Own 10 Or More Games On Steam? You Are Too Core For Many Developers

[Burnouts3s3]

Well, what if the 10+ games you own on Steam are the ones Anita Sarkeesian recommended? Wouldn't that change the conversation? Don't those demographics count?

I don't know; I've had weird feelings about people such as Cook. I 'do' play games on Steam. I 'do' play games on my mobile phone (Hearthstone, Telltale ports, Injustice, etc.) but this sort of talk just seems... misguided. I understand the intention, but there has to be a better way to go about this.

 

[F-I-D-O]

F2P is winner take all, PC gaming not so much. The risk factor of mobile gaming will shoot up, lots of low cost games failing can be as large a loss as 1 AAA game failing. It will be, efficient markets and all.

PS. I think they should just split up the F2P developers to a separate conference, they are not like normal people.

Well yeah. But the fact is MORE money gets made by mobile right now. And a company can recover from a cheap mobile game failing. A poor AAA game means the developers sink, since its hard to build a war chest when starting out.
And companies are looking at data like this: https://s3.amazonaws.com/CGA_Report/CCNewzooSpringReport-pages.pdf
The stats show mobile (mobile + tablet) set to have the largest playerbase by 2017, without counting desktop social games.
And the issue is, in broad strokes, the PC IS winner take all. When 1.3 million people are frequently buying games, that's a target audience very difficult to shoot for, especially since that number doesn't account for genre taste.

This isn't the death sound of core gaming. It's just saying that developers are looking to other routes and business models. As a note, it's still unclear what "owning" a F2P title counts as on steam - that could be skewing the numbers, or only showing when a micro transaction is engaged with. The point of the talk is that developers aren't looking for the person who buys everything. They want the person who buys specifics, and that audience is easier to engage in other outlets.

I also disagree that F2P should be separated. It's a valid design tactic, and a new way of looking at things. The important thing to note is that while GDC is public, it's not a consumer show. It's a time for devs to talk shop, and talk about weird things or useful trends they've noticed. The talk wasn't about steam players being useless, it was about a shifting focus to mobile and the benefits/challenges "mobile as the new core" (the panel title) presents. The start that headline's this article was a way to grab the viewer's attention with a shocking stat and support it over an hour. Treating it as a press release is misrepresenting the content.

Oh, and to everyone calling SpryFox out as hacks or crap developers, I know opinions are a thing, but their games aren't slapdash garbage. They take calculated risks, but always have a fun game with fair microtransaction systems. The most common is the turn timer, limiting gameplay rounds for the time it takes to poop, but not being so limiting as to be frustrating like most energy systems. And their more core steam/console game, Road not Taken, is one of their worst performing titles in the company's history.

 

[someguy1231]

Daniel Cook, founder of independent game developer Spry Fox, asked his audience how many owned 10 or more games on Steam. When most raised their hands, he calmly told them "you don't matter."

The feeling is mutual, Mr. Cook.

 

[owbu]

I am pretty sure the actual point of the "raise your hand, you dont matter" thing was to show people how it feels to have your way of playing invalidated, and the real point was the end of the article, where they said that its stupid to try to do the same to casuals.
And reading the comments here, your article didnt seem to have brought that message across in the slightest. Might be the drama headline^^

 

[Jandau]

1. Saying core gamers don't matter based on their overall population is silly, since it's not just about the population. A core gamer is likely to buy multiple full priced releases in a year, god knows how many bundles/discounts, not to mention the DLC and the F2P monetizations. In short, a core gamer is willing to put a LOT more money down on average. A casual user might be happy with a game or two during the course of a year. Maybe the occasional $1 appstore trinket. To use a bit of a hyperbole, would you rather have a million people give you $1 each or have ten thousand people give you $150 each?

2. Core gamers are less relevant from a marketing standpoint, at least to some extent. What I mean here is that they are often "guaranteed" customers for many titles. The question is how to draw in people who wouldn't normally buy your product. Yes, this often sucks for the overall quality of games. Aiming for "broad market appeal" has brought about some atrocious changes to many games and franchises. But it is something publishers are still actively pursuing.

3. Finally, core gamers don't really matter that much in the context of mobile gaming. Not to say core gamers don't play mobile games, but rather that they aren't all that investend in them. Mobile market is different and targets different demographics. The purchasing power of core gamers that I mentioned in my first paragraph isn't as pronounced here (if at all), so catering to them isn't important. Which is something I'm mostly fine with - not everything needs to be made specifically for me or else I'll throw a tantrum.

