So there's been a handful of threads posted just recently showcasing different approaches - Matt Sprange's ad for his services, Malcolms CGS break down, Graham's shoestring guide.
And I've been pondering how we can usefully compare and contrast these. Some salient points of each:
Sprange: Sell tons of games on the Mongoose name! Go full time!
CGS: Do it all yourself and still make sales!
Graham: Spend nothing and still make sales!
But how do we compare these (and other approaches)? Malc's seems like a good approach if you care about indie credibility (which would be moronic to ignore at a site like this) but costs money and skillz. Graham's seems excellent if you don't want to spend much (which is surely tempting) but appears to rely on a lot of promo efforts, Matt's seems like a worrying invitation to see some puppies. I kid, for I love! And I kid for we know that is how some special people see it. Seriously though, it seems like a really good deal if you want to shift serious units via distro as a priority. Being in touch with Mike from CthuluTech a goodly amount for a while I've heard a little about it and it seemed to work well for them. Drop him a line if you want to know more, he's an interesting guy and not hard to reach.
Anyway. What bothers me is that various approaches step into the spotlight, and then basically fight, whilst any newcomer is alienated, has no tools or context to digest the information given and falls back on the age old idiocy of "ah well I'll just go with my gut and do it my way." And then in six months they are wondering why those boxes of games are still filling up their mom's front room.
This all led me back to this train of thought wot has been rattling around my brain for a while. How do we compare different approaches to the market? Part of the remit of the Endeavour is to advise newcomers and guide them through the initial stages, right? But how can we clearly and coherently do that if we all have different approaches - and more significantly these are underpinned by different philosophies.
For example I know Malc is in part interested in his games as artefacts - ie nice looking books. And achieving serious sales numbers rather than golf claps.
I'd risk a guess that Mr Sprange is interested in shifting serious units and making a living. I'd hazard a guess that he is less concerned with being liked in the community or industry, nor interested in indie credibility, which is apparently important to some.
Part of Graham's underpinnings with his book seems to be to not risk too much. Given the subject and audience of his book, I think we can say current mainstream gaming markets are not a target for his work, regardless of their size.
Could well be wrong on all 3 of those, but I'll risk that they seem like relatively sane working readings. And they are illustrations of my point, if not fair characterisations of our friends Matt, Malcolm and Graham.
Now, one can't really deeply debate any of these approaches or underpinnings. For one they are pretty personal things, some of which have pretty core philosophies at work. I personally can sympathise with all of them so far presented to some degree - its arguably moronic to make games that sell 20 copies to much applause from some perceived indie movement. Its moronic to put effort into making yet more crappy-looking games to flood the market. Equally business is business, selling games is business. Why concern yourself with intangibles that do nothing for your bottom line? Again equally as a lone self-publisher, why put yourself into the red for a product for which arguably you can have no real clue about its potential success or failure, when you don't have to?
I know in my own businesses these are all concerns. Probably the most comparable thing is buying computer equipment. Too cheap and it won't do the job and I'll lose potential earnings. Too nasty looking/un-user friendly and I will regret it as I have to work at it every day. Too expensive and I'm just risking hard won capital on fripperies.
So how do we make decisions about what approach to take? How can we present signposts to neophytes that go beyond "Well what I did was X and that was the right thing to do because I've sold Y amount of units". But could you have sold Y without making that outlay?Without partnering with a bigger name? Or could you have sold Y+500 by making some outlay?
Should I get over my deep personal annoyance at any form of Windows and not buy that lovely lovely but very expensive Mac? Will I save money on the PC, but put a hammer through it within 2 weeks? Should I early adopt the new G5, only to find it superceded within 30 days by a dual processor version for just another £50? How do I cope with this unbearable bitterness to Mummy Apple who had always suckled me so well?
Are outlay and units sold even accurate or useful measures of what concerns new game designer A?
These are really tricky questions.
Additionally we have a lot of intangible and sometimes illogical factors given our context here in the self-identified "Indie" scene. Things like "I enjoyed making it" can outrank "I made money on it" in our priorities. And yet we can still use business terminology to discuss our methods. I think that can create some muddy waters. On occasion we're eschewing certain business principles and keeping others in a less than transparent fashion. And I'm talking about the very important transparency to ourselves. Rather than accusing anyone of anything untoward. For a change.
