I was thinking... a game's success not only depends on how well the game is made, how many incentives there are to buy, and how much marketing power lies behind it, but also what kind of game it is in the first place... demand versus saturation (people might like action games, but are there already too many out there?), and expectation for any given genre (i.e. action gamers have high technology expectations that puzzle gamers don't). Some games are doomed before they even take form because the demand isn't high enough for that particular type of game, or saturation is too high, or expectations for that genre are above the developer's capabilities to deliver. I think a lot of starting indie developers might fall into this trap and get squashed because they failed to do a little market research.

Wouldn't it be helpful if some of the more experienced out there, and some of you marketing types, would enlighten us a bit as to where the demand is, where the expecations are, and where the market is already saturated: essentially, if I was to make a game today, what genre would be my best bet, and for what reasons?

There's no doubt that a game without a market probably won't sell regardless of how good the game is (unless you're really good at marketing :)). If you want to be successful as any kind of business person, you need to know your market. However, where is the incentive for others to give away their hard-earned market research? You may get some broad statements like "the one-armed climber side-scroller market is saturated" or "now's the time to get in on the migratory bird RTS market," but you probably won't get the kind of detail you need to really make an informed decision. Therefore, you either need to do it yourself or pay someone else to do it for you if you want a meaningful answer to your question. To that end, there are plenty of places to gather the information you're looking for: check out download statistics at the major shareware game sites (download.com, tucows, etc), read gaming forums (such as this one), etc. I'm not trying to be harsh, but the fact of the matter is that you can't rely on others to hand you what you need.

Okay, I see what you're saying... I'm really not trying to mooch off of anyone here (I've already got my projects planned out)--I just thought we could have some discussion

where is the incentive for others to give away their hard-earned market research?

You could say the same about anything we talk about here :) . Afterall, all we're doing is giving away our hard-earned knowledge, ideas, skills, advice, etc. etc.

Knowing what's popular *now* isn't that useful. It's like buying stocks only after you've heard of the company on CNN Headlines news, celebrating its jump from 10 to 50. By the time you know, it's too late to do anything useful with the information.

That's why market research is necessary, as has been discussed several times here.

That way, you can see if your idea has already been done to death, or if there are a number of similar projects currently in the works (and due out before yours).

-David

'That way, you can see if your idea has already been done to death, or if there are a number of similar projects currently in the works (and due out before yours). '

On that note, what if there are a number of simular projects due to come out after yours? Might endup leeching of the popularity, assuming they are well advertised... But then, on that same not might just look like a ripoff, even if it's all coincidental.

Well, maybe you could base some "demand" on the games currently to be released. I'm not intyo game sites anymore, but game magazines often had a list with all games scheduled for the next xx months.

Now, if in the next 5 months 5 Soccer games are about to be released, I guess you do not want to start on such a game.. ofcourse if it takes 1 jear to publish, there might be new demand...

Originally posted by jordan1207
Okay, I see what you're saying... I'm really not trying to mooch off of anyone here (I've already got my projects planned out)--I just thought we could have some discussion.
You could say the same about anything we talk about here :) . Afterall, all we're doing is giving away our hard-earned knowledge, ideas, skills, advice, etc. etc.

I don't think you're trying to mooch and you're right that a lot of good advice and information is freely handed out here, but I think market research is one area where developers (even here) might be more tight-lipped than in other areas. For example, try to pry sales numbers out of any successful developer, indie or retail. :) Now, allow me to prove myself wrong: I believe there is real potential for non-violent, casual strategy games (which is what my current project is).

I feel a unique idea in whatever genre will be appreciated by an audience. As developers we have to strive to bring something new to the table. Let us not become bean counters and kill a lot of off-beat ideas by worrying purely whether it would be a commercial success or not.

Good market research is hard to find. Here are some things I did for mine:

1. Download.com (http://www.download.com) lists the download counts by week and in total for everything they list. They also categorize their games, so I did a search for each category and noted the top 10 downloads for each one -- excluding retail demos and freeware. This gave me a list of the hottest categories to consider. In September, this came to Simulation (32k), Cards (21k), Strategy and War (20k), Action (18k), Arcade (11k), Puzzles (11k), Sports (10k), Adventure (4k), Casino (2k) and Kids (2k). This would seem to indicate that puzzles are a mediocre category, but I saw that many games I would classify as puzzles were found in other categories. Every website has their own categorization scheme, so it's necessary to get an idea of what they put where.

2. I played the top shareware games from each category and noted the trends within each category. I noted what traits were in the more popular downloads. I noticed people like variations on the same theme, but that some variations dominated the charts. I examined those games closer and wrote down their traits.

3. I took a snapshot of what games were most popular on Yahoo (http://games.yahoo.com) and did the same trend analysis there. This tells you more of what people want to play for free than what people will pay for, but it's still interesting information.

