of units.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying forsake innovation. But we've been trained to think that creating an innovative or revolutionary game is the "Holy Grail". Though really it's only the Holy Grail after you have the other three things in check (polish, fun game, and marketing).

That's probably the biggest thing I've learned by reading these forums and hearing other stories of Indie developers. So I'm striving for innovative aspects in my game as well (I think it's really important for us Indies to try to do this), but I'm placing a higher importance on making the game polished, fun to play, and the marketing. Because without those three things, there won't be many people buying my game to appreciate any of the innovation I've done. Or worst yet, someone else will come take my innovation, put it in a prettier package and sell truckloads of copies and get all the recognition my game should have got.

So DracMorair keep that in mind when you're working on your game project and I'm looking forward to seeing your game when its complete!

PS.
One more thing. Also, if your game is really ambitious you might want to consider doing a smaller scale title first if this is your first game project. That's what I'm doing. I started working on a much more innovative game than I am now, but it was also a lot more ambitious. Partly by reading this forum and other resources, I realized that since I'm a new Indie developer I probably couldn't give the polish and the experienced marketing my really innovative game deserved and lot of potential would be lost. So instead, I'm doing a smaller scale game, which has a shorter dev cycle, but still has some innovative aspects. This will give me the chance to really learn and improve making a polished game and doing marketing. Also, I'm actually going to use pieces of the engine and dev tools to create my more ambitious game down the line. That in itself will go a long way of greatly improving the chances of the ambitious game getting completed.

Another something to think about.

Nice one chris, I am in full agreement there :)

One thing that indies are (reasonably fairly) derided for, is lack of polish. The trouble is that there is no real "bar" for indie's to aim for, subsequently there is a lot of rubbish out there.

Having said that, retail isnt exactly devoid of rubbish either. So its not just an indie thing.

Hmm, I feel some kind of saying coming on....

produce - your game
polish - until it sparkles
promote - the hell out of it!

The 3 p's of indie game making!

Did any of you read Purple Cow (http://www.dexterity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2014)?

Kinda like the XBOX vs PS2 thing


Okay, that's a joke, right? Just checking...

I'll let YOU be the judge of that :)

Thx for the input. My position still stands though. When you talk about polishing off, isn't that implied? Granted... theres alot of games out there that are inovative and are complete garbage to being a great game.
Its kinda assumed that if you are going to create an inovation that you will polish it off. And if you don't your going down in flames. We all know that... its redudant for you guys to point it out.
Secondly, conserning the step up program. Well my inovation stems from just one aspect of a game. And if you read the IGDA Newspaper you know that 95% of the games most people play are solitare. My Inovation can start at a solitare level, if they want more they can take it online, one step up to an actual client, and then 3D MMOG. Just something to think about hehe.

So if you have anything else to add ;) It is the holy grail, polishing is assumed. Perfect creation.

Polish *cannot* be taken for granted though. Look at how many poor products come out that back me up here.

Polish is one of the things we shouldnt take for granted, becuase its what helps to give us a competative edge.

We can take for granted that its pertinent to success, but not that its actually applied.

Another fairly sweeping statement:

"95% of the games most people play are solitare"

Well, beg pardon here, but I have NEVER played solitaire as a computer game. Is this taken out of context or something? I cant imagine the IGDA saying something so out of whack as this.

And saying 95% of anyone does anything is pretty bloody silly.

People arent that predictable, unless its a function of living.

Back off our idealistic friend:

Uh, and the XboX vs. PS2 is actually a VERY interesting case.

Allow me to go in depth on it.

This is the testament of can you use money to simply beat your competition to death.

The answer: Still unknown.

Microsoft develops and produces the Xbox. It hasn't turned a profit, it never WILL turn a profit, and they did it KNOWING they would never turn a profit. Why?

Market. They are using a huge amount of monetary funds, producing a higher quality (in terms of component costs) machine at the same price, high development costs, huge marking campeigns.