All in all, I can kinda see what the guy was going for, but his wording was poor...

 

[BoogieManFL]

Wait.. The people that buy and play the most games, essentially the vast majority of the consumers, don't matter?

I've never heard of this guy or his company. Sounds like some casual mobile developer BS.

EDIT: Looked it up. Yep, mobile developer.

I guess by "many developers" he means mobile game developers. In which case, fine. Just like you don't matter to most of us.

 

[Schadrach]

If I were a cynic I would suggest that this apparent focus on gamers that stick with products long term is similar to the f2p markets focus on "whales". There's not much point in making a game if you cash cow s are just going to wonder off.

That's exactly what it is. He doesn't want to sell games, he wants to sell microtransactions. He's literally saying that only people he expects are likely "whales", as opposed to folks who will tend to buy more games but invest less in single titles.

Of course, I don't matter because I have more than ten...hundred Steam games.

 

[RealRT]

Then again, neither does he unless he decides to go back to making real games.

 

[slacker2]

.

 

[Antari]

I'm quite sure I don't matter to this small time developer that I will never hear about again until his company is going belly up. As someone who owns over 200 steam games. I can definitely say one of the thousands of developers currently producing shovel-ware certainly don't matter to me. Is his game even on steam or does it come with children's cereal?

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

because it's not like the hundreds and thousands of people who bought undertale or stardew valley or the witness had any long standing experience with games. this is just a bitter free 2 prick developer being salty about how every sensible human in the world who knew what iphone games are pointed out that iphone games are in fact complete crap. the screen is too small for a decent point and click or grand strategy and the lack of buttons makes it impossible to play a good action oriented game on a phone. it had a few good single screen physics puzzlers back in the day and that was everything.

i don't need microtransactions to trick my dopamine glands into thinking i'm having a good time when i'm not because games like stardew valley and Civ and CK2 are made by people who know how to make a long game enjoyable

 

[CaitSeith]

I am pretty sure the actual point of the "raise your hand, you dont matter" thing was to show people how it feels to have your way of playing invalidated, and the real point was the end of the article, where they said that its stupid to try to do the same to casuals.
And reading the comments here, your article didnt seem to have brought that message across in the slightest. Might be the drama headline^^

I agree that sometimes the core/casual division can be harmful. However Cook address the topic as a douche, making it sound like the consumers are to blame for the developers' decisions and misconceptions. He says that if they put all core players together in a room, they wouldn't agree what core means; and that limits form and innovation... Wait, what? How does that work? Wouldn't the concept of "consumers don't know what they want" be a reason to experiment more? Besides, if you do the same with the developers, would they agree in what the term "core" means? If so, then what does it mean?

Maybe that's what he's talking about. Maybe he's telling to the other developers to check how badly the term is defined. But I doubt it. And I doubt that his solution of no longer splitting the group is effective without a more logical (less tribal) grouping to replace it. Because if a game have no focus, trying to please everybody, it ends up generic, without form and pretty much the opposite of innovative.

 

[Pinky's Brain]

I also disagree that F2P should be separated. It's a valid design tactic, and a new way of looking at things.

It will never cease to be a soulkilling business with perverse incentives.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

So I gotta ask...how is gaming still a thing? Like for once I'm not being negative. I'm actually curious. Devs don't care about gamers, not judging by the quality of recent game, do they actually care about games either.

Likewise gamers don't care about devs, and judging by sales figures and reviews, they don't care too much about games.

So how is this industry still going?!

 

[EternallyBored]

So I gotta ask...how is gaming still a thing? Like for once I'm not being negative. I'm actually curious. Devs don't care about gamers, not judging by the quality of recent game, do they actually care about games either.

Likewise gamers don't care about devs, and judging by sales figures and reviews, they don't care too much about games.

So how is this industry still going?!

You say you're curious, but your view seems to be largely influenced by your negativity. Devs still care about games, last year brought us a number of popular games that seemed to have a lot of care put into them: the Witcher, Bloodborne, undertale, Arkham Knight, MGS 5, the last two were screwed over by their publishers, but you can tell the devs obviously cared about the quality of the release. The industry is full of devs that care, they may fuck up, make stupid decisions, say stupid things, or get screwed by their publisher, but they still care about the games they make.