4. I looked through other game developer/publisher sites to see what information I could gleam. I learned a lot from Dexterity (http://www.dexterity.com) and GameHouse (http://www.gamehouse.com). I learned about the typical shareware buyer and player, and industry statistics. (Gamehouse gives some interesting info in their company overview.) I also found some semi-useful info on Jupiter's media matrix (http://www.jmm.com/xp/jmm/press/2001/pr_121701b.xml).

5. I compared my game ideas to any related games and potential competition. If I came up with a related freeware game of significant popularity, I discard the idea. If I came up with a related shareware game, I looked for differences to where my game was or could be made more unique and more fun. Then I picked one idea, flipped a few coins to answer whatever remaining questions I had, and started the design document.

Without having put out a bunch of games and tested the waters, I can't really tell what parts of my research were helpful and what just a waste of time. Market research at times feels like pantomime, you're trying to feel out an invisible box. I'm sure I'll get better with repetition, but it will take time. Once I have some games out, I can use my existing customer base for more market research, through surveys or examing their buying trends. At least, that's my theory. ;)

@jaggu: I agree to some extent. If you're living at home or doing this in your spare time with no interest in going full-time, is it fun? is the only question you need to ask. But if you want to go full-time, you have to put food on your plate at some point. Once you're eating and clothing your kids and saving for retirement, I think there's more room for risk-taking and making games solely for the fun of it.

Originally posted by elund
Here are some things I did for mine...


AWESOME!.

Thanks Eric for some excellent ideas! I have done stuff similar with Download.com and a few other sites. Your other tactics are also much appreciated!

I definitely have plenty of homework for the next few days!

-daniel

AWESOME!
I agree. Thanks for some useful information.
I feel a unique idea in whatever genre will be appreciated by an audience. As developers we have to strive to bring something new to the table. Let us not become bean counters and kill a lot of off-beat ideas by worrying purely whether it would be a commercial success or not.
Easier said than done, as Elund pointed out :) .

Jordan Magnuson
Fusion Apple Entertainment

I for one dont want to let market research influence what games I make. If the goal is to make money at this, I would be making utilities like Winzip. A game is not an utility. It is a work of art. Which writer does market research on his book? Which artist does market research before sitting down to draw a painting? Which indie film-maker does market research before making his film? Even if I did market research, it would say - "Nobody is going to buy my game because people can live without it". If the market research said the hottest thing in the world is RTS and I have a spanking new idea for an FPS, I will not quit that and make an RTS.

While doing market research maybe useful, over analysing the results and letting it even subconsiously decide what games I make is going in the wrong direction for me. I thought the reason one becomes an Indie is to do what they please without compromise - least of all listen to market research :)

And finally, no market research predicted the success of any of the inventions and innovations that have changed our lives forever. Who wanted the steam engine? Who wanted to fly? Who wanted the telephone? Who wanted the internet?

Who wants your game? :)

PS: Not directed at anybody. All opinions humbly expressed.

I think that it's more of a compromise than that!

You can still do the market research and decide upon a game that would both satisfy the marketing requirements without hampering your own creative urges.

Its well and good saying that you don't want market research to influence your games, but being realistic about it, if you want to make a living in this industry then you need to compromise.

And what percentage of writers, artists, and indie filmmakers make a living from their books, paintings, and films?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that one simply do what market research indicates (that's certainly not what I would suggest.) If market research says RTS games are the best selling games you don't necessarily want to rush out and make one too. But do take market data into consideration when deciding on your projects. It should be one of myriad considerations (including what you have a burning desire to do, what you are capable of doing within your resources, etc.)

For me the reason to do indie game development was mostly to avoid the beurocracy of traditional retail development, publishing, and distribution. I welcome information about my potential market because, above all else, I want to make games that people are going to play. By that I'm not referring to the desire to make the most money possible (although that would be nice:D) but to the desire to share my creation/have my creation shared with as many people as possible.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here... when I first read your post, jaggu, I was a bit flippant -- "sheesh," I thought, "that's a bit oversimplified." But the more I think about it, the more willing I am to say "more power to you!"

There is, however, one MAJOR hurdle that you will have to face if you choose to blaze your own trail, as they say.

Find your vertical

In marketing lingo, a very focused, very narrow target audience is called a "vertical segment". You may also be familiar with the terms "niche" or "specialty" market.

Whatever you call it, when you go out on your own and decide that you're going to write games for yourself, then you'll want to be able to pay the bills doing it. Even if your goal is to produce Art (yes, capital "A"), then you need to find those customers who have the same tastes. If you can isolate and identify those people, then you've identified your vertical. And in my mind, doing what you love and being able to pay the bills in the same breath is Art.

How?

First, find out what likes and dislikes make up your vertical. Use sites that suggest "similar taste" products when you search for things you like. Make personal lists of what you like and don't like. Ask friends.

Second, determine the best way to communicate to this segment... Is that through e-mail? Perhaps it's on message boards. Maybe your target audience spends sundays at the park.

Third, you have to have customers. Customers are people who buy. People who don't buy are potential customers. Potential customers won't buy if they don't know you exist. Therefore, you must let them know.