But that doesnt answer the question of why did they enter a project they knew they would lose their shirt in. It isn't just because they have money to spend (though this is why they are able to do this). They are developing the market. Rather than start small and build up like the transition between PS1 and PS2, they are simply throwing money at the Xbox in order to launch the Xbox2 in the near future.

By doing this they are jumpstarting their business. You can picture it as a MMOG's beta test. You get 50,000-100,000 active users in your beta test before launching it. Sure in those 2-3 months you are losing your shirt in hosting fees and other costs, but when you launch, wham, instant 5-20k paying users. Xbox is doing it on a 2.5 million dollar LOSS and expenditures of probably twice or three times that. The scope of the project is enourmas, but mark my words: PS2 may be winning against Xbox, but PS3 will NOT win against XboX2. Microsoft knows how to do one thing better than any other company, and that is make money.

By the time its PS4 vs. XboX3, there is a good chance PS4 won't exist. (thats how MS operates, kill the competition).

For those nintendo fans out there: Well, I think nintendo is safe because of their concentration on the younger audience. Smart or lucky, I think it will lead to longterm success.

Joseph Lieberman

@Terin:

My gut tells me you are right on the money with your PS2 v. XBox assessment, but since I have zero marketing experience I'm fuzzy as to why this is so.

It makes sense to me that by dumping a bunch of money into building the XBox franchise now, they will be better positioned for the launch of XBox2.

What I'm unclear about is how this guarantees that MS is going to beat Sony though? Sony has just as deep of pockets as Microsoft... if not deeper, and both products seem to be good.

Anthony

I was exagrating on the solitare thing at 95%, have to check the newspaper again but its a huge portion. I think 65% of all gamers are the solitare or pogo/popcap players. Check out IGDA.com and the 2003 newsletter... or 2002... been a while.

I largely agree with Terin about the XBox comments. Microsoft acts as a very patient company, rarely winning with 1.0 releases of anything but always thinking long-term. This is basically the approach they took with DirectX.

I think it was Peter Drucker who said the only two functions of a business are marketing and innovation; everything else is an expense. In the long run you need both to survive and thrive.

On position marketing:

The confusing part of position marketing is that it takes place inside the consumer mind, not in the market. Therefore, the first product to market does not become the position leader -- the first product that takes hold in the consumer mind becomes the leader.

Also, being the position leader does not make a product successful. The company has to use the fact that it is the position leader as part of its plan for success. The ways to do that are diverse and complex, and have little to do with position marketing itself.

Relying on being first to market with something and hoping it spreads fast enough to take mindshare can work, and it is sometimes the only option available. But it is a risky strategy, and you should do more than this if at all possible.

-Tom

On Xbox:

All points mentioned so far are true -- for the Xbox team. Their mission is to remove PlayStation, the current position leader, as a major player. Taking out a position leader is very difficult, so they will use Microsoft’s immense resources to do this in ways other than position marketing.

Microsoft’s objective, however, is to remove game consoles as a potential future threat to Windows. Selling Windows is obviously more lucrative than selling game consoles.

All Microsoft business actions are directed at protecting Windows’ position. If you understand this about Microsoft, then it is easy to understand just about everything they do.

Why are Internet Explorer and Outlook Express free, even though they took a lot of resources for Microsoft to develop? Because of Netscape’s entrenchment as the position leader, and the rampant discussions of how networked applications on Internet terminals would replace installed applications on dedicated computers. This was a huge threat to Windows, and was all developing very quickly. The cost to Microsoft was irrelevant. They did this to survive. This also explains why they paid $400 million for Hotmail, which was a free service.

Xbox is a forward-thinking strategy. Game consoles are not an immediate threat to Windows, but it is possible that they could grow into that. Microsoft would prefer to preempt that now, while it is cheaper. Someone assessed the potential risk to Windows, estimated any long-term profit of Xbox, and came up with a dollar figure. That dollar figure is the budget for the Xbox project. And apparently it is a large number.

