Your Dream Does Not Have to Die aka The Power of Community

Lately I have posted a few threads examining the problems faced by Indie Devs.

The problems can be summarized as:

1. A huge number of games already exist on the market
2. A large number of games are being released each day
3. There is no effective way to "cut through the noise" and deal with these issues

So... there are a lot of games out there, there are a lot of people making & releasing games, and everyone is basically trying to do it alone.

Now that we have thoroughly examined the issues and apparently demoralized some people in the process (sorry about that) I'd like to focus on how to get around it.

One thing that occurs to me is every person here seems to be "in their own little world". Meaning each person here is basically "the competition". Sure we all help each other with tech issues and so forth but when it comes down to actually getting games noticed I think we are dropping the ball big time.

Each person here has a tiny amount of influence. A tiny online presence. Some more so than others. What I see happening is each person is trying to completely do this alone and therein lies the problem.

I suggest the solution to the issue lies within the community itself.

While each person here may have a tiny (ultra tiny even) market reach it seems likely that together the market reach is massive.

How many people here have a website?
How many people here use Twitter?
How many people here are building a YouTube fanbase (no matter how tiny it is currently)?
How many people here already have dozens or hundreds or even thousands of gamers playing their existing games?

I don't really see any of you as competition. Now, of course, I am also just a hobbyist and only make games for the fun of doing so. And to share and help others with game coding and so forth.

If (and I know this is a big if) we can get a mindset shift going on here to see each person as a colleague instead of a competitor then people can help each other and the result is that each person's games will then have a much greater reach than they have trying to do it all on their own.

If you have a website, why not mention so-and-so's (someone here) game on your website?
If you are on Twitter, why not plug someone else's game there?
If you are on YouTube, why not cover someone else's game there?
If you have games currently out there on the market why not make an update and promote someone else's game within your app?

I know this seems like a completely stupid thing but I'd suggest it makes more sense to take a longer term view.

Instead of making a game and going through the hassle of hooking up ads to make your $1 or $10 per month or whatever most of you are averaging forget about the money completely for now and focus on promotion.

More specifically cross promotion of your fellow Developers.

This could be done in a variety of ways. At its simplest, all each person here needs to do is group up with 5 to 10 other people all agree to cross promote each other's apps, websites or whatever inside their apps, websites and so forth. It's easy. It's free. It's effective.

We've done the Doom & Gloom. We've thoroughly examined the problem. Let's focus the same on the solution.

Feel free to share your views of the above. If you think I am an idiot for suggesting such a thing then go ahead and say so. If you think it is a good start and can be improved greatly then certainly do so.

The point is how can this community be leveraged to help lift each other up instead of being just one more game to bury another person's game.

 

This is exactly the same issue that small YouTubers face (I was one myself until I stopped to work on games ). YouTube is more flooded than any games marketplace and it's geared towards making the biggest names easier to find, if you're a small fish you won't get noticed.

The most effective way for small YouTubers to grow their sub numbers is to collaborate with other small YouTubers. Essentially some of the subs from each YouTuber cross over and all of the collaborators gain more subs. Getting shout outs from big YouTubers once worked extremely well...more recently (last 1-2 years) this has become more ineffective for a lot of reasons.

Apply this same logic to games and I completely agree with cross promoting games between indie developers. If there was any community in gaming which would promote their "competitors" then the indie community is where it's at. I wouldn't be surprised if this already happens to some extent.

So basically, I completely agree with @GarBenjamin. I was already planning to revive my YouTube channel to share my 1st game development process with my subs, I'd be happy to cover games from others too.

 

But how this will help to reduce market saturation?
[Edit] That's the real problem Indies are facing now.

 

I'm in. I have twitter and a blog and a YouTube channel.

In practical terms my YouTube channel has the most reach. Its primarily aimed at other game devs instead of the general gaming public. But I can typically get a few hundred views on all of my videos. The top video has around 30,000 views.

Its not a huge market reach. But I enjoy making videos and wouldn't mind making some for other people's games if they will help expose the video or cross promote my games.