Fourth, you have to make money. Let's say you've identified a vertical with 10,000 potential customers, but you'll be able to convert 5-10%. Make sure you set your product's price based on realistic conversion expectactions. A $20 product will top out at $20k.

Yeah, yeah, this all looks like market research. I'm sorry. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to look like a methodology for making a living doing what you love (Art). It's possible. Don't mistake all these suggestions and numbers as things that tell you not to do what you want. They're just meant to help make it easier. Steve and company (self included) are taking a more pragmatic approach. I doubt seriously that anybody would take on a project that they *didn't* want to, even if it meant they'd make a gazillion dollars. They're (we're) using market research as a tool for identifying potential. In other words, "what might be a good next project?" or "how might I position the artwork to support market X?". If you're set on the games you want to write and you don't want to be market-driven, that's fine. Your market research is a tool for identifying similarities. You'll need to be a little more vigilant at customer acquisition, though. It'll be more important that you *find* customers, rather than build what existing customers may already want.

Thinking back to a recent poll seen on these forums... if you find a niche market building dark, moody, gothic-style games, and you tap that market, nobody will argue, eventhough most of us (based on the poll results) enjoy the happy-happy-joy-joy games for fun and frolic.

;)

-daniel

Originally posted by jaggu
Which writer does market research on his book?

I just want to respond to this part...

Doing market research is one of the tasks of creating a book proposal. It's more important for non-fiction books, because you need to know your competition, but it applies just as well to fiction books.

If you don't know what you're up against, or what's come before, then you are more likely to create a retread of a very old idea. You might think it's new and unique, but without research to back it up, all you're doing is wishing and hoping.

After doing even a minimal amount of market research, you should be able to spot obvious similarities with other products, and then you can adjust your plans as seems appropriate to you.

I hope this helps clarify things some. I'm sure no one here is advocating a slavish devotion to publics tastes.

-David

When dodge was first developing the Durango (or perhaps it was one of those huge pickups, I don’t quite remember) they did a lot of focus group studies in what they thought was their target market. 90% of their target audience hated the thing, too big, to flashy, too blah blah blah. But dodge went ahead and put the thing into production anyway. Sure enough it was a huge financial success.

Why? because in their studies even though 90% hated it, the remaining 10% absolutely loved it. The moral is, if you can absolutely delight a small segment of the market, you can still be very successful.

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald


Why? because in their studies even though 90% hated it, the remaining 10% absolutely loved it. The moral is, if you can absolutely delight a small segment of the market, you can still be very successful.

Well you can certainly develop for a niche market and be successful, but getting the attention of the people comprising that niche market is much more difficult for indies than it is for Chrysler. :)

@jaggu: I agree to some extent. If you're living at home or doing this in your spare time with no interest in going full-time, is it fun? is the only question you need to ask. But if you want to go full-time, you have to put food on your plate at some point. Once you're eating and clothing your kids and saving for retirement, I think there's more room for risk-taking and making games solely for the fun of it.

I am living at home. I am not doing it for fun. I am doing it full time and hope to earn a living off it. My wife is supporting me right now but if she chooses not to, I plan to ask the support of my parents and so on recursively. I strive to maintain a small footprint so that I'm not a pain in the arse for anyone. I dont eat much, crave no fashionable clothes nor gadgets, have no kids right now, dont have a car/mortgage nor worry about retirement. I will be making games at 75 out of an old-age home. I do have the same fears, uncertainity and doubt about the future but if it does go horribly wrong, I intend to somehow brush the failure and make another game :) What I dont intend to do is to write a game putting faith on some market research to be a commercial success.

However, its important to distinguish market research from marketing/selling. While I dont believe market research for any creative endeavour, I want to sell my game and this forum is a great resource for ideas. One may say the process begins with market research but I want to cut that part out - I'm ready to be a little poorer for blazing my own trail than being richer due to market research.

The way I see it, the point of making a game is so people will play it. You can't just make a game out of thin air and expect people to want to play it. This is where market research comes in. You find out what games people like to play, and make a game in that genre. That doesn't mean you have to make a clone of a game that's popular though, that's not the point. The point is to make a game that's in the same genre as the games that people want to play.

That is the least risky way of making money from a game. It's true that innovation is very important in any industry, but it also has a lot of risk. So until you're in a position where you can take the risk, it's a bad idea to try being too innovative. Doesn't mean you still can't be creative though, just within certain limits. Market research also helps you to not make games in a category that's already saturated. In other words, people who play those types of games already have more than enough games to choose from.

Finally, since the idea is to make a game that people will want to play, isn't it much more fulfilling to make a game based on market research that people will really like, and buy it, than making an "original" game that you think people will like but turns out that nobody's interested? Or making a good game for an oversaturated market which will severely limit your sales.

