Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Indie RPGs: Just Not Worth It?
Now-former indie game developer David Moffat has just announced that he has shut down his studio, Australian Game Developers, and has removed his Fallout-inspired indie RPG of aliens and government conspiracy, The Omega Syndrome, from sale. As he states on his soon-to-disappear site:"I don't know if I will have the high motivation that is required to make another computer RPG. Why? Fan expectations are high, the potential audience is small and fractured and the amount of work that is required to create even a low quality computer RPG, far exceeds that of any other type of game. So in short I no longer believe they can be successful financially or otherwise, unless they are properly funded and have the very best people working in each area."Not exactly inspiring words for would-be indie RPG developers.
When you talk indie RPGs, it seems that those few enlightened souls who know might have an inkling of what you are talking about seem to conjure up thoughts of one of three things: Spiderweb Software's long (and successful) line of RPGs, the new-fiesty-surprise hit "casual" RPGs Aveyond and Cute Knight (plus maybe hybrids like Empires & Dungeons), or the freeware RPG scene (principally composed of demos and incomplete, abandoned projects, unfortunately) like the RPGMaker community.
As a fan of computer role-playing games from --- well, not the earliest days, but definitely a long time --- I am concerned about this on several levels.
RPGs used to be a staple of maintream gaming. From a gamers' perspective, I suppose they still are, but Moffat's statement could be applied to developing mainstream retail RPGs as well. It has become such an expensive genre to create that few developers or publishers are willing to tackle it. For the price of an RPG, you could create two FPS games of the same quality. The same rule applies to indie RPGs. Traditionally, the content requirements alone for an RPG - with a focus on exploration-based gameplay - put it far ahead of other genres in terms of development cost.
From a pure "return on investment" perspective, this would still be worthwhile if RPGs sold as much (or more) than their cheaper-to-produce counterparts. But while RPG fans are legion, I don't think this is the case. RPG development is a tough, hard slog, and a labor of love that I don't think gets much appreciation by its audience. The mainstream RPG player, at least, has expectations set very high for their favorite genre. Just look at the wish-lists and manifestos posted on forums and websites by fans for RPGs, and see what sort of "reasonable" demands players make of their beloved genre. For that matter, you don't need go much further than this blog. I go off as much as the next fan for how RPGs "ought" to be made.
I believe indie RPGs have a lot to offer. I think RPGs and adventure games lend themselves extremely well to storytelling - more so than most genres - and thus are fertile media for individual designers and small teams to offer something unique: Their own voice. I'm not talking voice-overs, I'm talking authorship and storytelling. Personality. Innovation.
But without an audience, it is nothing.
So where does this leave the newly-released Depths of Peril, a highly professional indie RPG with production values far beyond that of most indie fare? What about Minions of Mirth, an indie-developed "hardcore" fantasy MMORPG? What about several "major" indie RPGs deep in development, including Eschelon: Book 1, The Broken Hourglass, and Age of Decadence? What about the large number of RPGs in development in the "Dream Game Competition"?
Are we all pretty much doomed? Do the expectations and size of the RPG audience make it pretty much impossible for an "indie RPG" niche of the industry to survive, let alone thrive?
(Vaguely) related bellyaching:
* Where Is Indie Innovation?
* Why Do RPGs Suck Now?
* Yes, Virginia, There Is Money In Indie Games
* How To Get Me To Buy Your Indie RPG
* Interview With Amanda Fitch, Indie RPG and Casual Game Designer
* Indie RPG Roundtable
* Jeff Vogel Gives Innovation Another Chance
Feel Like Chatting About It In The Forums?
Labels: Biz, Indie Evangelism, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:07 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
"Without an audience, it is nothing."
...except for having the satisfaction of having created ones own game. IMO, if a person isn't creating a game because one wants that satisfaction, wants to make a game for him or herself before any other reason, then that person is creating indie games for the wrong reasons.
Creating an indie game with the intent that it will find a large audience and be successful is just setting oneself up for disappointment. If one creates a game because one simply wants that experience and the satisfaction of having done so then any audience and success that game sees is a bonus.
Just my 0.02
...except for having the satisfaction of having created ones own game. IMO, if a person isn't creating a game because one wants that satisfaction, wants to make a game for him or herself before any other reason, then that person is creating indie games for the wrong reasons.