 

It's true the problem is so many games and the rate at which the games are being created.
However, after some thought on it I came to the conclusion (a) nothing can be done about the number of games being made and if anything it will only continue to increase and (b) each game is basically trying to go it alone and the result is the game is either blocked (from receiving attention) by other games or the game is getting some attention and in the process it is blocking one or more other games from getting attention.

We cannot do anything about the number of games being developed. We may well see the time when 100 or more games are released per hour. The problem this creates is one of discoverability. So, I think at least, the key is to focus on how to leverage all of these games as a way to increase discoverability.

So, I approached the solution from that angle.

 

My website averages 50 unique visitors per day. A tiny amount to be sure considering when I was doing Internet Marketing making money from websites one of my niche sites averaged thousands of unique visitors per day. However, it is very early stages for it and I really do not promote it. This will change in time. I already have a page set up to cover games made by other people. I just haven't added any yet.

I have only been on Twitter for about 1 month so I only have a bit under 200 followers at this point. I am more interested in targeted promotion so for this reason the bulk of my followers are interested in retro games and pixel art. Again, I will gain more over time and eventually will actively promote it more.

And this is what made me think... I'd love to help out some of these folks... my own reach is ultra tiny at this point. And I bet most of these people are the same way. Hmm... but if people sort of banded together you are talking about instantly increasing your market by 5 to 10 times or more. Again it may still be a tiny number but it will be far better than the 1/5th or 1/10th you are dealing with currently.

 

Make better games. Focus on quality and making a unique and genuinely compelling game. (better and higher quality than your competition)

 

The market saturation is not something any of us can overcome without good and original product lacking the ad dollars.

And to even garner interest as a curated collection of games I would suggest:

a) That we need to reject portrayal of violence to make the job of curating these games reasonable for people that are volunteering to help with no guarantee of success.

b) That the number of games accepted per week never exceed 4 games per week.

c) We do a Thumbs Up / Siskel & Ebert / Rotten Tomatoes style of rating a game and each game before it is published must have been played by 75% of the coop members. A reviewer can refuse to review games that don't fall within ratings guidelines that they feel comfortable with. And I still say that all accepted games should be required to be rated Everyone. We want to inspire creativity and originality and I think that's a good way how to get there.

d) For us camera shy folks, YouTube isn't a requirement but if you play a game you give a civilized polite review of the game, whether you like the game or not.

e) Every game promoted must be (self) rated with the ESRB before accepting to review.

f) No money can be accepted (well ad revenue & donations via YouTube is fine) for reviewing and promoting a game. What the coop gets in return for reviewing the game is their own games placed in the game that is to be reviewed and published with an update containing the kiosk. Another reason why playing the game is actually important. If any of the advertised games becomes successful this is not a profit sharing venture, but a network to create advertising reach cheaply and effectively and since this is voluntary I again suggest that such a network needs something the others can't offer: e.g. every game is rated Everyone. We need not worry about moral disputes or whether or not we actually liked the game to promote the game: if it was rated Everyone it will be added to the waiting list of 4 games of week that are reviewed. It's that simple. Opinions vary so whether we as individuals liked a game is often irrelevant.

I suggested this 2 or 3 years ago in the forum but nobody was listening. My plan prior to reading this thread is to not accept any advertising in my game and advertise only my games in my games. Cheap and effective if I have one successful title to do that with and if not, no money wasted.

I think to limit one self when one creates games to eliminate violence so that every game that is advertised in such a network is rated Everyone is an admirable goal and one that might foster a bit of creative originality and humour.

I would not want to be bombarding folk with ads during a game. So technically I suggest we implement a kiosk front where we can create kiosk for the game developers. The game player has the option to freely visit the kiosk if they so desire in playing the game.

My only limitation for the Kiosks that I would put in my games in that I will ot accept games unless they are rated Everyone.

Until the coop grew too big for one to curate effectively we could create a website with the coop's cumulative reviews and containing the ad flyers that are to be placed in the coop members game advertising kiosks. Or someone could volunteer to serve as the MC for the coop and each coop member could write a short concise review for the coop MC to do a consolidated review on. However, unless this model is successful I don't think we will be flooded with folk trying to become members & get their games reviewed.