I believe (as I've stated before) that you should definitely consider what else is out there. But not just so that you know what is popular or unpopular or somehow "needed." Instead, the goal as I see it is to make sure you don't spend a lot of time and effort creating something that already exists. Hard to be "original" when you're doing the same thing as someone else.

On the other hand, I agree that creative work, and innovation, cannot be made through market research. There are some really great things that were not anticipated, and could not have been anticipated.

But how much creativity and innovation can you claim if someone already did what you're doing? Sure, *you* know you did it all by yourself. But so what? You came second. Or third. Or ad infinitum.

That's why people who want to write a particular type of fiction are told to read as much of that type of fiction as they can. So they learn the conventions of the genre, and so they can see what has been done (and probably done to death) before.

If you want to close yourself off from all outside influences, you may create a "pure" piece of art, but you miss out on the learning experience, the education that comes from seeing what has come before.

My thoughts, anyway, and an attempt to be more clear.

-David

Maybe I'm just simple (my girl friend mentions that all the time ;) ), but I don't quite understand games as art. As a games player, I don't play games to appreciate them. I play them to have fun.

Or maybe I'm just more of a game player then a game designer. I don't care if my games satisfy some personal goal to do something expressive or different . I'm just trying to make a game that people play.

From a commercial stand point, I define success as the bottom line. From a personal stand point I define success as the amount of time other people spend playing my games, and enjoying them.

Well said, Guardian_Light. Sounds pretty similar to what I think.

Fenix Down wrote:

You can't just make a game out of thin air and expect people to want to play it. This is where market research comes in. You find out what games people like to play, and make a game in that genre.
-----------

I disagree. Thats what is ruining the game market for me. (I'm not talking about the world, but about me, since i know myself better than i know the world).

I used to be a big gamer, but now, i only play one game: Subspace (multiplayer asteroid clone) because its a work of love. I find it is the most perfect game to date. Live opponents, extremely well balanced etc etc.

How many ppl play it? like 2000.

How many ppl play everquest? millions?

Ok, where am i going with that? Simple: I, and i know there are others like me, enjoy games for pure fun and gameplay. Retailers seem to forget about that. They do big market researches and figure out ppl want blazing 3d graphics, blood, guts, and the likes, and they supply the market with all that.

Now, like mentionned in other threads, its very hard to find new gameplays when you are binded by the market. Doing what people expect shadows creativity.

When i work on a game, i'm shooting for perfection. I'm looking at every detail. Its a work of love, not driven by market ideas. I figure if i make the game so i enjoy it alot, so my friends enjoy it alot, then there are definitly people who are gonna want to buy it.

It didnt take market research to figure that out. I dont think much retail hits(*) were based on market research.

(*) I couldnt find an exact term, i'm talking about games that defined a new game play, not necesseraly raking up the money.

Tetris? school project
Parappa the rapper? I dont think they ever expected that much success.
Dune 2?

Anyways, my plan was to makes games for me, for fun, and then submitting them to sites like this one (unfortunatly, we all read that heart breaking 'we will probably not accept new games' post)

Writing this, i realize the difference, and wonder if it should shame me. You guys (those saying market research is key) make games to make money (And because you love making money that way), i make games for fun, and if they rake in some cash, well i'll prolly go out more.

In summary, this post might not make much sense, exept to point out that market research is not in my opinion the road to creating a hit, or fresh new content and gameplay.

Smurf

I think the best way to go is to have an idea (or a few ideas) in your head about what you would like to develop and then let your market research further refine your product. Using market research to determine what you are going to build could be a recipe for disaster.

It also depends on the quality of your market research.

Looking at what everyone else is working on is no good because *most* games fail. By that token we should all be working on MMORPGs, real-time strategy or "Tycoon" games but I'm willing to be if you did then you would go broke. You also can't go on mainstream sales data because that has nothing to do with the indie market. It doesn't matter if the Sims set a new record, your low budget sims clone isn't likely to do so well.

Unless you have hard factual sales data directly from the developers themselves then there is no such thing as reliable market research. Even top downloads are misleading because you don't know what the conversion rate is.

Let the info guide and refine your decision but not make your decision for you. No matter what you make, as long as it's something you yourself would love to play (and do love to play) then you will be able to find an audience.

On a final note - there's 2 basic recipes for indie success:
1) Find what everyone else is doing and copy it for similar quality but at drastically reduced price.
2) Find what everyone else is doing and do the exact opposite because it means the other markets are being neglected.

On the other hand if you're in it just for the money then you may be better off going to dental school.

That's my 2 cents.

Originally posted by KNau
No matter what you make, as long as it's something you yourself would love to play (and do love to play) then you will be able to find an audience........
......On the other hand if you're in it just for the money then you may be better off going to dental school.

That's my 2 cents.

Like I said in my other post, you might make a great game but if the market is oversaturated you won't get anywhere with it (unless you have a solid reputation already). You can't possibly know if the market isn't oversaturated without doing market research.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to make money from games. I'd rather do what I love doing (making games) and making money from it, than doing something I have absolutely no interest in (such as dentistry) and making money from it. If someone doesn't care whether or not they'll make money from their game, well that's fine with me. But you shouldn't bash people who want to do this for a living just because you don't.