Creating an indie game with the intent that it will find a large audience and be successful is just setting oneself up for disappointment. If one creates a game because one simply wants that experience and the satisfaction of having done so then any audience and success that game sees is a bonus.
Just my 0.02
I don't know this developer or the story of this game, but I'm willing to hazard a guess as to what happened:
He created an overly ambitious design, then announced it to the world. Fans everywhere rejoiced and flocked to his newly created website.
Then he discovered it was beyond his means to create, but by that time, the audience for the game was expecting the sun and the moon. As he struggled to get anything out, the potential audience got disappointed and drifted away.
Am I close?
I don't mean to pick on Moffat who, as I said, I don't know a thing about. This is just an all-too-common story in indie development.
Indies can certainly do CRPGs. However, they are not going to be Oblivion. Spiderweb's games had had the same mediocre graphics for about ten years. Cute Knight is, heh, cute, but is very tightly limited. You can go in the village and see static screens, or go down into the dungeon.
Despite these limitations, both games are great successes. People bought them for the story and imagination.
He created an overly ambitious design, then announced it to the world. Fans everywhere rejoiced and flocked to his newly created website.
Then he discovered it was beyond his means to create, but by that time, the audience for the game was expecting the sun and the moon. As he struggled to get anything out, the potential audience got disappointed and drifted away.
Am I close?
I don't mean to pick on Moffat who, as I said, I don't know a thing about. This is just an all-too-common story in indie development.
Indies can certainly do CRPGs. However, they are not going to be Oblivion. Spiderweb's games had had the same mediocre graphics for about ten years. Cute Knight is, heh, cute, but is very tightly limited. You can go in the village and see static screens, or go down into the dungeon.
Despite these limitations, both games are great successes. People bought them for the story and imagination.
...except for having the satisfaction of having created ones own game. IMO, if a person isn't creating a game because one wants that satisfaction, wants to make a game for him or herself before any other reason, then that person is creating indie games for the wrong reasons.
Well, I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one. I mean, yes - if you aren't your own audience on some level, something is wrong.
But as I've noted before, my greatest joy as a game developer comes from having other people enjoy my work. I think that's not unlike playing a musical instrument, or performing as an actor. I can have a ball doing rehearsals and whatnot, but it's when the curtain comes up with an honest-to-goodness audience out there that it all becomes worthwhile to me.
The size of the audience isn't THAT important (though I would be lying if I said I didn't like having more people enjoy it than less people, naturally) - until money is involved. I've always willing to devote many hours of my free time to activities that give me personal satisfaction. But if I'm gonna spend $10,000 in development costs out of my own pocket (meaning a hardship on my family - we have to figure out how to save that kind of money somehow), I need to feel its worth that investment somehow. My own satisfaction in my basement isn't gonna quite cut it with my better half...
Maybe that comes off sounding really mercenary, but that's not my intention. I just feel that art or craft is at its best when it is being made for someone else as much as your own satisfaction.
Well, I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one. I mean, yes - if you aren't your own audience on some level, something is wrong.
But as I've noted before, my greatest joy as a game developer comes from having other people enjoy my work. I think that's not unlike playing a musical instrument, or performing as an actor. I can have a ball doing rehearsals and whatnot, but it's when the curtain comes up with an honest-to-goodness audience out there that it all becomes worthwhile to me.
The size of the audience isn't THAT important (though I would be lying if I said I didn't like having more people enjoy it than less people, naturally) - until money is involved. I've always willing to devote many hours of my free time to activities that give me personal satisfaction. But if I'm gonna spend $10,000 in development costs out of my own pocket (meaning a hardship on my family - we have to figure out how to save that kind of money somehow), I need to feel its worth that investment somehow. My own satisfaction in my basement isn't gonna quite cut it with my better half...
Maybe that comes off sounding really mercenary, but that's not my intention. I just feel that art or craft is at its best when it is being made for someone else as much as your own satisfaction.
Am I close?