An "interesting" issue in discussion elsewhere has been the notion of counting/not counting your time as an expense as part of a business plan. I'd liek to revisit that a little.
Now as rabid Snyder-fanboy Malcolm Craig linked to in this very forum, Matt Snyder has apparently derailed much of this having written some typically ludicrous statements in his blog, as is his wont as self made crotchety ole man of the indie scene, god love him, which seemed to be met with a lot of praise from the ever-loving choir. And then he went back to spitting on Gary Gygax. But hey, he was brought up in Deadwood, so he's used to death. Get over it you fat-bearded mouthbreathing motherfucker. And get the fuck out of gaming and leave it to us svelt geeks with our wide glasses and Nar.*
I think that levels up the "offense caused to indie vs mainstream" scores?
But I wonder, speaking as someone running a couple of fledgling small businesses as well as my main art business, if just hand-waiving away the time you spend on creation and promotion is really an admission of hobby status rather than the indie-business-magic it seems to be presented as in some quarters. And more over, is it entirely missing a trick? A very important point for me to make clear right now is that "hobby" has no negative connotations for me in this context. Damn, if you can do what you like doing, and make money at it with very small outlay then more power to your elbow. I mean that very seriously. Please don't draw inferred conclusions about how I view the line between work and play. But in a discussion like this the notion of a Hobby is a different animal than Business, and since discussion of business models tend to involve a lot of business terminology I think its a distinction worthy of investigation.
If Extreme Business interests you - the stone-cold making of money, objective weighing up of money time and effort expended in return for revenues and potential future revenues gained then certain approaches will suit you. Along with shouting "You're a tiger!" at mirrors.
At the other (equally unrealistically "pure") extreme if you want to take a total auteur approach, spend nothing, control everything, are unconcerned with sales figures as any kind of validation, then another approach entirely will suit you. Mostly moaning on LJ about how no one understands you.
Another extreme would be to list your alignment as "chaotic fun". Spend 3 years writing a game you like, probably unplaytested since that all sounds a bit like work, and put it out how you like when you like so long as its fun. Really no one can help you because your fun is so individual. Of course that won't stop you posting your opinions and approaches as if they relate to anyone else in the universe. Shine on you crazy diamond.
I know when we did George's Children we had shades of all three approaches. I'd be interested in taking the time to really put those under the microscope. In fact its exactly what I am doing right now as I ponder another couple of projects. Hence this thread to some degree.
Now it seems to me that here at good ole CE, we'd be wasting our time if we were to try and hone in on one approach or even an envelope of approaches that was "right". And discussion can very easily veer in that direction as people feel a need to defend their approaches against the approaches of others.
More useful is to formulate a tool kit to examine your own approach, priorities and motivations, dissect them, make sure they are as consistent as they can be, as well as properly considered and then take that information and apply it to your practical methods. For example you might find having a Mongoose logo on your product is not outweighed by the revenues. Alternately you might put a book through them, love the revenue, love working with those guys and go work for them in house. Neither is "wrong", right?
For me (and a lot of business people I would hazard a guess) the use of money is not just in talking about how many pennies you have to spend on sweets after you've sold your product. Its a handy measure that most things can be converted into and then compared.
So using money as an equivalent for time spent you could actively compare an approach where you spend very little on production (writing, editing, art, layout) but spend vast amounts on promotion.
"But my time is free! Its an asset" runs the Snyder logic. Yeah, to a point. But you're still consuming a measurable commodity, be it considered an "asset" or an outlay. And its more useful to be able to compare those things directly in some fashion. Of course we recognise a commodity which costs us less in actual cash money is used differently than something that we pay for directly. But don't dismiss your own time from your business plan. That's really silly. Unless its a business plan for the bank or internet publishing community and you're artificially trying to make your figures look better. Duh.
Money, whilst often considered somehow grubby in some circles, is a useful common currency for looking at these things. Not because your own time isn't free to you. Not because its all about some bottom line which should drive all decisions made. But because without a way to compare the time you invest with the money you lay out you can claim to spend nothing on your products, but actually be doing 36 hour weeks self promoting, when just spending $50 on something else could have reduced that considerably whilst maintaining sales at the same level, freeing you up to write the next one.