I also disagree with the notion that to make a good game you have to make a game you like to play. The idea is to make a game that others like to play, they're the ones who'll be buying it. As long as you understand what people find fun you'll be able to make a good game for them. It's kind of like being a system analyst, where you're designing a system for other people to use. They don't know exactly what they want but they have some idea, and you have to figure out what it is they want the system to be. Games are pretty similar in that respect, except you don't have a single customer (or a single finite group of customers) which makes it more difficult since the game has to appeal to many people.

I think there's a difference between being "in it for the money" and being "in it to get rich".

If you are "in it to get rich" then, yeah, there's a lot of more efficient and less risky ways to make money. Indie game dev is certainly not about getting rich, although it does encompass that possibility.

If you want to be a full time Indie game developer then yeah, you better be "in it for the money" or you'll never achieve your dream. (Barring having someone else funding you). So for those who are interested in going full time, they have to take into account the commercial viability of the game they are creating. It doesn't have to dictate what they create (like i think sometimes happens in retail) but there has to be some intersection between the design aspiration of the developer and the market demand for those designs.

For those who want to create the games "they want to play" and aren’t "in it to get rich" or even "for the money". I would advise them to take up game development as a hobby while working a regular job to pay their bills. I personally think it's unethical to have others support them while they make the games they've always wanted to without even considering the market potential for those games. It's unethical because it's basically a waste of other peoples money so they can follow their hearts desires with out taking any risks.

The people who are supporting them will never see any return on their investments. Because no matter how good the intentions of the developer are the chances of them being successful without any market research are very slim. I'm a firm believer that when you are supported or funded by other people you have an obligation to be responsible with the funds that have been provided you. Not doing any market research is irresponsible.

One of the ideas presented above was the fact that the success of a game can be measure by how many people enjoy/love playing it. For me personally making a game entirely for myself that I loved but everyone else hated would not be a very rewarding experience. Part of the reward of creating games is having others share your enjoyment of it. Doing market research helps a game developer determining what his game needs to accomplish in order to be successful. (Successful as defined above, not in monetary terms)

My conclusion is this, in order to be successful both in creating a game enjoyed by others and in making enough money to continue doing what you love full time, you need to do market research.

This talk about market research and searching for the magic formula that will make you pots of money is interesting.

I wonder if J.R.R. Tolken got into market research in a big way?

Would he have written the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings at the time? Or would he have decided to write detective and romance novels instead?

I would submit that Tolkien had a regular job as a Professor of English Language and Literature, so he was free to explore flights fo fantasy on his own time. If he was writing for a living I would think his approach would be somewhat different.

Originally posted by Davaris
This talk about market research and searching for the magic formula that will make you pots of money is interesting.

I wonder if J.R.R. Tolken[sic] got into market research in a big way?

Would he have written the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings at the time? Or would he have decided to write detective and romance novels instead?

Yes, of course Tolkien did lots of market research. He told his stories over and over in many forms to his children every night. He also spent much time reading and researching before writing of Middle Earth. He met regularly with his peers and collegues (CS Lewis among them) to discuss such things. It was not something that just came about. He was a professor of literature at Oxford, for goodness sake. He worked it over and over in his mind and told and retold the stories for tens of years. The Silmarillion took him his entire life to write.

Tolkien spent most of his life working and reworking a concept in his mind of a universe that was not entirely unlike the writing that influenced him (eg Arthurian legend or Beowulf, etc).

Much like Lucas drew heavily on Kurosowa and Clarke and Herbert and Heinlein when he produced Star Wars.

If you wish to do something for yourself and yourself alone, that's great. If you find others who are interested in it, and might even be willing to give you money for it, more power to you, because you've identified a market. Would you not listen if one of your dear friends said to you, "You know, this is a really great game, but don't you think it would be cool if the ninjas could throw stars and use smoke bombs as well as swing their swords?" And, you just might say, "Hrm, I hadn't thought of that; what a great idea."

Guess what? That's being influenced by the market.

(I apologize if I have gotten a little terse; all of this talk of the purity of design has gotten on my nerves a bit -- and I'm speaking as somebody who's painted, sculpted, programmed, designed houses and built barns all for love and money.)

-daniel

DCoder:

I don't think telling stories to your kids and discussing what you are working on with your friends (no matter how talented they are) qualifies as market research.

My personal take on "market research" (and I use the term loosely; my girlfriend does market research for Heinz so I know what real market research involves and nothing people are talking about here even comes close) is to veto ideas, not create ideas in the first place. As is true of most developers, I have a whole bunch of ideas/game designs in my notes. Market research has nothing to do with formulating these ideas. However, when I have to decide which idea to actually implement I start looking into what games people want. This way market research doesn't taint the idea but I AM taking the market into consideration before I invest my time developing a game.

