"Sigh. Haters gonna hate. Funny thing is the apps I make are probably better than half the shit most indie developers spend months of their lives on…then go broke." ~ Carter Thomas October 4, 2013
I love this guy! I'm saving this site and going to read it every day until I'm rolling in money.
Seriously, he's tell you what, sadly, makes money; and your attitude to his honesty shows the difference between you being a game developer for the art and being a game developer as a business person.
My personal feeling is if you want to make a living as a game developer, at some point you need to ask people for money and that's not an immoral thing.
Now there are ways and ways of doing things and I would considr this guy is definitely on the naughty side, but if you had to sully your craft for a year in order to have cashflow for purist content the next, I don't see anything wrong with that.
As a business man he's smart, as a game dev, he's a disgrace.
What the mobile industry needs (in my opinion) is a steam like setup and some kind of control over the apps that get published, whether they choose them or let the public vote (greenlight) on them.
People like this (again imo) ruin this industry, game dev is an art, not a photo copy machine.
It's not about "sullying your craft" by getting money for it. A person's gotta eat, and getting paid for your work isn't something you should think twice about if people are willing to do it. The ethics of what he's doing are sickening to me, though. Blatant cloning, distributing "games" as nothing but delivery platforms to shove as many ads as possible into the faces of people he's deliberately suckered in? I can't stand for that as a creator or as a consumer.
This is the kind of thing you'd report to the Advertising Standards Authority except, hilariously, nobody's spent anything except time and bandwidth on this crap except the ad companies. I wonder how this affects them, actually?
EDIT: I mean, beyond the obvious "Whooo! Now we can sell more hits!" effect. What about knocks to reputation for ads appearing in spamvertisement barrages? Just a crazy corollary thought.
Seriously, he's tell you what, sadly, makes money; and your attitude to his honesty shows the difference between you being a game developer for the art and being a game developer as a business person.
I'm actually all for derivative works... as long as they contribute to the evolution of whatever it is they are derived from, and to the general culture, but this type of thing is just gross.
I find what is been done here appalling. However I find that it works, depressing by comparison.
I don't understand the mobile games mentality (I mean market more then developers). The fact this works on people combined with the fact Dungeon Keeper got so many 5 star reviews. I have purchased only a handful of games on my mobile and I have been looking for games I like. But the market is full of the sort of cr*p spoken of here. Or FreeToPlay ripoffs that force the game to be broken in design.
The thing that bugs me is assuming you build a genuine valuable product you run the risk of dropping into obscurity before any potential players notice. Added to that is the long term effects of players getting educated that this is how it works.
Well hopefully some philanthropist will create the next open mobile device with a user voting only approved app publisher with a verification process for each user before they are allowed to use the device and the service...hmmm but how will this be sustainable?
How can we beat this?
Where can we go for good games?
What shall we do?
How do we go from haters to winners?
It is a difficult premise, and ends where the money probably will flow.
What's wrong with exploiting a market as long as people are willing to pay for something? Seriously - if you can sell ice sprinkled with snow with a side of sleet to an eskimo, then do it. It's basic supply and demand. Why do indies think that they are on this high horse, and above doing anything that will actually generate money - but at the same time bitch and moan that they're dirt poor while pumping out generic copies of old classic games anyways...
The only time where IAP becomes a problem is where kids are concerned, because they are not equipped with the knowledge to know better and make informed choices.
No, farsicon, just no. This crap floods the market with an obscene amount of cheap knockoffs that ultimately harm developers who actually have something of value to contribute.
Why do indies think that they are on this high horse
I think you're confusing 'high horse' with morals.
and above doing anything that will actually generate money
I assume what you mean here is 'and above exploiting other people's hard work to generate money'? See morals, above.
but at the same time bitch and moan that they're dirt poor
Yes, it's a sad, sad world where people pay for regurgitated crap instead of placing more value on creativity, but I'll always strive for creativity, even if that means I'm financially less viable. I'd rather be monetarily poor and spiritually rich than vice versa; I sleep better.
while pumping out generic copies of old classic games anyways...
Nice generalisation to complete the entire string of generalisations. Do you think 'indies' are some kind of sub-species of game maker alike in notion to the pejorative slang that the word 'hipster' has unfortunately come to possess? Indies are independent game developers. They are game developers who work for themselves. Their modi operandi are as hugely varied as non-independent game devs - that is to say, not quantifiable by one sweeping statement.
You are on a forum full of independent game developers who have dreams and goals and visions who all work hard to achieve those and you've just dismissed every single one of those as 'pumping out generic copies of old classic games'. Classy.