It will take some time and effort though to get to where we have 4 new games per week since the reviews are only for coop members. However, restricting the rating to Everyone, given the current game market, should keep the coop from beig flooded from the get go with review & membership requests.

I'll join too if it's agreed the games rated Everyone is what makes the coop unique while realizing an 'in game kiosk' implementation is merely a technical representation to avoid ad server costs and administration. The in game ads can be static kiosks or assetbundle updated kiosks, or more traditional 'ad server' type implementation (although that would cost more money).

I have a game rated Everyone that I can update with a Kiosk if this coop gets off the ground for other member's games.

However, we need to work offline it we agree to try our own marketing coop to create the details and responsibilities of coop membership. It is those details and responsibilities that we should use from the get-go to differentiate the coop from the rest of the market.

 

Great thread, GarBenjamin!

The Unity community is a great asset for game developers. I have made a lot of wonderful friends through Skype groups and beta testing and have learned so much. I have met asset developers who are making great tools for all of us and ask for our input. They enjoy making things that help us realize our dreams.

I love the idea of using the community to boost social media views for groups of indie gamers. It is a fantastic idea.

 

@goat great ideas! The kiosk thing you are describing is basically what I was imagining at the ideal. The simplest way would be for each game participating to simply rotate through the other 4 to 9 games and show the relevant screenshot. That's just because I was thinking an image would be simple to work with. Shows a picture of the game and some text probably along the lines of "Check out this other great game!"

Didn't know you had already suggested this kind of coop although it hardly surprises me. It is just common sense really. And as someone previously experienced in business I am surprised that I rarely see anyone doing it with games or even on the Asset store. Truly in every case that I have purchased on the Asset store not one time has there been any cross promotional material included that recommended another Asset seller's product. That just seems bizarre to me. It's like every person wants to do it completely alone or sees everyone else as their competition instead of a business colleague.

 

A coop sounds great, but you guys need to remember that there are all sorts of games, all sorts of audiences. So rating games needs to be based on more than whether the game is fun for you, and actually be as objective as possible. One person might target an audience that would hate another person's game.

 

Well the ideal way to do something like this would be to look at a game and think if a person likes this game what other games may they like and create the groupings accordingly. I don't think it would really be one massive coop and instead many smaller coops. And all of these small coops could occasionally cross promote each other as well.

Generally speaking, if I like platformer games and am playing a platformer game I'd be much more interested to see "Here is another great platform game by our friends so-and-so!" Would I click on that? Absolutely I would. However, if I am playing a platform game and see "Here is a great FPS by our friends so-and-so" would I click on that? Maybe. Maybe not. Clearly if I am playing a platformer game my mind is into platform games so those will be much more interesting to me.

People who like RPGs generally don't play just one RPG. They are pretty interested and excited everytime a cool looking RPG comes out. It's kind of like the old Web Rings that websites used years ago to cross promote each other. It felt like you had stumbled upon the riches of ali baba when you found a site that had the kind of content you were looking for and then saw that little Web Ring gadget on the site leading you to many other sites all providing more of the same kind of content you were looking for.

All I know is there are a lot of opportunities here. There are people on these forums participating in Ludum Dares and other game jams, publishing on mobile, publishing on web game portals, Steam and many other things.

Every place a game is being published has some amount of market reach. And this could be another great way to build the coops. Based on which aspects of the market they are currently reaching.

I do believe this has the potential to make a noticeable difference in the exposure of the games. Imagine even if one of the games is being reviewed by a YouTuber that has 10,000 subscribers. During the review one or more of the other games in the coop can be seen.

Someone checks out games at Ludum Dare and hey cool they are introduced to more games.

 

I agree with GarBenjamin & Telia.

That's why I said the only restriction would be that games reviewed would be rated Everyone. Everyone is both a market niche and a way to avoid extra marketing and review responsibilities.

If we can agree to the Everyone rating we can get past various jurisdictional legal definitions for what is moral or not. Every accepted member's Everyone rated game is accepted with no reservations no matter where that member is located internationally and differing legal laws in those jurisdictions regarding on nudity, sexuality, and violence. People, we are not Unity, Apple, Google, Microsoft or these other big businesses with plenty of legal representation so we need to protect ourselves from such concerns seeing the tight budget and lack of resources we have.