The statement about gamers is just cynicism and confirmation bias, you are only seeing what you want to see. Gamers are still buying games by the millions, breaking records in most demographics, the fastest selling game in history is only a few years old, the most highly awarded game just came out last year, and Ubisoft just released their fastest selling new IP. As for gamers, there is still tons of love for devs, seriously, I see tons of effusive praise for devs like CD Projekt Red, valve, massive, From software, and more, just because devs have critics and people that don't like them doesn't suddenly mean some significant portion of gamers now hates them. As for reviews, review bombing is a thing, it's rarely indicative of the overall quality of the game, just that some portion of the game has enraged a segment of its audience, people can babble all they want about how terrible Destiny is and how it's failing, that doesn't change the reality that the game sold millions of copies and still has an active player base large enough to make most MMOs bar WoW jealous.

Gaming has problems, it ain't anywhere close to perfect, but it is incredibly easy to see why it's still a "thing", because tons of people still love playing games, devs still love making them, and publishers are still making oodles of money off of them.

 

[F-I-D-O]

I also disagree that F2P should be separated. It's a valid design tactic, and a new way of looking at things.

It will never cease to be a soulkilling business with perverse incentives.

Again, I disagree. Done wrong, yes. Done properly, it opens the door for more consumers while allowing more options in how to pay. Example: Kamibox's "Okay?" and the "One more ___" series which rely on pay what you want or ad-supported avenues -> both free to play. For a microtransaction fueled game, I bring up Hearthstone. F2P is almost forced as the primary method on Android due to piracy problems, as being free at least makes it easier to download and advertise in official versions.

Note, I'm not defending microtransactions in full titles, I'm defending the space of F2P.
Also, what are the perverse incentives? To make money? What a shock. If they were tricking children into stealing credit cards we'd hear more than a story a year from some parent who turned off all apple/google wallet safety measures. Otherwise, its no different than a trading card or action figure market.

And for those policing his tone, again, its the Game Developers Conference, not the Press Conference. Talks are professional, but have a laid back tone. Taking this opening - where's he addressing people who likely have 100+ steam games because DEVELOPERS as gospel is like taking any TEDtalk hypothetical as a company's announcement. It makes a hell of a juicy headline, but you wouldn't say SNL is out of jokes because one of the writers had a talk literally about nothing.

 

[FalloutJack]

Oh look, another buncha' guys talking about something that doesn't even matter. Oh hey, there's still Fallout to play.

*Proceeds to forget about whatever they were talking about*

 

[MerlinCross]

FIDO a question. Also on phone so forgive me for not being outing you and trimming the post.

So how does this help them innovate? I mean all your posts are about the business side of it and that's cool. They want to make money, and more of it. Some call them out on it but they are a company, and of the day they need to make money, even if we voice our disgust at it.

But if you want to make money, come the hell out and say it. Cloaking it in this "You're the reason we aren't making new things" seems insulting. Oh really? How many Texas hold'em apps are there? How many Puzzle and Dragon clones along with Pokemon wanna be's? How many Clash of Clans and Age of War? Heck I recall one company having like 4 games; All the same just Wasteland, Space, Mafia and Dragon painted over it.

They want to make money hand over fist, go for it, try your luck in this gold rush before it's over. But don't say we "core gamers" are the reason you can't bloody innovate. That horse has been dead for sometime

 

[Spry Fox]

Speaking as his co-founder, I can guarantee you that Daniel was NOT telling the audience "people who buy many games are too core for game developers." He'd be horrified by that assertion. He was making a joke, taken out of context in this article, about the fact that the games market is now dominated by people who play one or two games, like dedicated LoL, Hearthstone, Counterstrike, or Call of Duty players. Game developers like us are, not surprisingly, prone to owning and playing dozens if not hundreds of games, which makes us unlike the vast majority of people who play games. Danc was trying to use humor to remind the audience that what we like to play may not be what most other people like to play. It had absolutely nothing to do with "casual vs core" and in fact, later in that very same session he rejected the arbitrary distinctions between those groups.

I think people forget that GDC is not a PR exercise for many developers. We go there to hang out with each other and learn. We aren't carefully filtering everything we say just in case it gets taken out of context. But we're learning that we need to, as sad as that makes us.

TLDR, *obviously* if you buy a lot of games, game developers adore you. I dearly wish more people were like you. Unfortunately, indies are struggling in part because most people are *not* like you.

Hope that makes a little more sense now that you have the context. Sorry for the bruised feelings, it was very much unintended.

-Dave

 

[Newgate]

the fact that the games market is now dominated by people who play one or two game

That's an interesting assertion.

But to quote JC Denton, "Do you have a single fact to back that up?"

Are we to believe the vast majority of people who play games just stick to one and only one?