A rant about videogaming. By a man who videogames.
Posted by Xander Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:25:00 GMT
Kind of the antithesis of the video from a while back (IT HAS FLAWS!), Anthony Burch of Destructoid.com has been making a series of weekly ‘Rev Rants’ which are basically 4-5 minute critiques of certain parts of gaming culture. These could be simple concepts in games such as moral choice systems, or much more widespread subjects such as this week’s ‘Donate’ video.
‘Donate’ is about the state of gaming in the sense of how we choose to pay for games, what games we choose to pay for and the biggest question of ‘Why?’. It does deal with mainstream games quite a bit but there is a large amount of relevance in there for indie gamers/devs if you care to watch through it. If you can get past the sometimes iffy edits (the problem with appearing on camera for the entire segment is you’re giving yourself no opporunities to cut away if you mess up a take) and the mental image that it could be Iranian President Ahmadinejad ranting about games it’s worth your attention, for this week certainly.
I don’t know on what planet he lives but last time I checked we’re on earth. You have to pay before you use anything! If you don’t like it move to fucking mars!
Too much ranting, not enough thinking.
It’s just the tragedy of the commons. Wishing this effect didn’t apply won’t make it go away.
@Rain: Have you ever been to a Denist? Or Masseuse? Or had your home decorated? Or eaten at a restaurant? Or had a hair cut? (I could probably do this for a while)
There are plenty of things you pay for after the fact. Or alternatively -don’t- pay for if it turned out to be crap.
@bateleur: I don’t think his intention is to simply wish it away. He’s encouraging actual action to do it. Infact his very point is that simply wishing things were better wont change them if we just keep putting up with it. So… well done for hearing that part… I guess?
Some really good indie games survive/survived on donations or pre-sales (Dwarf Fortress, Mount + Blade) because they offer replay value and an experience which grows over time.
Art games of the type mentioned tend to offer (for me) a one-off experience since the connection or revelation isn’t so powerful the second time, and the game mechanics often aren’t interesting enough in themselves to provide motivation. But then I much prefer craftsmanship to artistry in many media :)
Thinking practically, a compilation of games (cf. poetry anthology) would be one way to raise the value to a more typical price point: Like Passage? Pay $10 for another four experiences from the same author. Grants are another route, but it’s difficult to get them for work in a new medium.
As background, I’d be interested to know how many hours went into making Passage or similar.
@bateleur: Isn’t the tragedy of the commons in some way an idealogical tract where the author tries to wish away the need for rule of law and government? It doesn’t deal in fact as much as theory and conjecture. Commons worked in practice for centuries by using administration methods that the author either couldn’t be bothered to research or ignored because they contradicted the political point he was trying to make.
I think Xander, and the crazy man in the video have a really good point, for the vast majority of services we pay for them after they have been performed, the service provider is confident that the customer will do the honourable thing and pay if the job is good.
the mentality that if you have used something already you shouldnt have to pay for it is crazy, if I was to go into the supermarket and started using random products before reaching the checkout, I’d still have to pay for them.
the donate system is the ideal, each gamer gives what they think their experiance was worth. if there was some way to convince more gamers not to be assholes the system might get off the ground.
this guy rules
but also, art games sucks ballz. Well, not Ttoday i Die, i loved that one. But i shouldn’t call it a game at all, more like an interactive urrr… thing.
Man, you sure can loop on the same thought over and over again ;)
It’s our fault indeed, as much as it was our fault to make short movies and one page stories and then give them out without expecting anything return. That indie culture is a byproduct of our generosity.
The fluidity of game media distribution is not a valid point, I think. We get lovely little experiences watching a great youtube video or reading a funny blog article. Having a paypal button next to any piece of work or media will probably not change people’s perception of a promising complex crafted product deserving quite ludicrous payment to be experienced.
I wish people would start donating more, that would be great, but there is also something magical about freeware. I’m not sure if it’s that the games are free, or if it is that the author has no pressure to make something that will generate money one way or another.
When The Internet hates something they really hate it. I enjoyed Assassin’s Creed a lot more than Passage. So there.