I'm all for creating the genres too but for now we have no reach. Classifying genres is something that can be done from the start and refined as we progress.

So who is taking the PMs to write up the coop membership rules & responsibilities? It would have to be passed around for suggested edits and rules changes and voting for the coop charter.

 

I don't know about the Everyone rating. I mean I get what you are saying about it getting rid of potential issues. I just don't know what exactly kind of limitations that places on a game's content and subject.

It seems like it might be very restrictive. Aren't most games such as RPGs and even platformers and such classified as Teen these days?

Rated E for Everyone makes me think of games where you are popping bubbles or doing word search puzzles. But maybe that is not the case.

I actually don't know if I even play any games rated for Everyone. I will do some quick searching and see if I can find some examples so I can better understand what that actually means.

EDIT: Okay, I decided to see what the AAA are labeling as Rated E for Everyone. I must say I am surprised that EA is actually making games that are what I'd expect from Indies (didn't know AAA actually made games like Rango these days)! And look here is an example of promotion without actually intending to do so.

Both of these are Rated E for Everyone:

So yeah stuff can be blown up and otherwise destroyed. Everyone seems fine.


Well, you, @Teila, @BoredMormon and @Xenoun all seem like fine candidates for any official kickoff of it. I am surprised there is actually support for it so early on. lol

Chances are though that most people simply won't get it because they will look at it like giving a mention to another developer's game takes away from their own game. So it probably won't be a huge workload initially at least.

 

Okay I have my little blog, where I will make a post whenever I find a cool ass game and explain why I think people should care about it. Now I dont post every 1-2 days, because quite simply I dont find a cool game that often , and can sometimes go weeks without posting (although im not actively looking all the time per se). So what if we just had a collective blog, where people could post when they found something cool they made a blog post about it, so we would have enough content to get regular readership (maybe) but not so we just shilling a game every day for the sake of content -- but that content would simply be made from a variety of authors

 

Well I'd be interested in seeing what for instance the original Donkey Kong was rated (if it had a rating) and is rated. It technically in the strictest sense has violence and kidnapping. Although til I sat down here and thought about rating that game I didn't think for a second about those things because they clearly aren't real and the protagonist Mario is never violent, but seeks to avoid violence. How it's presented is clearly not the same as someone seeking to portray it realistically in a game as that would be rated NC17 probably.

I won't deny I find myself thinking up game play and am astounded at how frequent game behavior is violent without ever thinking twice about it being violent. It is a challenge that demands originality.

e.g. So imagine if the mild cartoon violence of Donkey Kong would cause a Teen rating then it's easy to change the barrels to water balloon balls, the fireballs to water balls, and the damsel displeased Olive Oil personality that escapes to save herself when Popeye (Mario) fails. The game play is still the same and the game would instead be rated Everyone with no content advisory at all as I don't think being soaked by a water ball is classified as violence. It's just childhood shenanigans.

Technically the only game I have published would be rated Everyone with an advisory against Mild Cartoon Violence.

Example of an Everyone rated game:

http://donkeykong.nintendo.com/tropical-freeze/

See how it is rated Everyone - and it states anything that might be a concern to the player or buyer for a player. I this case, 'Mild Cartoon Violence'

So your platformers would be Everyone with possible advisory about mild cartoon violence as far as I know (I haven't played them yet).

Before such games are rated teen to graphics need to be more explicitly violent and / or realistic. That explicitness shouldn't be needed to have a success hero type story. Marvel Comics characters don't even get their hair messed up in routinely saving the world.

 

That would be cool and something that would need to operate outside the bounds of the coop since you are promoting non-coop content. Your suggestion though is a publication coop not an advertising coop. Advertising's goal as a business function is to sale your product not a 3rd party's products where you reap no advertising benefit from that 3rd party's game.

Your suggestion could be changed though by only accepting as advertising for such a review site's ad banners the coop's own games that have been played and reviewed by 75% of the coop members. However, it could review non-coop games in it's articles but in the advertising banners and such on the page only coop games would be shown.

And participating in the coop would restrict you in no way from other advertising activities outside the coop.