And a response to people who are saying market research is ruining games: the big game companies do NOT engage in market research, they pretty much just develop whatever they think will be cool. Market research consistently indicates that most videogame players like light puzzle games (most recently this was pointed out on Gamasutra about a week ago) yet the big companies keep making dark and epic adventures. Why is that? It's no secret; also explained in places like Gamasutra and Game Developer magazine, this is because most game developers want to make a game just like their favorites and developers, pretty much by definition being really hardcore about games, generally like dark and epic games. So arguably the reason game development is going down the crapper is the LACK of market research.

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald

I personally think it's unethical to have others support them while they make the games they've always wanted to without even considering the market potential for those games. It's unethical because it's basically a waste of other peoples money so they can follow their hearts desires with out taking any risks.

The people who are supporting them will never see any return on their investments. Because no matter how good the intentions of the developer are the chances of them being successful without any market research are very slim. I'm a firm believer that when you are supported or funded by other people you have an obligation to be responsible with the funds that have been provided you. Not doing any market research is irresponsible.



Unethical is too strong a word to slap on such developers. People invest in companies listed on the stock market too hoping for return on investment. Most end up loosing money. So are those companies unethical in their practices? No. Companies like Enron must be excluded. They are dishonest. Similarly, if the developer has honestly presented his intentions to his investors that he is doing it purely to push the state of the art, they may not see a cent of their money etc, whether he provides ROI becomes immaterial because those investors will want to see the developer push the art instead of wads of cash.

I think the better way to do market research is to _become_ your target market. Then you can develop the games _you_ like, and have them fit the market as well.

Originally posted by Diodor
I think the better way to do market research is to _become_ your target market. Then you can develop the games _you_ like, and have them fit the market as well.

This is not mandatory. Look at Steve -- he made Dweep, a great puzzle game, even though he's not really into puzzle games. You just have to understand your market.

Originally posted by jaggu
Unethical is too strong a word to slap on such developers.

Yes, you’re probably right, but I couldn't think of any other way to say it at the time. I guess it comes down to the concept of stewardship and I differentiate that from investing. Companies are supposed to have an obligation to their shareholders, but for the most part in practice they are slaves to the bottom line.

When one becomes a stock broker they advise that broker never to have friends or family as clients because the market can and will destroy relationships. Same goes for start up companies, a common practice is to have a friends and family round of funding before going after VC capitol. The rule of thumb here is if you think you'll be able to look them in the eye at thanksgiving dinner for the next 20 years after having lost all their money then you might consider taking it, otherwise don’t bother. It's not worth it.

So on one hand investments from friends and family are different then investments in corporations on the other hand there's a difference in funding and investing. If you’re just starting out and you need to get a game out before you can start seeing any revenue, then the individuals giving you money are funding you. The expectation of funding is that it is supporting you to a point where you can support yourself and perhaps pay off the amout that was given to you.

If friends or family are "funding" you, it's not like investing in the stock market. They are funding you because they have a relationship with you and know you. Not because they think you financials look ship shape and your and undervalued publicly traded corporation. If developers or artists for that matter want to sit around and create whatever they want isolated from any market information then there's nothing wrong with that. In fact more power to them, the game industry could stand to gain from some pure creativity. Unfortunately these types of things rarely make money and really only suite to appease the creativity of their creator, no one else.

This is why it's so important to be a good steward with other people’s money, especially if you’re being funded by your friends and family. They don’t know the ins and outs of successful Indie game development, they are just trusting you that when you finish your game (another difficult thing to do if your design is rooted in wallowing in creativity) that you will be less dependant on (hopefully free from ) their funding.

It is a very rare case where someone can tell their friends and family, i may never make any money at what I’m doing. Because I don’t care about money, what i care about is making the games I want to make. So will you support me to do whatever I want for as long as it takes to someday make a profit? It's ever rarer that those friends or family would agree to that.

I'm not accusing game developers of this, but it reminds me of my pet peeve. I've met a number of people in my life who have felt that life owed them something, that they were of some kind of merit that they should just be able to do and have whatever they want while never really working to have any of it. The would work only to collect unemployment, have their parents frequently pay their rent when they blew their money on eating out and buying game consoles.

My basic point is, when you are funded by other people, especially friends and family you need to either be very clear about your lack of attention to marketability and have them be fine with that or you need to work very hard to produce something that has potential to be profitable so that you can support yourself.

I think all people in life would like to be in a position where they can do whatever they want without thinking about money and they can often achieve this. But it's typically referred to as retirement not a carrier.

By Dan MacDonald: The rule of thumb here is if you think you'll be able to look them in the eye at thanksgiving dinner for the next 20 years after having lost all their money then you might consider taking it, otherwise don’t bother. It's not worth it.

If you are getting their money, get it as a gift!

By Dan Mac Donald: If you’re just starting out and you need to get a game out before you can start seeing any revenue, then the individuals giving you money are funding you. The expectation of funding is that it is supporting you to a point where you can support yourself and perhaps pay off the amout that was given to you.