I think @farsicon is right to a point. If I had IAP for $50 and people buy it, who am I to say they can't? And the turn around time (about a week for mobile games) is so quick that you HAVE to make as much money as you can in the short time you have.
To use an example, who here still plays Star Craft 2 as heavily as when it first came out? When it first launch that's the ONLY game people were playing; but I doubt someone like @dislekcia, who was in the top rankings, is playing as much of it as he used to. That ship has sailed and he's playing the next game.
As all things in life, there are black things, and there are white things. These extremes make people go ohhhh so mad because they believe in the opposite. But most people's lives are pretty much grey, and they prefer to live in the grey, but they berate whites and praise blacks. (I was careful to use the PC selection of colours there in that totally arb example).
I think any philosophy taken to the extreme is stupid. Pure tasteful games which keeps its developers poor forever is silly (barring of course the one or two lucked out ones which inevitably get pulled as examples to the contrary), and pure games for money is just baaaad.
But bitching about it and shaking your head at it won't help - what could change this dynamic? Is it building a more educated consumer base? How might anyone do that? Is it forgetting about the mobile appstore? Is that possible? Is it dancing a voodoo dance to the gods of Hra'lek? Where do we find the ritual?
Can we turn this into something constructive?
(in before someone will just says "make better games")
Guys in Asia are doing this all over the place. I spoke to a guy at a conference one day with a catalog of to 100 hit games who could slap your choice of brand on it in a week and give it to you to release on the appstore. The thing is, these apps, don't ever make real money, they are profit to the guys creating them, because they can make them for super cheap in Asian sweat shops and sell it at a profit to a gullible buyer who think they will see fortunes from it.
The point is that today there is no difference in the way you get a hit from 3 years ago. A good game will generate word of mouth via press or players or via advertising. Maybe advertising is more prominent now than before, and becoming more important, causing the rise to power of mobile publishers such as Kabam, but the game has not changes, and these rip off artist guys have been there since the start. The problem with user acquisition is not a battle against people like this, it is a battle against the vast amount of high quality apps specially created for the market.
Why waist your time and effort even discussing a guy like this anyway. Ignore him and let his post fade into nothingness to show him you are really apposed to the concept. ;)
Also unsure why there is a focus on IAP (IAP is not the problem). I think it's more the model of "reskinning" that is causing most people to cry foul. He even says in the article that IAP is not really worth it and that advertising is the way to make the money (and goes on to discuss how to maximise this income stream). He also readily admits that these are "cheap" and "throw-away" games. And I'm with @Fengol here, if it makes him money cool. I read it and my gut reaction was that this was not cool. I'm not sure why though. Maybe other people could try elaborate on their feelings of disgust?
I'm also with @Blackships this is essentially a marketing pitch for him, he doesn't really provide any proof that this methodology actually works. So treat it with a pinch of salt.
I think an aspect that maybe people are over looking is what the market *actually* is, and understanding that market is fragmented and that some of the people who play Candy Crush, or Lady GaGa GO GO or what ever other mass market game is out there will never and would never play "non-casual" games (and I use this term loosely). Is this guys games *actually* competing with you and your game? Is the problem that we assume that the mass market is even interested in playing "non-casual" games?
I think there is a legitimate discussion to have here if this model is sustainable, and good for the industry as whole. Flooding the market and racing for the bottom with cheap disposable games can't be a good thing if it requires predatory and exploitative means to then recoup the costs. Down this road government regulation lies, and frankly that is not something I want for the industry.
I have far more thoughts on this but I can't seem to express them well enough :/ Need more time to think
@WelshPixie: yes, my post is a generalisation and not aimed at anyone specific. But it's based on trends that are quite clear in the indie world ...who, by the way, actually do see themselves as "some kind of sub-species of game maker" ....
Now... if we can push emotion to the side for a moment... there are guys doing awesome/brilliant/ground breaking work - but normally these are the ones that do not point fingers and complain all the time - these are the true artists, and I applaud each and every one for doing it for the love of the art. I wish I could be like that, but I'm not - and I accept that.
But there's another world out there that has nothing to do with art and games, and it's called good business. And some people know how to exploit it to great effect. This may be an ethics issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with morals, because there's nothing actually wrong with it. They are not hurting anyone and they are not forcing anyone to do anything against their will - and the market clearly supports them in the way that counts the most: their wallets. Most people don't care about deep experiences that takes time and effort anymore - they want a quick fix and move on - and they are more than willing to pay for that portion of fun, even repeatedly.
Times are changing, business is changing, and the old ways of selling games are not viable anymore, and if you think you can do it better, then do it - but don't judge because someone else is making a buck - people have been doing it since the dawn of time - shady or otherwise...
Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings...
-- Edit: I'm not speaking of IAP per se, but rather that the market wants what they want (even if it's crap) and IAP just makes it so much easier to distribute crap. Just to be clear - I fully support the abolishment of crap everywhere - I'd just rather work on what I can do myself, and keep believing that if enough people can focus on creating unique/quality games - then maybe we can make a dent in the crap and bring back the goodness.
@farsicon You should read the book "Creativity: Unleashing the forces within by OSHO" http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97007.Creativity besides being an amazingly inspirational piece of literature that is worth a read, it specifically speaks about how people that find their flow in creativity and produce the most amazing work are typically the kind of person who keep their heads down to only focus on their craft, also not seeking recognition. The book also points out how the very act of seeking recognition destroys your creativity and has made amazing performers or artists lose their knack/special place.
@bladesway: coincidentally I made that same point in a conversation I had with a colleague today. It could be an interesting read. Thanks for the share.
@farsicon its good to have the opposing view here makes this thread far more interesting and worth while. To further the analogy and reasoning here are some of the points that bother me about this kind of mindless money spinning approach even assuming the person is doing what the article says.
Lets consider this as if it was another market.
We discover that someone has a formula to make a restaurant that makes money in the over saturated food business. They do so by actually figuring out how to supply eatable goods (not food) that taste OK are dirt cheap and despite having no nutritional value. They set up shop next door to us and then new restaurants open all around all around us. Eventually people think all food is like this. They lump our food in the same category except more expensive so they don't buy from us all the while they complaining about the low quality of the food.
Now look at it like the person trying to find the good quality food i.e. I walk all around the mall but these food hacks are putting out this nasty food all over making it hard for me to find the one place I would appreciate the food. In fact I walk past that shop over and over never seeing the quality food as the other places have more money to advertise and lure me in with flashing lights and great marketing campaigns.
This is the failure of free market economics as it requires an informed purchaser and a balance or supply and demand. Supply in an electronic world is almost infinite the typical supply and demand aspects are literally removed. On the Mobile entertainment side we are seeing that failure highlighted better then most anywhere else.
If you consider the goals of a free market then these products are arguable producing a failure in that objective and that certainly a reason to complain about them. The complaining has the possible outcome of getting the information to the consumers and potentially turning the situation around.
And for the record you certainly haven't hurt my feelings as I said I think its good to have this debate and it needs a champion for that side of the argument as much as this side.
@tbulford : you're absolutely correct with your food analogy - but here's the thing - the problem is not localised to just one market. The impact in the food market actually indirectly influences other markets as well, and vice versa, as all these markets reinforces the same behaviour and expectations. The effect just compounds over time, and there's nothing we can do about it, except to adapt. Change is inevitable, and it's defined by consensus - especially now that we have a truly globalised world.
I'm not trying to make an "opposite" argument just for the sake of it. I'm taking the side of rationality - and my understanding of our history and the world beyond gaming and IT has a huge influence on my point of view.
@WelshPixie: Simply put: Morals define personal character, while ethics define a social system in which those morals are applied. All societies agree that murdering someone at the dinner table is bad - this is morally wrong. Some societies agree that eating the murdered person at the dinner table is bad - that's ethically wrong (in those societies).
@farsicon yes but your ultimate argument is change is inevitable. I agree on that and I suggest we are fighting for the sort of change that would improve the free market to be more in line with its defined goals. Keep in mind the systems have been laid out for the good of all, not for the worst for all which arguably we are heading towards. When systems fail to produce the desired result they need to change. That change can not happen and will not without concerned people voicing there opinion.
The answer "there is nothing we can do about it" is so blindly diss-empowering and has been accepted too easily throughout history. Its only when people no longer accept "there is nothing we can do about it" we see the most change and more often then not that change moves us to a better place for all.
For the record if you look back over history you will see that the free market concepts and ideas come to play because people decided there was something they could do about it. This was actually to the best of my knowledge only in the 18 hundreds. Before then the choice to partake in a specific trade was decided by kings or blood lines, I am sure then people also said "there is nothing we can do about it". They were clearly wrong.
I for one refuse to become someone that believes nothing can change but rather be someone that will stand for that change and argue against the statuesque when I can see its not in the best interests of everyone.
@tbulford: exactly - we're saying the same thing, dude - except that I much rather prefer action instead of accepting complaints - which I dislike completely (and unashamedly) - I hear more than enough people bitch about their situations every day, and when you ask them to get involved in the solution they all just shy away, only to complain again the next day.