I guess if you make an imperfect game with good mechanics and some interesting ideas this is considered bad.
For me Assassin’s Creed was a bad game because inspite of the good mechanics and interesting ideas it decided to make the actual assassinations the most minute part of the game, with more of your time spent running about the city collecting lost flags. All the sequel would require to be a good game is to simply have me be an assassin more than an errand boy.
Show me one gamer who cried from Passage. It was a cute gimmick more than anything.
A lots of games do the “invest on what it could become” thing already, and the very Left 4 Dead from valve did it… see the result :/ The issue here, might be trust. But if done well, like Mount&Blade or good episodic games, it can be a really successful formula.
As for the donating format, it doesn’t work simply because it’s a lot harder to pay anything on the net than to simply gives a few dollars IRL.
If anything Ubisoft should be criticized for not realizing where the strengths of their game were (or perhaps realizing too late to do anything about it). It certainly was not in the semi-interactive cutscenes or the sci-fi meta-story.
I agree the flags were a bad idea.
I’ve been replaying it recently and I’m finding now the most fun in the game is really when you’ve cleared out all the optional missions civilians etc and unlocked the full city and are free to just explore and redo some of the generic guard assassinations. With no cutscenes dictating where you need to wait for the big speech you are free to plan and act on your own terms.
Some of the main assassinations were pretty open because the cutscene occurred much earlier, but most were not.
I don’t know, maybe Far Cry 2 and Assassin’s Creed should meet. We’ll see what they’ve done with the sequel.
But to address the actual topic of the Rev Rant, personally I think the Mount & Blade model works pretty well. You pay a small sum and you get something fun to play, while the devs get early funds to continue development. Donation has a higher threshold, not because you wouldn’t pay the same sum for the same thing, but just because it’s so damn optional.
I wouldn;t pay for “today I die”, it was hardly a game. BUT… I might donate for kyntt stories or trilby’s notes, in fact, I AM basically dontating to get the new Cave Story and La-Mulana remakes!
I think he is right. But there’s gotta be some sort of mechanism to force gamers to pay for their items, otherwise it won’t work.
This makes me wish there’d be some sort of a publishing body, that would publish small indie games to stores.
Just imagine:
There’d be indie/small game stands in malls, local commercial areas - selling games for 5$. Moms, Kids, and other gamers purchasing this for themselves since its so cheap and the merchandise (innovative games) is good quality and unique.
Perhaps this kind of finanicial plan might be good both for the developers and publishers.
Another good idea could be “If you enjoyed this game - please donate” message at the end of a very powerful scene / game.
@amdan - You are doubtless correct concerning the original text, but the term is now much more widely used to refer to the general strategic situation where each individual acting rationally brings about an outcome none of them like. (This isn’t mysterious or controversial - game theoretic and/or microeconomic models predict it very straightforwardly.)
@Xander - The thing about strategic equilibrium is… it’s an equilibrium. In particular, even if every individual shares his precise goals, this doesn’t give any of them an incentive to behave as he recommends.
It’s not that I don’t like the idea of freeware developers being able to make a living, it’s just that he doesn’t seem to realise his proposal could never work.
I personally think Assasin’s Creed, for all its faults, was infinitely better than Passage. But hey.
good video, but that won’t change mankind, nothing will.
What about an alternative Game-store where you pay a flat rate and the money is distributed by the users rating or something?
The Beard will devour you..
lol
@bateleur: Assuming rational actors is good for theory as it supposedly makes models simple enough to work with but it is it really an accurate reflection of reality? I don’t know, you sound very authoritative, but using a term that comes from a misunderstanding of commons to explain how people will not donate to projects they support when this has worked in practice does not convince me of anything.