Well, we'll see... Sony aren't exactly a soft touch. And I don't think they started slow with the PS1. More like they moved in from nowhere, had the most powerful machine at the time which they sold for peanuts, knocked nintendo out of no1, smashed Sega to pieces and claimed a huge share of the market in one bold swoop. A lot like the Xbox except it actually worked. They still have an enormous share of the market which they can leverage. It just depends if they play their cards right. The Japanese market can also quite happily go on regardless of what happens in the US, and I haven't seen much interest in XBox over here.

Microsoft, of course, absolutely HAS to crack into new markets because it has monopolised what it's got and it has little room to expand left. And if it's not expanding, well then sell your microsoft stock everyone, why don't you. So even if they are losing a ton of money, they simply can't afford not to be seen to be moving into new stuff.

It was a little different when Sony entered the market. When the PS1 was introduced, Nintendo and Sega were argueably at their weakest points in many years.

In 1995, even though Nintendo had some resurgency with the release of Donkey Kong country, they lost nearly half of their marketshare in just 4 years to Sega. The N64 was suffering numerous delays and wouldn't get released until late '96. For Sega, '95 would mark their downward slide, which they would never recover. They released two failed add-ons (Sega CD and 32x) and did a failed surprise launch of the Sega Saturn in the US in May of '95 to almost no fanfare.

The PS1 was released at the perfect time. The PS1 came out in the fall of '95 when the Sega Saturn still had virtually no software and the N64 still in R&D. It only furthered the case that the PS1 looked visually superior to the Saturn, had better 3rd party support, and was cheaper. In a sense, the PS1 became the position leader for the 32bit consoles from the outset (at least in the US).

With the Xbox it's different. The PS2 was firmly entrenched into the number one spot before the Xbox was even released. In 2001, Sony didn't look anywhere as weakened as Sega and Nintendo did back in '95. The Xbox already had to do massive catchup to the PS2 on day one (The PS2 had already sold several million units when the Xbox was released). The PS1 didn't have to catchup to the N64 (since it wasn't released yet) and the PS1 after the first two weeks of release surpassed the Sega Saturn's miniscule userbase. A much different scenario for the Xbox. The Gamecabe launched almost at the same time as the Xbox.

Personally, I'm surprised the Xbox has done as well as it has considering the obstacles they've faced.

But back on topic:

Polish shouldn't be "assumed" with innovation. I can name quite a few games that are quite innovative or quirky, but unfortunately are rough visually and fairly unstable (many glaring bugs). Also quality marketing cannot be "assumed" with innovation as well either. Sega is a perfect example of this. In my opinion, the past 4-5 years Sega has been one of the most innovative developers (well at least while the Dreamcast was still alive). They released numerous innovative games literally almost every 6 months (Ecco, Seaman, Shenmue, and Jet Set Radio and etc. just to name a few). But with few exceptions, almost none of them reached mainstream appeal and most suffered low sales. Sega's tarnished reputation didn't help matters, but many of those games suffered from poor advertising or lack of marketing. Sega just didn't have the money (or the know-how in some cases) to promote their more innovative titles that didn't easily fit into an established genre.

So I still stand by innovation alone isn't enough and it's not all encompassing. Indies really need to focus on playability, polish, and promoting. The 3 p's as zoombapup put it. ;)

hehe... thx folks for the input.
Marketing & Inovation... Two great tools for a great game.
I'm a MSN techie, call me with you problems and I give you a little of my training.
AOL is king because 5/10 customers with problems get solved satifactly will keep coming back, loyalty will make or break a comapany. MicroSoft & X-Box is finaly realizing that.
AC & AC2 is dominating the MMORPG market.
Halo is taking a big chunk out of FPS, and doing quite well online as well.

Microsoft strategy of dominating a market and keeping loyalty is working. I'd hate to say it but we all need to take a good look at there strategies in all areas.
Its a dog eat dog world out there and a Wise man once said:
"One needs to follow first before he/she is able to Lead"
One of the reasons I know my ideas, including games will take off.

I'm open to anything, though experiance will teach me always. I'm not saying i'm perfecly unbiased but I veiw everything as the situation comes to me. It allows me a unique perspective that the world is always changing. I'm open to every view, though be prepared to prove your case... (This is day3 on you forum)

:D

My dad's old formula for getting rich was to "find a need, and fill it."