As for the rest of your post I'd like to respond, but you misquoted me, which sort-of distorts my message a little bit:
I disagree that alone is the only option. Its not a bad statement or goal. Of course we could expand the word better to include some details that would help solve this problem. Its that detail that's tough to discern. Its exactly the triviality of the products and the sheer quantity of new products been released each day that has made me very weary of stepping into the mobile market.
@tbulford@farsicon Well actually there is a community designed system that does exactly what you guys are talking about. And that is the Press and Forums. If you want to get popular you need to get in with them and they give credit where it is due and don't were it is not due as well. We launched monster blade in 2013 with no marketing budget for a company with almost not international presence called Nubee and just because my producer and I were contacting press and forums all over we reached 1million downloads in 2 weeks on android alone. Just make a good game and get it to the right people, cuz that is how the market is identifying what you want and what they don't. Just like food critics do for you little restaurant analogy.
I doubt that there is another way. Casual games is not an art form anymore - they have become a commodity; easily consumed and then easily thrown away. I'm also not convinced that we will ever be able to reverse the trend until the bubble bursts - which may take a very long time, while at the same time may also morph into something even more casual which we may not even be able to imagine yet... who knows.
Keep in mind, it's not only developers that are struggling - console makers, pc makers, the whole eco system is struggling. The consumerised mobile world is the new "in" thing, and unless you flood the market with good games (for mahala), there's no way you will be able to compete in that world without breaking some eggs...
However, there's still a market for games outside of the mobile world where we can hold on to our pride (for now) - the audience is smaller, the bucks is less... but we can still uphold the art of gaming... or something to that tune...
@Bladesway: yes, the press and online forums can help - but, as with any marketing scheme - you need something of substance first, otherwise your users will very quickly dump you and move on to something cheaper and flashier... "oooh a shiny!"
@Bladesway: yes, the press and online forums can help - but, as with any marketing scheme - you need something of substance first, otherwise your users will very quickly dump you and move on to something cheaper and flashier... "oooh a shiny!"
@farsicon But isn't that exactly the effect we want, so people like the one that started this convo (meaning the link not the linker :P ) end up dropped to the way side and real quality devs can pick up the slack.
@Bladesway: that's a noble goal, but the person in the article is providing the "shiny" and a whole lot if it - and the masses... they are a flocking. Why do you think that is? Why do people still eat McDonalds when there are clearly better options that are better marketed... Why do people drive to the shop around the block when walking is clearly healthier. Why smoke when we know by now what it can do to us... the psychology behind our poor decision making as a species is much more complex than you may think - and at the same time it's so simple - we like to be stimulated with the least amount of effort - and this does not describe good, well designed, engaging games.
Simply put: Morals define personal character, while ethics define a social system in which those morals are applied. All societies agree that murdering someone at the dinner table is bad - this is morally wrong. Some societies agree that eating the murdered person at the dinner table is bad - that's ethically wrong (in those societies).
You're using semantics to justify your support of a practice that is utterly obnoxious. Fine, I'll pander. In no way is morally OR ethically 'good' to steal someone else's creative output and re-brand it as your own for financial gain.
@farsicon well, that depends, are you designing for the market or yourself? The guy in question is a different topic. The people eat mcD cuz they want to, and it is their right to do so. But if you eat mcD for a week and then a steak, that steak is gonna rock. Balancing and pacing. Different platforms and different countries have different needs. If you are not catering towards a valid need you can't blame others right ;)
What's wrong with exploiting a market as long as people are willing to pay for something?
I'm sorry - was that not an endorsement?
Seriously - if you can sell ice sprinkled with snow with a side of sleet to an eskimo, then do it.
Or that?
Why do indies think that they are on this high horse, and above doing anything that will actually generate money - but at the same time bitch and moan that they're dirt poor while pumping out generic copies of old classic games anyways...
Was I not meant to interpret that as 'indie devs should spend more time doing things that make them money (with an insinuation on re-skinning, since that's what the entire thread is about)'?
while pumping out generic copies of old classic games anyways...
And was that not meant to imply that we're doing it anyway so it's okay?
Either you made the point or you're really bad at putting your actual point across.
This may be an ethics issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with morals, because there's nothing actually wrong with it. They are not hurting anyone and they are not forcing anyone to do anything against their will - and the market clearly supports them in the way that counts the most: their wallets.
I just... No.
I once had someone explain that "morals are how you treat people you know, ethics are how you treat people you don't know" and that's a pretty good benchmark. They both come from the same root - how you behave and what is acceptable or not acceptable behavior. I don't see how appealing to money being the most important factor of judgement of behavior has anything but an erosive impact on both ethics and morals.