I intensely dislike the ‘donate’ system. It is awfully arbitrary and capricious and causes anxiety on the part of the part of good customers and none at all on the part of people who pay the minimum (which may be nothing). He raged against paying for the chance of quality and not quality … what about people who put out games on a donation basis and subject themselves to the whims of the customers? Not preferable to a flat rate with a demo. ‘Invest’, sure - sounds like it could be workable with some tinkering, but it’s not for everybody. He also ignores or is unaware of the fact that books, music, movies, tv etc. have historically used just about any payment method you care to name. A lot of novels were published serially in magazines, f’rinstance. I like shareware, really - get a the first part of the game and if you like it you can pay for the whole thing. If you can’t afford it, email me and it can be negotiable.
Also, Passage was pretty trite and is as great a representative for the vapid, gameplay-free ‘concept’ game as Assassin’s Creed is for the generic, cinematic $20M blockbuster.
I liked Assassin’s Creed, so there.
I was really wanting to agree with this video for the majority of it, and then he said something to the effect of, “And you wonder why there’s no imagination in games? Because they’re not getting any support.”
Money = Imagination? No.
This video is highly exaggerated.
I have to admit that I was moved and begun to weeping once I finished the Passage.
@ Xander
“Have you ever been to a Denist? Or Masseuse? Or had your home decorated? Or eaten at a restaurant? Or had a hair cut? (I could probably do this for a while)”
So creating a game is the same as eating for 20 USD at a restaurant? It equals a massage for 30 USD? That’s BS and you know it.
If you have to sit down for months to create something (it doesn’t matter what it is) and put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into it donations are the last thing you want to rely on.
I will just copy following part from Danc’s great Flash Love Letter at http://www.lostgarden.com
“We live in a capitalist society so people understand the concept of buying something. Don’t ask for a donation. Don’t ask players to “give you what they feel like giving.” People will think you are a charity case and in my experience your revenues will drop by 90% or more. Give the offer a specific price, be it $10 or 200 gold in your favorite virtual currency. ” and he goes on how to get more money out of your game.
The point is, the “idealistic approach” of Anthony Burch will never work because the most gamers hence customers ( all mankind! ) aren’t righteous, generous or appreciative.
PS: At least he should know it, considering the flame-driven blog he is working for.
@Video: Fucking AMEN, bitches!
Personally I’ve found when asked to donate my immediate reaction is to do the exact opposite. I don’t mind actually buying a game if it’s good, but having the game then being asked for money is just something never really works on me.
And I agree with Stwelin. Some of the best games I’ve played were games made without any financial motive. Cave Story for example was originally released as freeware and is one of my all time favorites.
In fact, when people decide to make games for the money, it usually has a detrimental effect. Look at all the half finished sports games out there with features intentionally left out so they can profit on the next game.
the dominant reaction here is kind of depressing – i thought the people who visit this site liked to support indie developers
Paul Eres, that’s not the point. Whether people like to support indie developers or not (which nobody even brought up before you did) doesn’t change that this guy’s arguments are flawed. Please don’t try to derail the conversation with a red herring.
Paul, I must be reading a different comments page because the general consensus here is that this guy’s argument is hyperbole and slightly flawed.
Nobody mentioned anything about what you just brought up just now.
Paul: I don’t think the dominant reaction is “we want indie games, and we don’t want to pay for ‘em!” - I think that most people here are realizing that the donation-for-freeware business model is flawed. At first, I thought the rant video was going to be about how flawed it was, not a command to indie gamers, “GO DONATE! NOW!”
The Passage is something I would never pay for. It lacks, utterly. And before anyone tries: the argument “But how can they make games with no money?”
It’s been done. Developers need to take risks. They need to pour months if not years into development of a solid idea along with their OWN MONEY if they want to see return. A game created in a week, two weeks… That’s a hobby. That’s nothing that deserves a donation.
I think videogames discussions should restrict to wether the gameplay is good or wether the art/story is interesting and people should get over themselves an stop having these philosophical debates about fucking videogames. GROW UP.
If you don’t like assassin’s cred, don’t fucking buy it , don’t give me a lecture about it.
TWO THOUGHTS:
1 - Ahmadinejad does not wear a tie
2 - Is some of the lack of donations a responsibility of the DEVELOPER? Just kind of playing devil’s advocate here, but if someone links you to a cool game or emails it to you and you play it and like it, having to then google for their name, figure out if they take donations, etc etc, is kind of a pain in the ass. Are there any freeware games that have a donate link right on the game over screen?