He wasn't wrong. But he also never did get rich. In such a global economy, needs are usually filled by SOMEONE long before they become a real need. Ultimately, the formula becomes, "CREATE a need (market), and then fill it."

That's great, except the first part is usually expensive. And there's the problem that the guy who creates it is NOT necessarily the same guy who fills (exploits) it. Usually because he's spent so much money & resources with the initial penetration that he's spent when the #2 guy comes along behind him and says, "Thank you for opening the door, I'll take over now."

But I'm not advocating that indies should adopt the yawn-inducing approach of the big-budget publishers... the limited, "Check-Box Innovation" that results in basically only 10 games ever showing up on store shelves, with different names & a few different features. But we do have a few different options:

#1 - Innovate a little at a time - address an already mature market, but innovate within the market and push it in a new direction. This is the "check-box innovation"the major publishers look for.

#2 - Because of our lower costs, we can be profitable in markets that are unprofitable (and thus under-provided) for others. This is exactly what happened with puzzle games - the market was always there, big publishers dabbled in it from time to time, but it just wasn't lucrative enough for them to stay there.

#3 - Also due to our lower costs, we can explore purely new territory relatively quickly with pure innovation, and hopefully discover an unknown need while remaining "under the radar." We can do this because our cost of failure is minimal, and so we can afford to try a "shotgun" approach.

#4 - I think this is a failing option, but it's a popular one - we can simply enter a saturated existing market and try to pass our low cost of development onto the consumer, beating the competition on price - hoping to capture the consumers who value price over quality. Unfortunately, in games, most consumers can get moderately high quality pretty cheaply (in the form of last years' hits selling in the bargain bin for peanuts), which is why I don't see this being a successful option.

Originally posted by Tom Cain
Microsoft's objective, however, is to remove game consoles as a potential future threat to Windows. Selling Windows is obviously more lucrative than selling game consoles. I disagree.

First, Microsoft has said (in so many words) that the XBox is their foot-in-the-door into the "set-top box" market, that glorious "convergence" device that technologists all think we're going to have in our living rooms. The recent "Windows Media Center" is another stab at this market. They see that as an up-and-coming market, and they want in on the ground floor.

Second, I definitely see XBox as Microsoft cultivating a lucrative new market for their products. Last I heard, Microsoft was sitting on $40 billion of cash. Sitting on cash doesn't do a business a whole lot of good. Spending that money wisely is an enviable problem, to be sure, but it is a problem nonetheless. And, since Microsoft owns the operating system market lock, stock, & barrel, they can't expand their business if they stick only to that market. Console games is a big market, and one that Microsoft had left entirely untapped; now they're the number-two player. Yes, they're a long ways from number one, and yes they're losing money. But Microsoft is willing to lose money on long-term strategies, and they certainly have the money to do so for a long time.

Third, it helps to not think of Microsoft as a single entity, moving in a single direction. Microsoft is more like a strongly-knit collection of fiefdoms. (The fact that it moves as cohesively as it does is a testimony to strong leadership at the top--that's how Bill and Steve earn their money.) The business unit that runs XBox does not concern itself with the long-term threat of game consoles eating into Windows' market share. They concern themselves with making XBox a success.

Finally, let me venture even further into the world of speculation. I feel the writing is on the wall, and that open-source operating systems are the wave of the future. I don't know when, but I personally feel it is simply a matter of time. Surely Bill and Steve have noticed this trend, too, and worry that the operating system market won't be lucrative forever, and worry that they've got too many "eggs" in the Windows "basket". Well, now is absolutely the time for them to start diversifying into other markets.

Hehe, I agree in some regards.

But I asked that question of my Trainers for MSN Tech. Its not windows that brings in the money anymore. Its actualy the Office Suite software.
Business needs Rule the market (word, access, outlook, powerpoint, ect.)
Windows is just one of many including the fact they sell the per Server version instead per seat now substantialing take a big cost off of corparate business sells for just an OS for client/server needs.
Of course there taking a huge market share out of gaming as well but just FYI for you guys.