Now, of course there is a very clear danger in converting everything into monetary terms, that you could either become too focused on that when it runs against your core principles and aims to do so. Equally you could miss a factor - something very difficult to assess in monetary terms like "how much I enjoyed the process". But even then you at least have some way of narrowing down those areas, and marking them for examination. Which seems like a good thing.
Does that make any sense or inspire any debate? How about branding the CE like cheddar? We never finished that one. :)
*Kidding again cos of the lovin'. Now where's my comps of Dustdevils, Ned?
Jon Hodgson
www.jonhodgson.com
Be True Unto Yourself
Submitted by Neil Gow on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 11:01.
Nice post!
I've always drifted towards hobbies where I can plough hours of my time into them doing something that I find entertaining and challenging and also, as a byproduct, get physical or financial kick-backs. Nothing makes you slog away organising CCG tournaments better than knowing you get a trip to Wrestlemania at the end of it!
In the end its all about what your utility is from the exchange you make. If you are thrilled by insubstantial utility like praise, pride, achievement or intellectual challenge, recognition and researching, then your utility from games design will be different if are all about the benjamins. Which is what you said...
I think that you have to be honest with yourself about your aims and objectives going into games design and what you want to get back. For example, whilst Matt's offer to show me how to write games for a living would have sounded fantastic 20 years ago, with a wife, two kids and a mortgage (and an extension starting today!) I need better job security than the gaming market. D&H is never ever going to be something that I do to make oodles of cash. It has always been a project in self-expression and 'getting things off my chest' and proving something to myself. And in the end thats why I have such modest sales targets.
If it becomes a reasonable seller, thats absolute gravy to me. GRAVY!
Thought provoking Jon. Thanks
Neil
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/
Hmmm,
Submitted by Rich Stokes on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 12:27.
*Raises hand*
For me, it's a hobby.
If I needed more money, I can think of tons of ways to make more money for less time than writing games.
I've utterly enjoyed (and will continue to enjoy) the design and publishing process. It's a great challenge to me. Also the organisational aspect of things is fun to me. If I can get my hobby to pay for itself, then great. If I can make enough to by buy a few beers, even better. But I'm in this for the crack, not the money. I have a day job which pays the mortgage and feeds the cat.
Do I count my time against the money I make? No more than I count the time I spend cooking against how nice my dinner tastes. I like cooking.
It's about the glory!
Submitted by Evil Doctor on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 12:27.
Although I envy guys like MonMatt who can make a living out of this stuff, for me it's all about self-fulfilment. Hell, even if I had the chance to do this for a living I don't think I'd take it - gaming is my hobby, and one thing about hobbies is as soon as they become work they stop being hobbies and often stop being fun. I think you'd have to work damn hard to sell enough games to justify the time involved in the process, as to me you could say 'time is my asset', but time writing games is not time with the wife, painting figures, climbing, surfing and all the other stuff I like to do. There's no such thing as free time. I like the fact that someone out there bought something I made and thought 'hey, that's neat'. Any cash that comes my way is purely a lovely bonus.
Greg
Reposting an important section from the verbiage
Submitted by Jon Hodgson on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 13:13.
So how do we make decisions about what approach to take? How can we present signposts to neophytes that go beyond "Well what I did was X and that was the right thing to do because I've sold Y amount of units".
For me that's the important question in a mercifully shortened form.
Jon Hodgson
www.jonhodgson.com
A view
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 13:45.
*Raises hand*
For me, it's a hobby.
If I needed more money, I can think of tons of ways to make more money for less time than writing games.
I've utterly enjoyed (and will continue to enjoy) the design and publishing process. It's a great challenge to me. Also the organisational aspect of things is fun to me. If I can get my hobby to pay for itself, then great. If I can make enough to by buy a few beers, even better. But I'm in this for the crack, not the money. I have a day job which pays the mortgage and feeds the cat.
Do I count my time against the money I make? No more than I count the time I spend cooking against how nice my dinner tastes. I like cooking.
To be fair, cooking a meal for yourself has no perceived monetary return. Whereas, writing a game and putting it into the public domain for sale has a perceived monetary return. I'm not sure a comparison really serves us well in any analysis of the merits of different approaches. Edit: that sounds little arsey, which it's not meant to be.
To home in on one of the point Jon made: yes, I see my writing as an asset of Contested Ground Studios. But does that mean I am doing writing for free? Nope, not in the slightest. CGS is a business, and a business that is reaching profitability, to boot. We have spent 5 years, with ups and downs, reaching the stage we are at now. And that is a stage where Paul, John and I can start taking a dividend from the company. My writing is considered t be an investment in the future of the company, in the same manner a monetary investment would be.