Brutal Legend? Imagination?
I wish I hadn’t watched that…
Oh, dear god. Relying on donations are fine, and if you are lucky enough to be able to make a living off of the charity of happy fans… Then good on you! But whining just makes me less prone to donate.
I’m not going to lie; I am cheap, and rarely give out money when I don’t have to.
Giving money to the author of passage would be no different than giving it to fairly skilled acoustic guitar busker on the side of the street somewhere. A nice gesture, surely, but not something that should somehow be expected.
I wouldn’t. And if I passed that busker a couple times, and he started complaining that I wasn’t putting money in his hat, he would cross the line between ‘busker’ and ‘annoying hobo.’
Videos like this just FURTHER prove that something as unreliable as “Eh, just pay whatever if you like it” isn’t any kind of business model. And I’ve yet to see a single argument even kind of defending it.
Xander, your examples are flawed. You eat at a restaurant, you get a receipt. You leave without paying that receipt? Illegal. You didn’t like the food? Too bad, don’t tip.
Likewise, you aren’t going to rip out your filling, and bring it back to the dentist saying “I find this unsatisfactory, and therefore I am not paying.”
I imagine most of the examples you would continue to give would be likewise.
The difference is donations are NOT a standard “pay-after-the-fact,” in that there is no incentive or obligation to pay this money, beyond a moral one. And, as unfortunate as it is, my money is generally more important than my morals.
Supporting indie developers *is* important, I agree. But I think the onus is on the developers to FORCE us to pay them, at least if they are attempting to make a living off of their art. The reason all the other mediums do it, is because they already experimented with all the other methods that didn’t work, and the people who didn’t convert starved to death or started working for soup companies.
@stwelin, just as a thought - and out of curiosity: What if you make a large amount of smaller videogames (development of 1-2weeks) released over a longer time span? Does it mean that the developer doesn’t deserve his money, because the games are too “small”?
Jonathan Coulton released songs over the internet only as singles before making any attemps to make an album? It doesn’t make him a less professional musician. Using similar analogy here, does it mean that a 2-CD-album should automatically get more recognition than a regular album? Considering development span, having a big team to manage and big project to licence and publish takes considerable time, while this time spent has virtually nothing to do with the quality of the product.
Although the rant noted how we shouldn’t see video games like other mediums, I disagree to a small degree. People are realizing new ways to both create and publish videogames/music/ art/entertainment.
I think the bottom line is was to mock people who like commercial games, but instead the kind of people who buy stuff becouse of the nice shiny box that must’ve taken a lot of time and effort to make, rather than stopping to think whether the intended product was of satisfying quality. There’s also morons who buy crap and are too fucking proud to admit it. And these kind of people exist both in indie- and mainstream communities.
two strange facts:
1) the internet did change mass media. content from everybody, for everybody. tons of mediocre content just for free… + many already existing ways of marketing, adapted to the internet’s products/services: fixed price per piece. auctions. monthly fees. free content + advertising. but no new way of payment/support has been established yet. but digital software on the web is a actually a totally new kind of value (think about it!). that’s a strange fact.
2) computer games = software. mp3s = software too? - in my opinion: yes. so what’s the difference of small game like ‘Passage’, and traditional music track, like an mp3 on iTunes? at the end it’s just a “useless” junk of bytes inside the global memory. culturally, music is still considered as a higher value, because it has tradition. and making music can even be a very enjoyable way to spend one’s time. the product is fairly portable, and there’s even a established market, to sell it, when it is reasonably good. in contrast, games (on the scale of ‘Passage’), are generally much harder to produce and display (needs so many skills in very different areas, + parts can be very unpleasant to do…). and distribution/sale is more difficult. but, as a product, i can’t see a fundamental difference from 2-4 minute piece of music… that’s a strange fact.