I thought we would have learned by now that innovation does not equal success. Far from it.
Success maybe within the 'indie' circles, but no chance making any kind of dent on the mainstream market.

I feel 10 times more strongly about this than I did before we started out making games.

I must have at least 50 gamer friends, and would say that 47 of them throw a game out in disgust if it doesnt feel instantly familiar and comfortable for them.
Any sniff of an innovative and original idea, that requires them to take more than the traditional 1 minute to get into, usually means that game is thrown out, never to be touched again. This is the modern mainstream game market for you.

Doing something new in todays climate, is a risky buisiness. Just take a look at the top ten game charts and see now many of the game names have numbers attached to the end!

For example, I took a quick look at the Game website to see the top selling games right now:-

Grand Theft Auto Double Pack (XB)
Need for Speed Underground (PS2)
Medal of Honor: Rising Sun (XB)
Mario Kart Double Dash (GC)
Championship Manager 2003/2004 (PC)
Pokemon Ruby (GBA)
FIFA Football 2004 (PS)
Medal of Honor: Rising Sun (PS2)
Project Gotham Racing 2 (XB)
Call of Duty (PC)

... to quote the original message, ' Well I can tell you here, its inovation, plain and simple, and he who can come up with the best makes multi-milions. '

.... hmmmm ... I dont think so somehow.

Original post by BongPig
I must have at least 50 gamer friends, and would say that 47 of them throw a game out in disgust if it doesnt feel instantly familiar and comfortable for them.
Any sniff of an innovative and original idea, that requires them to take more than the traditional 1 minute to get into, usually means that game is thrown out, never to be touched again. This is the modern mainstream game market for you.


And that's why I think one area of innovation is making games that are easy to get into and comfortable, with great user interface while being hard to master at the same time.

My two cents-
You can stuff it in a sack and drop it of a bridge if its not simply FUN to play and EASY to learn-

No amount of polishing, or inovation, (maybe marketing?) will help you out if its not Fun to play and Easy to learn....

What would happen if you created the Lemings today and tried to sell them to Indy Consumers?
It would go bust in a week if you aks me- And thats based simply on the fact that people today dont have the time and the patiance to learn the inner workings of a game-They just move on to the next one..

Worms is a great example of a succes formula
-Take an old concept (in their cease "tanx") and spin it around into "worms"

Thats my great white whale
:)

I think we've all just got to get used to the fact that it takes ages to build a niche market if you want to write interesting and original games. But a niche you will build, eventually, if you stick at it. Some other worthwhile business pursuits can be put to good effect to maximize returns here too such as affiliation (*cough* BongPig *cough* *ahem*) which has been responsible for 50% of the game that should not be mentioned's sales in the last 2 months. Even better is affiliation with similarly minded games (here I see, in my case, Squashy Software's shooters and such).

BongPig may not be especially happy at MS selling a couple of thousand copies but if he were to release another zany shooter it's a pretty dead cert there'd be another couple of thousand sales to fans which would shortly follow. Hell, they could just release Galaxians with a few twists and beautiful presentation and I'd buy it now. (Ha - except Glory Zone's already there ;) )

Some of Jeff Minter's games were just so totally off the wall that it was only possible to play them having gotten used to playing his other games. He's got a huge fanbase built up over dozens of games over a decade and it's paid off. Having said that he got lucky, rather like Steve Pavlina did, by being in the right place at the right time with the right product (Gridrunner and AMC were shooters on a virtually empty platform populated with millions of hungry punters). Most of the rest of us aren't so lucky and struggle away for ages. It's taken me 1 year since I started Puppy Games to achieve 113 sales. But I couldn't just write Dweep 2 and expect it to take off in the same way that Dweep did because that opportunity is long gone.

Cas :)

Actually, Space Tripper sold much more than Mutant Storm.
So, you cant always assume current players, will always buy your new games, even if the market is similar.