 

A full fledged network is certainly a worthy goal. A blog, YouTube chanel, Twitter etc all could be important parts of a powerful larger system.

Someone needs to draw a quick n easy diagram. I am going to sleep. Had the flu the past two days. Glad the ball is rolling though.

 

I'm keen to give everything a go. I was envisioning this more as a organised 'organic' social network. Where we each use our various social media presence to push each others games. Simply a general commitment to:

• Download and play the games of other forum users (Most of us do this anyway)
• Tweet, blog, video or facebook about the game as matches our on line presence

I'm willing to do this now, based solely on the fact that its a good idea. If we who spend a lot of time together on these forums don't talk about each others games off the forums, what chance do we have that some random stranger will talk about them?

The key piece that would make this easier is if someone wants to build a list of who agrees to do this, and the the preferred links to the actual games.

I'm not so excited about in game cross advertising. That might not even be practical, considering the various platform restrictions on advertising. Plus our games have completely different target audiences too. And then there is the ratings issues and all sorts of other things.

 

I'm thinking more of what Aiursrage2k said and we do need to change the reviews to include 50% completely randomly chosen games for us to review that meets the Everyone (we can review and discuss the Everyone 10+ and other ratings later) criteria and include it in the coop's games' advertising kiosks. Sure the coop discovered each other but the goal of the coop is to help discover good games ultimately. One has to balance self preservation with helping others to be civilized.

Of course if we aren't rich, the cost of the game might force us to say no but how can we set a cut off price with which to purchase a randomly chosen game for review?

 

What's our stated goal? Is it to promote good games? Or to promote our games?

If its to promote good games then I'm out. The idea of searching through random strangers games to find good ones doesn't appeal to me. There is an existing review industry that does exactly that.

If its to promote our games then count me in. I'd be happy to promote games by @GarBenjamin or @Xenoun or @goat or @Teila or @Aiursrage2k or any of the dozen other regulars on here that make this forum a pleasant place to be.

We also can do things like let each other play games without charging (which most of us do anyway), making money a moot point.

The way I see it not all of my friends want to play Pond Wars. Not all of GarBenjamin's friends want to play Santa's Rocketing Christmas Drop. However some of GarBenjamin's friends will want to shoot each other in tiny boats. And some of my friends will want to drop Christmas presents on reindeer. The player base for both of our games has increased, without much effort on either part. Expand this effect across a couple dozen of the regular forum goers, and we might have something real.

 

Well I don't have much social media or game player reach but I have to offer what I'm interested in developing further and that's simply including ad flyers in coop member games that I've played (I won't play the bloody gorey games) that are rated Everyone (or Everyone 10+ I have to review what they allow). I'm not a YouTuber or a Blogger but I will submit concise reviews to a 'coop MC' of 50% coop created games and 50% completely randomly chosen games and apps to keep the coop mission on the up & honest of discovering good games and apps that don't have an easy means, i.e. paid means, of discovery.

If the coop decide not to pursue the in-game ad kiosks no problem. I will still implement a prototype in my next game as I said to promote titles I make myself. I suppose when I go to update my game with the coop advertising kiosk I will find out whether that is allowed or not. A simple search on the topic of course turns up millions of links on how to use ad networks to get rich in your apps but not whether unpaid promotional material is prohibited. Strictly speaking, it is not even advertising as no money changes hands for the ad kiosks. However, I know you can't link to GooglePlay in an iOS app, as that would not make sense. I know you can link to your own iOS apps in you iOS app as it's done all the time.

 

100% agree with @BoredMormon. I was starting to get a little worried when I read about paying for games and reviewing other games etc. The whole purpose of this would be to promote games of others that are within this community and have them do the same for your own game. A condition for others to promote your game would be to provide the a free copy so they can comment about it, make sure the content isn't too mature for their own audience etc.

The platform for promotion I'd see as mainly being up to individual's choice. Some have a larger social media presence, some YouTube, some websites or only in their game etc. Requiring people to cross promote other games inside their own game starts sounding a bit too restrictive to me.