@geist, I think your argument is very flawed. If you’d love to turn any creative craft into a professional one so you’d be able to fully enjoy it and perhaps perfect it, you require funds. If a passionate gamemaker makes a game and kindly ask you to donate - does it make him a sellout? Now, I’m asking this becouse I kinda got that picture from what you said, I could be wrong:
“Personally I’ve found when asked to donate my immediate reaction is to do the exact opposite. I don’t mind actually buying a game if it’s good, but having the game then being asked for money is just something never really works on me.”
Now, I don’t think Paul was bringing any red herrings to this boat, but reflecting on that? It’s not really artist’s fault if YOU are unable to differentiate the product from those half-finished sport games just because someone asks money!
@Paul Eres - Pointing out the flaws in this guy’s naively idealistic rant isn’t the same as disapproving of his goals.
I’m very happy to buy Indie games and do so frequently. Indeed, I’ve even donated to projects more than once. But I don’t think anyone should feel pressured into donating if they don’t want to. If it’s not supposed to be optional then don’t make the game free.
@0rel, I think you’re onto something here, buddy ;)
Fantastic Contraption had a “please donate” button and is largely freeware (there is some bonus content for donating). Very successful, so the model works - if you have the right product.
When I donate to a game I donate based on how much value I think it gave me. If it was a 10 seconds and changed my life, I’d donate more than anything else. If it amused me for several hours but was pretty shoddy despite (Assasin’s Creed, for example), I don’t mind paying $60.
Turns out I’m easily influenced and I’ve pretty much donated to everyone by now. :)
I won’t deny, though, that there are a lot of Indie games with less than 30 minutes of gameplay but a neat idea behind it. I’ll donate in hopes of seeing it blossom into something a lot longer, but I can see how others wouldn’t want to reward that.
i love that man. i love that man’s sister. and his father is pretty funny too.
I think the most interesting angle is 0rel’s; there is definitely a need for an economic system which actually accounts for digital info and abundance rather than scarcity.
Of course it’s hard to say whether that sort of techno-utopian society is more or less crazy than what this video proposes, which is just a stop-gap until someone figures out how to actually run things properly.
Hmm, donations are as the name implies, just a donation. If you decide you want your game to be free, then don’t whine about people not donating enough. Thats ridiculous. Its like, you want to pretend the game is free for the artistic merit, but still make money out of it as if it was not free? You give it for free, you ask for donation. You get exactly what you asked for. I am actually very appreaciate developers who make their game free(and make them stay free), like nifflas knytt stories(which I gave a donation to). But don’t expect to make a business or pay for rent and food out of a freeware.
Hooker With No BeVis, you’re arguing something I didn’t even say. you implied that I was somehow talking about selling out, which I wasn’t.
My post was a response to this.
“And you wonder why there’s no imagination in games? Because they’re not getting any support.”
Now look at games that get tons of financial support. Say, Madden for example. Is that imagination?
Now look at something released basically for free like Cave Story. See what I’m saying.
I wasn’t saying anything other than that specific argument the guy made was flawed. Don’t try to spin or interpret it as anything else.
Also, please everyone. Take time to read before posting, it’d do us all a lot of good.
Who cares about imagination? People care about fun. If the game is fun - I buy it. If it’s not - I don’t buy it.
I agree with Ninja Dodo and others, I’ve bought my copies of Cortex Command and Dwarf Fortress because I belive in those investments.
In contrast I loved experiancing Passage but did not invest in it, nor did i donate to the Smithsonian last time i visted.
I did pay $60 for mass effect and I don’t feel bad because that game happend to move me just like Passage but Mass Effect did it more than once.
The point I’m trying to make is all art has value but i’m going to be more willing to pay for it if there is something byond a 5min experiance That is thrown together at a Jam, But then again, sometimes I do.
I didn’t like passage. :P Liked his other games though.
and I never buy games until I have both read good reviews and talked to friends with similar taste who tell me it is good.
60 bucks for Assassin’s Creed? This is madness. Here in Russia, it’s less than $10 (Director’s Cut PC version).
Is he actually playing Passage soundtrack with his right hand?