Again, it proves the point about games being familiar.
Mutant Storm is a better game ( in my opinion ), but is a bit strange when it comes to gameplay and control. I believe many users gave the game a try for around 10 seconds before feeling quite frustrated, and wanting to uninstall that instant.
Space Tripper is good old Up,Down,Left,Right,Fire, which is familiar to just about anyone, so they carry on playing, and learn the game.

After the Tripper/Storm 'experiment', it clear the tried, tested and familiar gameplay methods sell best in todays climate.
Expecting players to 'learn' how to control the game dynamic, even if it takes just 30 minutes, is asking too much.
Its a shame.
We live and learn. :0)

ST may have sold more originally and you'r dead right, it's because it's a (tiny) bit more familiar to control - but is it the kind of game that's going to attract fanboys as opposed to casual players? I think I talked about this a bit in the Get Niche thread a few weeks ago - you can either try the shotgun effect and target huge swathes of the population with simple derivatives or you can target specific niches with accuracy and get fans for life.

Cas :)

I think I talked about this a bit in the Get Niche thread a few weeks ago - you can either try the shotgun effect and target huge swathes of the population with simple derivatives or you can target specific niches with accuracy and get fans for life.

It doesn't have to be either/or. You could also target a specific niche and produce a stinker that nobody likes (the reviews invariably end, "I really wanted to like this game, but..."), or create a unique game that shotguns many, and earn hordes of fans (The Sims).

At the risk of offending you, I'm going to disagree with your comment from the Get Niche thread:

I have a feeling that Alien Flux is really stands out in its niche, but that the niche is indeed very small.

I thought Alien Flux was a solid game, but I would not consider it to be in any "niche," per se.

Shhh! Don't mention its name! It's the MacBeth of indie game devs.

Like MS, AF is niche in that it is not simplistic, it's not immediately rewarding, it's just not mainstream in any way, really. It targets shoot-em-up fans, not casual gamers - so there's the niche. I would like to build Puppy Games up to be a purveyor of finest quality oddball shooters.

Cas :)

Casual gamers are a niche. I shudder to think that it's got to the stage where everything *outside* casual gamers is now considered a niche. But yup, I guess oddball shooters are a bit of a niche. Count me in that niche!

It's a bloody big niche, that's all :) I always thought a niche was a small opening in a larger thing, as it were. There's millions of casual gamers and only a small percentage are shoot-em-up fanatics.

It'd be nice to get lucky and have a niche that blossomed into the casual market. Or create a brand new niche.

Cas :)

Originally posted by princec
ST may have sold more originally and you'r dead right, it's because it's a (tiny) bit more familiar to control - but is it the kind of game that's going to attract fanboys as opposed to casual players?

Ah, but which is better, attracting fanboys or casual players? I will point out that both groups generally only buy one copy apiece, and there are more casual players than fanboys. From a business perspective, I'd rather attract casual players, as that means I'll sell more copies. It also likely means fewer support issues; rabid fanboys are going to send emails like "On the fourth level of the second level pack if you get the hyper-shooter and shoot at the top left column on the bottom right third of the screen you can see the bullets pass through a little bit! they should bounce off!".

p.s. Personally, I bought MutantStorm. Space Tripper was gorgeous, but it had a little too much commuting for my tastes.

Hmm... I myself absolutely loved Space Tripper, it was thoroughly enjoyable. I was so looking forward to Mutant Storm having been a Robotron freak as a kid and having loved PomPom's prior title. Once it finally came I played it and sorry to say, I was pretty disappointed with the gameplay and graphics. I think ST sells better simply because it's a more polished title.

So getting back on topic, I don't think filling or creating some niche sells. Simply create a good solid thoughly enjoyable game that appeals to a good sized portion of the market.

Look at BLOX, World Domination, Ms. Muncher, or Z-Ball here. None are ground breakers but they are all consistently good sellers. I've got other great games here like Star Cruiser (my personal favorite, burned an entire weekend on it) or VertiGolf but they simply don't do as well because they lacked that little extra polish that gives a game oomph and excitment.