Also - if people can choose not to promote games from someone in the group based on the content, not thinking the game is good enough, too mature etc then there should be some minimum requirement in terms of number or percentage that each user has to promote in order to have their game promoted in return. Wouldn't be right if someone sat back and just promoted 1 or 2 games in return for theirs being promoted by 10-15 others.

 

Well we seem to have conflicting goals that seem as if they are contradictory but they are not.

We should review our coop member's games after all they are not our own individual games are they so it is not self-shilling. For the random stranger's app up to 10% a case can be made both ways.

On further thought, it's a bit unreasonable to expect coop members to donate both their money and their time to reviewing randomly chosen complete stranger's app although it is intriguing to think about. Having to pay money out of pocket might even exclude some people from joining the coop that otherwise wanted too and could.

So let's say though the coop grew to have a lot of members quickly, well then the number of games that would need to be reviewed would be of sufficient number and of random creativeness by many different individuals as to solve the problem of 'self shilling' as it's called. In the beginning with only a few members it will seem like self-shilling but really it's not as the submitter of the game doesn't review their own game.

 

You are asking people to promote violent content and have no choice in that matter. That's far more restrictive than simply cross promoting someone else's game that meets content restriction ratings in the app stores. The violent content can be changed easily and not effect game play, the content ratings systems cannot be changed or is even in our control to change those ratings. When those things you don't like are eliminated the coop has ceased to differentiate itself from the rest of the crowd, nor has it need to do so because that system is already in place.

It's now late. I'm going to bed.

 

All of us can collaborate on one big project: programming, audio, level design, GDD etc.
If it's done, source code could be available on Github for everyone to use
Say, it's a community made game.

BTW I like the idea of cross romotion! My blog can help

 

Our game is still a long ways from release but I would be happy to cross promote other people's games. And when ours is ready, I would be happy to provide access for free to others in our little coop.

However, our game is not 10+. The reason is because it is a game for role players, so a certain level of maturity is needed. Our rating will be to attract a more mature teen or adult to the game, not because we have a lot of bloody violence or sex, but simply because of the nature of the game and our audience.

I do have a blog and twitter and Facebook, not a very big following because I have not worked at it really. But I would be happy to promote and review other's games, especially Unity games. I do sometimes promote games from former colleagues who have their own companies now.

 

I guess its a good point and quite frankly when I tried doing it -- searching through random games, I found it very tedious and exhausting which I think the only someone would be willing to do it on a regular basis is if there was some kind of payment for it, the only thing that appealed to me about this idea is we would end up with different type of games then the reviewers. But maybe it makes more sense to just cross promote our own games, I think it would be more fun anyway. I think we should have it 1000 post minimum to join.

 

Youtube is a little different because 1 guy can make it alone. Games tend to be teams. Game companies can branch and hire more indies. I think small youtubers have it much harder

 

No I'm not, I suggest you re-read what I said because it was pretty much the exact opposite. I said for devs to provide a copy of their game for people to review so they can decide whether they agree with it before promoting on the basis of mature content etc.

The other comment about having some kind of minimum participation with group reviews was just to prevent people abusing the system and getting promotion without actively supporting the others. After all cross-promoting is what this is about, if someone wants to just sit back and be promoted without returning the favour then what's the point? I'd suggest the participation level is set at a point that allows people to skip games that they object to but still requires active contribution.

 

We could do bundles and sell them on itch.io for like $5 or something. So at least you'll get some money for your game.

 

I think the YouTube MC can create Review Categories 1st by Content Rating and then then by Genre and filters can be easily turned on and off.

I can't speak honestly whether I would find the a mature themed RPG offensive without reviewing it. So naturally I proceed cautiously. You should see how quick I look away from the TV screen when news commercials and ads for violent television come on screen. Facebook had a trending new article that shocking claimed that a decapitated head was successfully reattached when in fact it was a severed spine. Amazing surgeons and I'm happy for the child that was rescued but those 'reliable' media outlets were telling bald-faced lies to increase profits.

So then, with that, I just give fair warning that I might not complete the review on such projects when I'm told they have such a mature rating. It's unreasonable to suggest that each coop member must review violent content because for every person that says that; well there is a higher more violent threshold to exceed that the person that made such a claim would have a problem with that would change their mind really quick and that's not a path I want to be involved in. I would either give a thumbs up or a thumbs down if I finished the review but it wouldn't be up or down based on the mature content so that's not the selling point it would be on game play which is what we should be interested here in.

