Demonchaser27 said:
senordesol said:
Demonchaser27 said:
senordesol said:
FoolKiller said:
themilo504 said:
Your panel on how to reduce backlash was way too long, this is my panel: Don?t be a greedy twat and make good games.
Even your panel is redundant. "Make good games" should cover it. The money will come. Maybe not as much as soon, but it will have a long-term positive effect.
'Not as much as soon' sounds a lot like a 'day late and a dollar short' to a lot of people (particularly bill collectors). It'd be super nice if we lived in a just world where titles with artistic integrity were the chart toppers, unfortunately for those of us who've got rent to pay; that's not always the case.
See that's the problem with this industry and most for that matter though. "Chart Toppers" isn't necessary to "pay the bills" as you say. Everybody wants to be number 1. Jesus. **** number 1. When did people stop caring about doing things for the art and love of it. Musicians don't make millions always and they get by happy and fine mostly. Artists certainly aren't "chart toppers" as most of their work doesn't sell for millions until their dead.
Videogames devs want to be artist but don't treat it as such. What did they expect?
Well, when you face the dilemma of 'artistic integrity' and 'unemployment line'; some tough calls gotta be made.
Yes, not everyone is going to be or *can* be a chart topper; but when you look at the chart toppers they tell you one very important thing: What your customers are buying. Now, you *can* take that information, take a risk and do something no one was expecting. Maybe it works out for you, or maybe mommy has to be the bread winner for a while. So you can do that, *or* you can learn from and emulate the best and put out a product that brings food to your table.
The whole 'starving artist' chic really loses its lustre when you are, indeed, starving. The artistically uncompromising (i.e.: 'expensive') games just don't tend to bubble to the top in certain markets. So that tells us that isn't what people are looking for, so how can you expect the industry to do anything other than provide what their audience has proven they want to pay for?
Yeah and Dark Souls was a niche that didn't do very well. The point is that if you show integrity you can still make a game that caters to people without the bullshit.
I'm not positing that such a thing is impossible. The idea here, however, is that whatever choice you make is a choice about -conceivably- whether your dev team gets to eat tomorrow. So you can take a risk (and if it works out: great!), or you can do the thing that has a provably high chance at working. While we all like to believe that which has sufficient artistic integrity will have its day soon enough; I can tell you from first hand experience: that's not always the case.
I tell you the truth: the talented artists and engineers who staff F2P studios don't want to make vapid, derivative games. Hell, *I* don't want to make vapid, derivative games. But when Fekkin'
Flappy Bird and
Candy Crush and
Kingdoms of Camelot and
Clash of Clans and any bloody given casino game are CLEARLY the ones that are making any money, and the more 'niche' titles see limited success at best; what are the people in charge supposed to think? They've only got so much time and so much money to turn a profit. The wrong call puts scores if not hundreds of families on the unemployment line.
Again, this is not to say that risks can't pay off. When I started, I dismissed Candy Crush as a Bejeweled Clone. But I don't know what to tell you: We try our best to do what we think will work. It's up to the consumer to tell us whether we did right or wrong (and you don't tell us via angry Escapist videos, btw).