I think that craftsmanship quality has a lot to do with it. Assassin’s Creed as a product is a much more expensive entity, simply because it involved the work of many people over the course of many years.
It doesn’t really matter if the end is satisfying or not, the price range is the price range for its kind of product. It’s kind of like going to a movie and then complaining about the admission price when it turns out to be really bad.
In the same vein, I enjoyed Passage, but I would never pay money for it because I enjoyed it the same way I might have enjoyed a doodle that someone made or a short piece of music that someone wrote… not things that I usually pay money for.
I guess personally for me, there is a clear distinction in when something deserves monetary support or not. There are many indie games that I’ve bought and supported through development because they were serious projects that required a lot of time and work from their developers.
Something like Passage is wonderful as I said, but paying someone because they decided to sit down one weekend and sketch out what they thought about life on what amounts to be a digital napkin is a ridiculous idea.
Good rant. Although I think Passage is massively overrated, I agree with his point. Only I would take La Mulana or Within a Deep Forest or whatever as an example instead of Passage. Also, I’m glad he hates Assassin’s Creed.
Something like Passage was never intended to be for profit, nor do I think any case where the developer asks for donations. Donations are just that, donations. They are meant to be an act of charity not a source of profit and revenue. If you bring the sheer motive of profit into it, it stops being charity and becomes mere begging.
Thankfully, the Passage doesn’t do this. But the guy in the video really doesn’t seem to understand this at all. The Passage was never sold. It was never intended to “generate sales” or be a source of revenue for the developer. Donations are nice, but comparing them to games that are actually being sold for the sake of making a profit is like comparing apples to oranges.
The Passage and Today I die are bad examples. Those two are more concepts and ideas rather than a complete package.
I would pay for An Untitled Story, Cave Story, or Knytt Stories because they feel like complete games, perfectly designed from beginning to end.
What playing AUS, CS, or KS for free did for me, though, was earn my respect and attention for any further work they may do, and in fact I do plan on buying CS and Nightgame on the Wii when they come out.
AUS wasn’t originally freeware either, though it really didn’t cost much when it first came out. I think it could’ve even been a dollar.
Uh… actually, I kind of liked Assassin’s Creed. Enough to play it through twice. And hell, if the notoriously hard to please Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation could say “Overall, I liked Assassin’s Creed” then that’s a good sign that I’m not off my rocker and there was a good game to be had there, even if he did have to qualify that statement with “but I won’t blame you if you try to fire it into the sun.”
In all seriousness, a donation model seems risky conceptually in an age where software pirates and others have little difficulty justifying not paying for something that otherwise costs money. I’d love to be proved wrong, but the freeloader instinct is going to be tough to combat. Some people do it, sure, but I’m not convinced it’s ever going to prove particularily profitable.
Ultimately, though, the argument here doesn’t strike me as particularily solid. Yeah, the artist isn’t getting paid based on his quality. Guess what? That’s NEVER been the case! Ultimately, one has to be a good businessman as well, or at least be able to find someone who is. Art alone has never been enough, and never will be. It’s a shame, but it’s the reality of the world we live in.
“Yeah, the artist isn’t getting paid based on his quality.”
There’s a term for that. Starving artist, I think it was. Okay, I’m only kidding but still.
I agree with the man in the video.
I, too, agree with the man in the video. 100%. Think about this. It’s not a coincidence that at least half (and that’s being conservative) of gameplay innovation seems to come from the indie games scene anymore.
I understand the viewpoint, but there’s several problems with this.
First of all, it’s way too subjective. I remember people on this very site, and on several indie gaming sites, railing against Jeff Minter when he complained about the low sales of Space Giraffe. Yet when somebody complains about not making money for a much smaller game that they didn’t even ask for any money for, people rally around the flag. So, basically, everyone wants the game they like to make money. Of course they do. But unless you put up 100% of that money yourself, it doesn’t work that way.
Secondly, it forgets the need for that great bugbear.. marketing. Getting people to spend money costs money. In fact, it costs so much that often giving something away for free is actually a better deal.