I really don't know. I worked with him briefly with selling his game, but he was making a lot of experimental changes to his sales plan that weren't too affiliate friendly. It'd be easy for me to just point my finger at THAT and say, "THAT is the problem," but it goes a lot deeper than that. And any other speculation I could make would be just that - speculation. I didn't have much visibility into what he was doing. I'd have done things differently, in his shoes, but I couldn't tell you if it'd have any different effect. It's not like Void War took the world by storm, either... :)
The #1 problem is marketing. That's what it keeps coming down to - for EVERYONE. Where do you find a community of RPG fans that are less worried about production values than solid gameplay and interesting stories? Um, outside of this tiny little community, I mean :)
I really don't know. I worked with him briefly with selling his game, but he was making a lot of experimental changes to his sales plan that weren't too affiliate friendly. It'd be easy for me to just point my finger at THAT and say, "THAT is the problem," but it goes a lot deeper than that. And any other speculation I could make would be just that - speculation. I didn't have much visibility into what he was doing. I'd have done things differently, in his shoes, but I couldn't tell you if it'd have any different effect. It's not like Void War took the world by storm, either... :)
The #1 problem is marketing. That's what it keeps coming down to - for EVERYONE. Where do you find a community of RPG fans that are less worried about production values than solid gameplay and interesting stories? Um, outside of this tiny little community, I mean :)
Three thoughts:
a) Visibility
I've never heard of "The Omega Syndrome". In fact I first thought the Heston-movie was meant when I saw the cover...
Would I've bought it? As an old Wasteland/Fallout-player I know I would at least have had *some* interest because of its scenario.
Will I buy Fallout 3 when it comes out? Probably - not only because it says it's "Fallout" but equally to see if the franchise remains playable in a completely different style.
From what I've seen F3 has all the markings of a hit, which seems to hype me even further.
Now what is the big difference between "Omega Syndrome" and F3?
b) Time
I put more than 220 hours into the "flower-picking-simulator" ;-)
It was pretty much the only RPG I played last year simply because I didn't have enough free time...
c) Quality
I frankly don't care if the game I should like comes from a smaller or bigger outfit. How much work went into it. How easy or tedious the development was.
I expect a certain level of quality. Technical quality and creative quality.
Example:
The two "Dark Fall" adventure games were produced mostly by a single person. I bought both games because I found them interesting and a welcome change from the usual.
They also reminded me on render classics like "Lighthouse" from Sierra or the Syberia-games.
Both games were available in retail boxed (the now usual DVD cases) and relatively cheap (10 and 20 Euros) so it also was were easy to get them.
a) Visibility
I've never heard of "The Omega Syndrome". In fact I first thought the Heston-movie was meant when I saw the cover...
Would I've bought it? As an old Wasteland/Fallout-player I know I would at least have had *some* interest because of its scenario.
Will I buy Fallout 3 when it comes out? Probably - not only because it says it's "Fallout" but equally to see if the franchise remains playable in a completely different style.
From what I've seen F3 has all the markings of a hit, which seems to hype me even further.
Now what is the big difference between "Omega Syndrome" and F3?
b) Time
I put more than 220 hours into the "flower-picking-simulator" ;-)
It was pretty much the only RPG I played last year simply because I didn't have enough free time...
c) Quality
I frankly don't care if the game I should like comes from a smaller or bigger outfit. How much work went into it. How easy or tedious the development was.
I expect a certain level of quality. Technical quality and creative quality.
Example:
The two "Dark Fall" adventure games were produced mostly by a single person. I bought both games because I found them interesting and a welcome change from the usual.
They also reminded me on render classics like "Lighthouse" from Sierra or the Syberia-games.
Both games were available in retail boxed (the now usual DVD cases) and relatively cheap (10 and 20 Euros) so it also was were easy to get them.
# posted by 
: September 11, 2007 2:15 PM
: September 11, 2007 2:15 PM
This is a shame. I had played the demo a few times and was meaning to pick it up, but never got around to it.
Now I feel rather bad.
Now I feel rather bad.
I've never heard of this game. I'm a huge RPG fan, and I love the idea behind it. I want to play it now.
He gave up too easily!
He gave up too easily!
# posted by : September 11, 2007 7:45 PM
: September 11, 2007 7:45 PM
The game is actually pretty decent. I don't understand why he's pulled it from sale, personally. If it were me (but then, what do I know?), I'd discount it, affiliate the crap out of it, and enjoy the occasional sale or three.
But he's obviously pretty emotionally attached to the project, and I have to give him credit for making his dream-game. I wish he'd had more luck with it.
Post a Comment
But he's obviously pretty emotionally attached to the project, and I have to give him credit for making his dream-game. I wish he'd had more luck with it.
Links to this post:
<< Home