We have put a lot of work into it and we can now reap the benefits. In essence, I have deferred payment for my time and effort with a view to the medium to long term. And despite the ups and downs, this has worked out for the best. I see my writing as a valuable asset and something I do get paid for, even if that payment has been deferred until now.
I'm delighted to finally be making money from something I enjoy. Maybe that destroys my indie credibility (whatever that might be). The CGS approach is one approach you can take, as Jon rightly points out.
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
Questions to ask yourself
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 13:36.
So, which option to go with? The answer can only ever be gained by drilling down into what you want out of the whole business.
How do you define your success criteria?
Games into distro?
Games on shelves in stores?
Games read / talked about / played?
Money in the bank?
That intangible "experience"?
The satisfaction of being the auteur?
Different avenues help you achieve different things.
Similarly some games are a really easy sell at Cons and via the web community, but harder to sell to the more conservative distro and retailer types. Who are you targeting?
You have to decide what matters most to you and go with the option that matches your needs.
-Matt
Realms Publishing
Analysis
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 13:50.
As Matt and Jon have pointed out, an analysis of why you want to publish and how you go about doing that is immensely valuable, even for established imprints/authors.
Not one of us can do without that self-analysis of what it really is that we want from the design and publication experience. That may end up being a combination of several of the factors Matt and Jon have identified in their posts, it may end up being a single factor, or something that has yet to be identified.
Saying "this is why I do this" without the self-analysis and identification of the deep-seated reasons for doing it and the goals you want to achieve is not helpful to you or others.
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
Pies
Submitted by Rich Stokes on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 13:59.
To be fair, cooking a meal for yourself has no perceived monetary return. Whereas, writing a game and putting it into the public domain for sale has a perceived monetary return. I'm not sure a comparison really serves us well in any analysis of the merits of different approaches. Edit: that sounds little arsey, which it's not meant to be.
Actually I was thinking of the saving in not forking out going to a fancy pants restaurant, but point taken.
You know that bit at the
Submitted by David Donachie on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 14:29.
You know that bit at the start of the 4E PHB where it says things like "play a dwarf if you want to be short and hit things" and "don't play a dwarf if you want to be sneaky and backstab people"?
Maybe it would be helpful to draw up some of these different approaches as pages here, with notes like that, as a newbies guide to where they might go with a product depending on what they might want out of it?
Of course I'd like to see the same with gaming techniques (narrative, gamist, conflict resolution, dice pools, target numbers etc) but one bit at a time :)
http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/
As a quick point
Submitted by Graham W on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 15:30.
I'm not totally convinced about those assumptions.
Firstly, whenever someone posts on RPG.NET about Play Unsafe, I sell lots of copies, so current mainstream gaming markets are definitely a target. Because they buy the book. Which I like.
Also, I don't think my method of publishing is about promotion any more than selling things is always about promotion.
Graham
Yar, point taken!
Submitted by Jon Hodgson on Mon, 09/06/2008 - 15:46.
Yeah I think you are totally fair to point that out graham - that was just my perception from the thread and some points that nicely slotted in as counters to the other approaches. So it was bound to be not very accurate.
How would you characterise the main thrusts of your approach to market?
Jon Hodgson
www.jonhodgson.com
Credibility is a bit of a
Submitted by Mysteron on Mon, 16/06/2008 - 16:21.
Credibility is a bit of a nebulous concept to most I think. Everyone starts off with their mantra of "Credibility" but most let it fall by the wayside at some point in favour of monetary reward. I'm not saying everyone does it, and there are certainly some success stories where it hasn't been traded in, but money or the prospect of a big payday is certainly tempting for most. In the music industry, I can't think of a band that HASN'T done it.
I'm like the vast majority I believe, I'd like to make money from my hobby but until such time arises I am happy to use this as my creative outlet. I don't design games to make money - I design games for my gaming circle, I think there is a lot of despair and anguish in there if that's your sole aim, but good luck to those who strive for that.
I'm presently working on a commercial enterprise for a recognized publisher, and while I will admit I did chase the opportunity down and over many years as well, I did it for the love of wanting to see the system move forward and add my part to it rather than for the almighty dollar. The fact I actually will get payed for it is just icing on the cake.