Finally - I didn’t play Passage, I just watched a video of it on Youtube. I do the same for most single player games that focus on story/cutscenes as the main draw, precisely because I don’t want to pay for them, since the interactivity alone often isn’t worth the price. If your game can be substituted with a video, then it probably won’t sell.
I don’t see how people realistically expect mass donations.
As long as someone is charging me for a game, I am going to save my money for that.
Let’s say I just played an awesome indie game for like 2 hours. I then find out another game is being raved about but has a $10 price.
I’m going to save my money from the game I already played and instead use it to pay for the $10 game because I don’t have a ton of money to throw toward everything that I found enjoyable. A short game like the passage, especially AFTER I already possess it, simply doesn’t warrant a purchase.
Like an earlier poster said, tragedy of the commons. If ANYONE is ever charging for their product, people are going to resist donating in order to have enough money to buy it.
The only viable solution is to charge for your product if you think it can cut it. If you’re looking to make any money, that is.
Oh, and before someone tells me that someone will stop making games if they don’t get any donations:
What do I care? People might donate if I don’t. My $5 certainly won’t make a difference. And if they do cease making games, there’s plenty more developers out there who will make awesome games, even if they don’t see a dime, and others who will crop up as time goes on.
It’s the tragedy of the commons, and I’m guilty, as are most people.
I just think the point where people have to say “I am going to stop making games” or anything forceful to that extent becomes the point where it’s no longer asking for donations but just flat out begging.
Donations are just meant to be a nice thing you do just to be a good person. Like tipping the waiter/waitress at a restaurant, something just decided to do yourself to be nice. Now if they DEMAND that you tip them, then it’s no longer a donation. That’s beggging.
But again, I haven’t seen anyone really do this, although the guy in the video is really upset over people not doing so. But again, he fails to realize that asking for donations is not like actually selling a game even in the slightest.
You know, he is not talking about Assassin’s Creed, he is not saying that mainstream games suck and I don’t think he is discussing financial models, either…
I think his point is that we are all too ready to invest big bucks in something that we know nothing about, other than it having the “triple A” tag, but we won’t invest a dime in something that we know nothing about, other than “it is made by very few people, and because of that, perhaps more creative / less shiny”.
Also, he proceeds to say that, as a result, we encourage games with “triple A” tags, and limit the amount / quality of “possibly creative, certainly less shiny” games.
Now, to all the people saying that he is whining, bashing Assassin’s Creed or that Passage sucks, your comments are interesting to read, but kinda miss the point. Of course, I might be wrong and I might be missing the point myself.
Anyway, thank you for reading.
On second thought, he *is* talking about Assassin’s Creed, mainstream games and financial models.
Scenario 1:
“Hey mom, I just played this awesome game; can I use your credit card to send the guy who made it some money?”
Scenario 2:
“Hey mom, can I get INSERT MAINSTREAM TITLE HERE for Christmas?”
Quick question: In which case will mom shell out money?
Good to see some sense being spoken here. We all would like to see our favourite authours be successful, but game developers aren’t charities. And you can’t run a business off pity.
And to an extent, you can’t expect to have your cake and sell it too. I like the avant-garde stuff as much as anybody, but you can’t make something deliberately uncommercial and then complain when it doesn’t make you any money.
I also think it does a disservice to the makers of Assassin’s Creed to complain that it made money. It was designed to make money. They had a ton of experienced people working full-time doing everything they could to ensure it was going to make money.
It doesn’t happen by magic and indie developers can’t expect to be rewarded just for wishing.
I’ve yet to work out people’s fascination and high reverence for Passage.
All I got from it was some clumsy and obvious visual imagery which didn’t really affect the gameplay experience as much as it claims to.
Also it’s ironic that people largely rail against current videogames developers adding in either moral or just alternate choices throughout the game forcing the player to play through twice to experience the entire content, yet will play passage through again to explore the areas they couldn’t get into if they took a wife. That also completely invalidates the purpose of the game, you should not have an opportunity to go back and visit the areas you could not visit. The game should not even load again. That is life. It’s not replayable.