So, no, I wouldn't make a good policeman, soldier, fireman, EMT, surgeon, and a lot of other jobs even though I was a soldier for te duration of my contract. LOL, I wouldn't make a good criminal either.

As far as the cross advertising thing goes I think it has potential and I want to try it but the maturity ratings required does pose real legal problems. The game ad kiosks is not the legal problem but the maturity ratings of the included ads exceeding the maturity rating of the app being played. Besides the legal problems, there are also moral implications of including a ad for content with maturity ratings that exceed the maturity rating of the game or app being played.

I'm more than happen to review games and submit my reviews to the coop MC for their YouTube but if I don't finish a game because I am queasy and uncomfortable with the content that that's reasonable.

Maybe we coop members can collab on a game once the coop settles down a bit like elmar said.

I guess we can let this thread run a few days and let GarBenjamin make a set of rules and offer it in the thread for a vote. And then we can officially join or decline to join based on those rules.

 

OK, I misunderstood. The thing about requiring a minimum participation but if you are given a majority of games that make you too queasy to review that could be a problem. I am more than happy to try to review mature rated games but if they exceed my queasiness threshold then I won't make myself sick. I will give a thumbs up or thumbs down based on gameplay only, not mature content. For games I couldn't complete that exceeded my queasiness threshold I will say so. I'll be happy to be interview by the game makers after I complete the review. Oh and bugs. I'll keep my mouth shut on game suggestions unless asked.

 

I have no problem with group members not reviewing stuff that doesn't meet content guidelines for their own brand. The point is to leverage our existing brands to spread each other's stuff. Not to destroy our brands in a misguided attempt to help out.

Think about it. Imagine I have a series of successful reviews on aps for three year olds, and get a ton of young mum subscribers. Then I review something like hatred. The review is not going to reach any players who might pick up the game. But worse it's going to loose me subscribers who are offended by the stuff.

So each member should be totally free to choose what to review and what not to. If it becomes a balance problem where there are games no one wants to touch, we can deal with it when it happens.

 

Whatever the situation is, and it is very competitive, we still have a historically unique possibility to reach out to the market and potential buyers. Compare pre-AppStore. We can sell huge amount of games and get rich. However, it requires a few things and the most fundamental is to create good games that people wants. That is the raw basic!

We can discuss whatever but look at Minecraft. When it started to surface i remember that i read, and agreed, quite a few comments about it's lousy graphics. Who wanted to have a game that looked so old? Well gameplay talked and we all know what happened! ...do not underestimate word of mouth either.

Despite that, it is very very competitive ...but a lot of fun too

 

Create new content instead of rebranding you say? You racist, you sexist!

Because they're doing that to super heroes, get it? But I agree with you. New ideas should be expressed through new brands and channels, or at least get grouped with relevant ones. If there's nowhere for that trash to go, it can always have an unpleasant exposure through Jim.

 

You guys are already competing with professional studios, why compete with publishers as well? It is nice to be independent but we're all talking about app stores and steam so it is already understood you are best off working with a publisher to promote and distribute your product and to do so you will have to make your product conform with their requirements.

When you get there I would suggest speaking to the banks and hiring a pro or speaking to a proper publisher (just like the AAAs do) and working out a favorable arrangement. Otherwise you need to learn another careers worth of skills in your spare time and hope to compete with professional, established full time producers/marketeers for a share of a finite market.

I remember how minecraft soared after it was featured several times on Penny Arcade (I think I was in the first 7000 copies). If you can make those sorts of friends, or if you're Ron Gilbert maybe you can short-circuit the usual process otherwise the help is out there but you probably need to look outside of your comfort zone. The alternative is the blind leading the blind... Just my opinion though.

 

Or we can pull an Elon Musk.

Could be worse, could be the deaf leading the mute.

 

The nonexisting leading the existing.