For the Love of Beauty
Submitted by Destriarch on Mon, 16/06/2008 - 17:39.
Me, I want to make something that I can be proud of. Which is a real problem, because I have next to no money with which to achieve this lofty aim. I don't mind not making a living because I'm strongly of the opinion that this isn't a viable option in today's market unless you already have a ton of money and/or recognition to play with.
Sometimes I wish I'd been born with some other useful skill, but it seems like games design is all I'm good at.
Ash
I create games because I
Submitted by David Donachie on Tue, 17/06/2008 - 07:31.
I create games because I can't help it. I love to make things (writing, drawing, games design, stories, models, you name it) and I do that in my spare time regardless of whether there is any sort of use for them.
Given that, I like to find something to *do* with the things I have made. With Games I can always play them with people I know, but they are not always the right outlet for what I have, hence the idea of publishing. Solipsist, for example, is not at all to the taste of my gaming friends, so selling it to others makes perfect sense (to me).
Now of course none of that mandates that I should be charging people for my work, printing it, paying for art, and all of that stuff. There is a quite different motivation for that, which has to be recognition. I am a sucker for praise, and, truth be told, afflicted by a terrible lack of self-confidence that means I get jealous of others, and end up excluded from groups all the time. Publishing something, having people buy it, that kind of recognition is something I crave, hence the printing, charging and all the rest.
Of course as most of us here know well publishing an Indie RPG is a *lousy* way to get recognition. What can I do, the games are what I've got.
http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/
Pride
Submitted by Neil Gow on Tue, 17/06/2008 - 09:10.
I've been thinking long and hard about this, trying to get under the skin of my motivation rather than just being happy with a possible facade that has been erected. Here's what I have come up with so far:
1. I know some of the things that AREN'T driving me in this design endeavour - money being the prime red herring in that one. I totalled up the amount of money I have spent of fiction and non-fiction related to D&H last night and made a back of the fag packet calculation on the number of books I have on my 'must read' list. I have easily spent in excess of £300 on books. Easily. My game will probably clear that, leaving me with a net profit on nadda before I consider any other factors. I'm not in it to create a publishing empire or break into the hobby en masse. I have responsibilities to my wife and children that means I cannot risk that venture unless it is god damned certain to be drawing in well in excess of (an undisclosed amount) each year. And I can tell you that it will not ... unless I become an exec at Hasbro. So money is out. Industry position is out too.
2. Could it be peer approval? Initially I thought it could be this because I can be a bit of a glory hound sometimes. However, having read some of the recent threads on the interweb with the barely conceal hatred of 'indie' games designers bursting through every word, I can thing of easier ways of making friends and influencing people! No, I'm a grown man, I don't need faceless nobodies on the 'net to stroke my ego to make me feel better. Thats what unconditional love from children is for, after all!
3. Busy Busy Project Boy Pride. Ah, now this is closer to the mark. I am a project person. I always have a scheme on the go - be that a website community, a PR job for a games company or some such titbit to stop me from being bored (I get bored very easily). Games design seems to have been the latest project that I have set myself. Its quite a long term one and one that I have found very fulfilling but it is a project. Or at least I thought it was until I realised that once the game is released it will never really go away. Thats just the start of a secondary process. That in itself is interesting.
4. Self fulfilment? I think they used to call it 'vanity publishing'? I must admit the idea that Neil, a little lad from a pit village on the borders of Northumberland, brought up with nowt but sticks and a ball to play with could publish a real book does have a certain allure. Thats where the honesty comes into it. I think there is something magical about seeing your name in print. I see it every day when we deliver booklets from our print shop and people realise that they have actually created something and it is a BOOK. Wow. So yeah, I'm up for a little pride as well.
5. However, I settled on this final one: I want people to share a game I love. D&H is written as a game that I would want to play. It is balanced in a style that suits my gameplay. I *LOVE* running it and when it has a sweet session there is nothing finer. If ONE single person shares that sweet session feeling with me, then thats job done. 101 people might hate it - thats cool, I hate some games with a passion too (Call of Cthulhu, I'm looking at you!) - but if ONE person likes it, mission accomplished.
Neil
ps. The thing is, I know at least one group of playtesters who have already had that sweet session moment and like the game. Everything else for me is gravy!
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/