Honestly, developing computer games is not expensive. What do you need? A computer, Windows, VC++ (or DJGPP/Allegro). You probably already have these. Then a roof over your head, sockets to plug your computer, meagre food, some clothes and a lot of thick skin :) Try to live with someone who is generous enough to provide this. Spouse/Parents are immediate possibilities.

By Dan Mac Donald:If developers or artists for that matter want to sit around and create whatever they want isolated from any market information then there's nothing wrong with that. In fact more power to them, the game industry could stand to gain from some pure creativity. Unfortunately these types of things rarely make money and really only suite to appease the creativity of their creator, no one else.


Hmm. The game industry gains from pure creativity but it only pleases the creativity of the creator? Sounds contradictory. I dont know whether the creations make money or not. Maybe market research will help here ;)

This is why it's so important to be a good steward with other people’s money, especially if you’re being funded by your friends and family. They don’t know the ins and outs of successful Indie game development, they are just trusting you that when you finish your game (another difficult thing to do if your design is rooted in wallowing in creativity) that you will be less dependant on (hopefully free from ) their funding.

I agree one has to be grateful and honest to those that are helping you. Yes, the aim must be to become self-reliant (thats why I dont plan to release my game for free) but not by compromise. If it takes a few years, so it takes. Until then, I suggest one helps those that help them. Maybe cook their food, wash their dishes, do their laundry, take care of the kids, run errands, listen to their problems, whatever.

By Dan Mac Donald: It is a very rare case where someone can tell their friends and family, i may never make any money at what I’m doing. Because I don’t care about money, what i care about is making the games I want to make. So will you support me to do whatever I want for as long as it takes to someday make a profit? It's ever rarer that those friends or family would agree to that.


It all depends on how perseverant you are :)

By Dan Mac Donald: I'm not accusing game developers of this, but it reminds me of my pet peeve. I've met a number of people in my life who have felt that life owed them something, that they were of some kind of merit that they should just be able to do and have whatever they want while never really working to have any of it. The would work only to collect unemployment, have their parents frequently pay their rent when they blew their money on eating out and buying game consoles.


Looks like you dont like Idlers. A few websites :) :

http://www.idler.co.uk/
http://www.idlex.freeserve.co.uk/ and

A praise for idleness by Bertrand Russell
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/leisure/russell.html

An Apology for Idlers by RL Stevenson:
http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/siti_esterni/rls/essays/virgpuer/vp-3.htm

I dont believe in wasting resources provided by understanding people. That is disrespecting their understanding. But there is nothing wrong is collecting unemployment benefits or parents paying rent. Blowing money probably is. Eating out and buying consoles is not wrong if its necessary :)

By Dan Mac Donald: I think all people in life would like to be in a position where they can do whatever they want without thinking about money and they can often achieve this. But it's typically referred to as retirement not a carrier.

Whats wrong with retiring at 30 or whatever age and do your own thing? Now all corporations listed on the stock market are basically living off the investor's money without providing them any guarantees whatsover. And many are conducting dishonest business we still let the system continue. So what is wrong about living off your parents, spouse or whoever that is ready to support you for any amount of time if you are honest about what you do?

Finally, I dont mean to address to you Dan its just that its impossible for me to respond to what you have expressed in 3rd person. I respect your views on the subject.

jaggu:

You must be a very good looking bloke to get your girl friend to support you. :)

Dan MacDonald:

I think you're being a little judgemental Dan. A lot of people have advantages in life and make use of them. Some are more intelligent, some have rich families and some like jaggu are very good looking (sorry I can't help myself).

I think if jaggu is taking the shortest path to his goal then good luck to him.

We aren't living in the old Soviet Union where everyone has to be equally destitute. People with rich parents have more advantages in life because their parents worked hard/smarter so they could help themselves and their kids. I think it's called free enterprise?

However jaggu if you are talking about sitting on the dole and forcing ordinary people to support you then you aught to be ashamed of yourself.

I'm not upset at all, I’m just opinionated. :) I don’t mean to force my way of seeing things on everyone else. But I do like to hang my opinions out in the air every now and then.

I can respect that not everyone is going to see things my way, and if both sides can at least see where the other side is coming from I consider the exchange of ideas to be a success.

I don’t even remember who was talking but someone was saying that they were supported by their family but they didn't feel market research was as important as artistic liberty or something to that extent.

That just kind of rubbed me the wrong way. There ARE ways where this sort of situation can work as long as no ones getting hoodwinked into thinking things that aren’t based on reality. (i.e. the funder’s). But there's a lot of potential to be taking advantage of others good natures, it's walking on thin ice ethically speaking from my PoV.

Dan, I think you've said just about everything I feel on this topic. A few additions...

It is very rare in life that someone will choose to support another person just so that they can do what they feel like. There are the few exceptions (mostly the extremely wealthy), but usually if someone agrees to do this, it is either because they wan't some part of it (either get their money back, or its something they themselves would like to do so they hope you will involve them when you become successful) or it is because of a misunderstanding (they actually expect one of the above and you just don't realize it).