I totally agree, but really that is why we have reviews, comments, and all sorts. All most of us have to do is research the game for a day or something if we don’t think its good enough in that time don’t get it. Really its a quality vs price battle, which the price wins every time. people will continue this its all just MONEY! we can’t change it, i’m a serious gamer I only have few games but they are quality and price. All the games I have are worth about $80 and last around 8 hours. Really what happened to the games we used to have they were great more challenging which expanded game play, but they were worth it. All I really have to say is they shouldn’t have such high bloody prices!
@scarcity vs unlimited digital abundance (which would be something extraordinarily wonderful): somehow, it’s the same dilemma as in the real world: we’re using machines to produces more and more, with less labor. which would be something extraordinarily wonderful too. but, same as with digital technology, the economic system didn’t change. we must produce more and more, all the time, to be successful, to be able to compete, to be busy all the time. and consume more, in return. destroy more. exploit everything. then we complain about high unemployment rates. and bad games. – i hate this stupid modern world. – and yes. it is our fault!
there was a time when video games were original and quirky and people bought them. that turned into the very thing rev is complaining about.
money has NEVER driven art. NEVER. oh sure, there are a multitude of crazy rich artists, who are now sitting on their crazy rich arses not innovating. Art is by nature independent. industry can drive entertainment, but not art. whether or not you can make money off of art is irelevant (for artistic purposes). Van Gogh didn’t make any money painting. vidya games are still in their early state, where things are still getting figured out. It would work better in an ideal world, but suck it up rev. things are the way they are, and in my opinion, for good reason.
and I liked assasin’s creed.
and passage didn’t deserve money.
this is is also why you NEVER risk financial security over art coughchris crawfordcough
what, no asteriks?
sorry for the triple post, i’ll stop.
New promotion on www.epicleveling.com due to summer holiday. Fast WoW Power Leveling Level(1-30) - 70
Super Cheap WoW Power Leveling LvL 1-60
Class Quests and uncovered Flight Paths. Preferential Price : $ 39.99 Time : 4-7 Days
Cheap WoW Power Leveling Lvl 70-80
everyone who goes indie, goes indie knowing they might end working for nothing (payment), don’t know why would you freak out like that, blaming everyone and everything for some indie games not getting payed what they deserve or don’t deserve. call me a “indie traitor”, but Today I die just isn’t worth paying. i mean, it’s nice experience, but srsly, you finish it in like 10 minutes or so. paying for it? you serious?
Very interesting rant, if nothing else. The point of a good rant, to me at least, is to promote discussion, rather than solve a problem. I see a bit of confusion in that simple fact and the misunderstanding of how simplistic a rant is.
I see a lot of philosophical and economic yarning, but it all packs strong bias, so I’m prone to ignore it. People always want to be right, and this is hardly about being right. You cannot focus on a few games and represent them as a whole, because they do not represent the whole, they simply represent that singular item.
There are models out there to support Indy, but they must be actively sought out. Services like Community Games on Xbox Live are a step in the right direction, with much controversy to beat it right into the ground. In the end I am not so sure it matters what is right or wrong, just what is familiar.
man, the very beginning of the video is grossly exaggerated.
Many people did like the game, and those that didn’t usually didn’t out of a comparison to expectations (what they were told) and other 60$ games…. and ultimately these people wouldn’t trade AC for Passage (in the figurative sense ofcourse).
This is coming from somebody who liked passage more :). I didn’t like AC… but atleast i know reality.
People generally don’t pay for free things. The way around that, as far as I can tell, is to socialize the donation act.
For example, most people pay for donation yoga because everyone can “see” if the other is paying or not.
Optional payment at museums and churches similarly works on a social element.
There is no reason why games can’t leverage this technique if they chose to.
Free games receive something in return for being free: publicity and awareness. If you can make a successful free game, you can build your profile, build community, and position yourself for future success in a very competitive and exciting field.
If you want to make art, it’s typically not realistic to expect that to provide you with a large income. That’s not to say it’s not worth a shot though…