#Profound

 

emmigrating, getting 2 degrees and a phd in physics, borrowing money from dad to start a business, selling it for a massive profit and starting another business designed to qualify for every research grant under the sun, winning the grants and using them to make future cars and spaceships might take a bit of time away from your game development but yes, I suppose that's an option lol

 

deaf leading the mute is ok, at least they can both see what's happening! I see the deaf leading the mute quite regularly when my wife watches these singing competitions on tv

 

Another game engine I worked with they all started a facebook page together, and when someone released an app they would all give each other 5 star rating and a good comment. That was pretty sweet, but it mostly turned into people demanding 5 stars for their bad games.

 

Wow, kind of sad that people who want to work together to mutually help each other has received so much flack. lol

Used to be that farmers in a village would get together to put up a barn. They still had their own farms, still had to compete at the market for customers, but they helped each other because it benefited all of them.

That is a very bad idea. It won't take long for people to realize a fake 5 star review was not earned. I pay attention to what was in the review, not how many stars were given.

 

Aye, but sadly farms require laborers to work for the farmer, they don't go to the markets unless to carry things, they're not part of the market in any meaningful way other than they do as the farmer tells them.

Big difference between subsistence (working to feed only yourself) and commercial farming which also involves using specialists for specialist functions. Kinda like if only you and your friends were ever going to play your game you wouldn't need a publisher, that still holds true.

 

Farmers in a village, back in the old days, you know, BEFORE commercial farming.

Besides, as several have commented above, we are not all doing this for money or commercial success. That is the huge issue here. Competition. But if you are working together to get your game seen and the commercial success is less important than simply succeeding at finishing and marketing a game, then your big commercial farming comment doesn't apply at all.

Farms did not require laborers, not in my country, until very recently. My own grandfather owned a farm and worked it with his family. The local farms would all share farm equipment because it was very expensive and would borrow each other's tractors and other heavy vehicles. They did not need a publisher or a big commercial overseer that would distribute profits to them. They worked together, as neighbors and human beings. The family farms lasted for hundreds of years in this country and I have an uncle who still has his own farm. Only competition from the BIG AAA commercial farms have started eroding the family farm in some areas.

Today, small organic farms are thriving and competing in supermarkets and town/city farmer markets, very similar to us indies trying to compete with the AAA companies.

Unlike the big companies though, these local small farmers know that working together, not competing, is a way to succeed. They form coops together, even opening shops where they work together.

What I see GarBenjamin suggesting is something very similar..not a shop, or borrowing equipment, but a way to help each other reach a larger audience. It is not everyone's cup of tea but I can't see any negatives to the idea at all. It isn't going to make a game suddenly succeed, but it could help make the marketing a bit more fun and enjoyable, and bond a group of people together.

Like or not, it is already happening. On the Skype groups all over and here on the Unity Forums, I see asset developers encouraging and helping others. I see people sharing information, passing along Tweets, supporting their fellow indie game developers. As group, they are smarter, more motivated, and more positive.

 

I'll probably get some hate, but I have little to no interest in supporting someone's game if it's not actually very good. I can't justify it. If an indie title is good I will happily promote it and have done so many times.

I don't see why I would help someone gain success from a potato though.

In the case of the barn analogy, in this case the barn is actually the Unity engine, so I'm not sure that works out the same.

 

If we get nothing from this group but a few people that will have played and honestly evaluate your games and reviewed them for you that is an accomplishment and one that we can use to improve our games.

 

I don't see the point. If you make something genuinely good, people will take notice. The fact is, a lot of stuff that isn't being seen is being seen but not wanted, probably due to the horrifically dated graphics, plot or the fact it's about potatoes and everyone knows that turnips are the in thing.

 

I think that is fine, Hippo. Like I said, it is not for everyone.

That said, I don't think that anyone should be asked to support a game that is not good. It is one thing to say...I have a friend who made a game and wanted to give my readers a heads up. Go try it and see if you like it.

Another to say, This is a great game...when it obviously is not.

So it is given, that people will promote games that they feel have some merit, even if it is not their type of game. I am not into mobile games at all, but I would be willing to try them and if I like them, post a review and/or write a little about the game. My goal would be more to introduce my readers to other indie game developers so they see them as an option.

 

Yeah great point, T