In regards to sitting across the table at thanksgiving, in addition to being able to do that you also have to think about other relatives (sibblings, cousins, etc) that aren't directly involved. Chances are they know about the situation, and people that work hard to get what they need (so they can do what they want) tend to have a level of disrespect for people who don't work for those things and just get the essentials handed to them. I kind of know this firsthand, because one of my wife's uncles is like this, taking on debt and having his parents pay for everything. His parents don't seem to mind, but everyone else in the family seems to have a prettly low opinion of him.

Finally, if you aren't willing to do the research to help guide your decision on what game to make, what are the chances that, even if you stumble onto something with unlimited potential, you will actually get off your bottom and do the work necessary to see that you tap its potential? It seems to me that if you don't want to bother with the upfront details, you probably won't want to bother with the backend details either.

Chances are they know about the situation, and people that work hard to get what they need (so they can do what they want) tend to have a level of disrespect for people who don't work for those things and just get the essentials handed to them


I see this all the time. I know of one games company here in Australia that got started in this way. When I was working with the owner 5 years ago when he was finishing his first game, I asked him how much he spent making the game. The answer was $200,000. Then I asked him where he got the investors (It was the *first* game he had *ever* made). He looked embarrassed and changed the subject straight away. I'm pretty good at reading between the lines and I know that meant family investors.

I don't see anything wrong with this guy having a special advantage because his business wouldn't have gotten started without that money and it is employing a lot of people.

I think the idea of art is useful if it gets you want you want, but otherwise is fairly meaningless. Scott McCloud said art is any expression that's not survival or procreation, which is a fairly broad definition but it serves a point. Any expression can be called art, but all art operates within constraints. In Jackson Pollack's case it was only the size of his canvas, and perhaps the amount of beer he could fit in his refrigerator. He worked under few constraints, but others have worked under greater limitations: realistic depictions, specific forms, limits within colors, current tastes, physical hardships, and social pressures. If you begin with a constraint, it defines your operating environment but does not control you. However, if the constraint is added arbitrarily amid the process, it can thwart your designs, and makes you resentful of it.

If you didn't think of what the market would bear before you started your game, it feels like an imposition later on. But if you look at market research as a constraint before you begin your game, then it's no burden at all. It's a challenge to create something in a specific context. In this case, the context is a saleable game you can make a living off of. What if you're a runner, and in the middle of a race or just before it the event organizer tells you that runner pairs who each put a leg in a potato sack and cross the line together will receive a bonus? This would probably offend you as a runner ("artist") but also you would just feel unprepared to handle an unfair, arbitrary constraint added amid the race. If you went to a picnic, and there was a potato sack race, would you complain then? Ok, it's a silly example, but my contention is setting your sights on creating a fun game that sells well is just as fulfilling as creating a fun game -- as long as you accept this as a constraint before you begin.

In regards to being supported by someone while you work on your game, I have a friend who quit his job to be a writer at almost the same time I quit my job to develop games. Even though he's married and she works, he's saved up money for the purpose. He contributes to the household income from his savings, and when it runs out, he's going to have to get a job again. It's a driving motivator. It's fine to be a starving artist if that's your thing, but don't you lose the moral high ground when you eschew activities that might more quickly reduce your reliance on your patron? Personally, I'd feel I'd owe it to them to carry my own weight as soon as practically possible. This is more semantics, but I define market research as anything that suggests how to make a better selling product. By definition, if you've learned how to do it, market research will make you more money. I know I want to learn how; I'd rather not go back to working in the mines. :p

Market research is a very dangerous thing if taken literally.

If you use it to try and cut through the high signal/noise about actual sales, then its fine.

For those that dont know, there ARE details kept on software sales by a company called PCDATA (and others), while its not 100% accurate (apparently, double the given figures for worldwidesales) its a good indicator of when youre being mislead by marketing or over zealous journalism.

Unfortunately its only for retail games.

Things Ive learnt from PCDATA info are that what people percieve as successful and what commercially sells lots of units arent always the same thing. Most people have a high regard and knowledge for the Quake games (for instance) but these have easily been outsold by the Sims games.

There are quite a lot of these kind of things in the games businesss.

Its a pity there arent such figures for shareware/indie sales.

.Z.

Originally posted by Davaris
I see this all the time. I know of one games company here in Australia that got started in this way. When I was working with the owner 5 years ago when he was finishing his first game, I asked him how much he spent making the game. The answer was $200,000. Then I asked him where he got the investors (It was the *first* game he had *ever* made). He looked embarrassed and changed the subject straight away. I'm pretty good at reading between the lines and I know that meant family investors.

I don't see anything wrong with this guy having a special advantage because his business wouldn't have gotten started without that money and it is employing a lot of people.

Which game company?

Which game company?

Sorry I won't mention anyone's name.