"It's good business" isn't a justification for anything. "Good business" is not spending money on R&D when you don't have to (just don't call it stealing ideas). "Good business" justifies outspending your competition's marketing budget and having to pay smaller salaries to compensate and remain profitable. "Good business" is forever shortsighted and bad at planning because reputations aren't fungible and you have to answer to the shareholders every year. "Good business" is stealing and not getting caught. "Good business" is paying the fine because it's cheaper than changing your process. "Good business" is exploitative and dehumanising because that way everyone's too afraid to leave their jobs and complain.
We instinctively punish cheats at a genetic level. We're selected as a species to be altruistic because it's how you survive inter-group competition. We're also genetically terrible at numbers - too many people and suddenly they're not human like we are anymore. Every impulse and argument that reduces people to less than other beings we should empathise with is something that should be fought against tooth and nail. Otherwise we risk the fallacy that a system that measures only acquisition of money (a market) is also good at measuring other things (like skill or compassion or "worth"), which it isn't.
Did you forget or just conveniently ignore that there are real people involved? There are people buying the ripoffs, there are people having their games ripped off.
And who are you to judge how other people make a living?
I'm in no better position to judge how other people make a living than you are, and you're still doing it. If you can say it's good why can't I say it's bad?
I'm not attacking you. I'm defending my position that ethics/morals play a definite part in this decision, and that those ethics/morals are bad.
dislekcia said:
Every impulse and argument that reduces people to less than other beings we should empathise with is something that should be fought against tooth and nail. Otherwise we risk the fallacy that a system that measures only acquisition of money (a market) is also good at measuring other things (like skill or compassion or "worth"), which it isn't.
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3. Nothing else to say about that, really. :)
@dislekcia: unfortunately there's good intentions, and then there's the real world, and while I agree with you on a high level - I also think your point of view is slightly naïve and not conducive to survival. Not wrong, just not realistic. It's funny how the most well-off members of society can afford to so easily and sweepingly comment on altruism and virtue, while the vast majority of the world is still just trying to survive on crumbs.
I'm not advocating that money be your own personal prime motivator (it's most definitely not mine) - I'm just saying let those to whom it is be, and lead by example.
Comments
I think this Gamasutra blergh post best explains my attitude to this brand of horror: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/AndreasRonning/20140203/209941/Poisoning_the_well.php
"Sigh. Haters gonna hate. Funny thing is the apps I make are probably better than half the shit most indie developers spend months of their lives on…then go broke." ~ Carter Thomas October 4, 2013
Seriously, he's tell you what, sadly, makes money; and your attitude to his honesty shows the difference between you being a game developer for the art and being a game developer as a business person.
My personal feeling is if you want to make a living as a game developer, at some point you need to ask people for money and that's not an immoral thing.
Now there are ways and ways of doing things and I would considr this guy is definitely on the naughty side, but if you had to sully your craft for a year in order to have cashflow for purist content the next, I don't see anything wrong with that.
What the mobile industry needs (in my opinion) is a steam like setup and some kind of control over the apps that get published, whether they choose them or let the public vote (greenlight) on them.
People like this (again imo) ruin this industry, game dev is an art, not a photo copy machine.
This is the kind of thing you'd report to the Advertising Standards Authority except, hilariously, nobody's spent anything except time and bandwidth on this crap except the ad companies. I wonder how this affects them, actually?
EDIT: I mean, beyond the obvious "Whooo! Now we can sell more hits!" effect. What about knocks to reputation for ads appearing in spamvertisement barrages? Just a crazy corollary thought.
I'm actually all for derivative works... as long as they contribute to the evolution of whatever it is they are derived from, and to the general culture, but this type of thing is just gross.
I don't understand the mobile games mentality (I mean market more then developers). The fact this works on people combined with the fact Dungeon Keeper got so many 5 star reviews. I have purchased only a handful of games on my mobile and I have been looking for games I like. But the market is full of the sort of cr*p spoken of here. Or FreeToPlay ripoffs that force the game to be broken in design.
The thing that bugs me is assuming you build a genuine valuable product you run the risk of dropping into obscurity before any potential players notice. Added to that is the long term effects of players getting educated that this is how it works.
How can we beat this?
Where can we go for good games?
What shall we do?
How do we go from haters to winners?
It is a difficult premise, and ends where the money probably will flow.
I'm sure the appstores love all the content...
The only time where IAP becomes a problem is where kids are concerned, because they are not equipped with the knowledge to know better and make informed choices.
You are on a forum full of independent game developers who have dreams and goals and visions who all work hard to achieve those and you've just dismissed every single one of those as 'pumping out generic copies of old classic games'. Classy.
To use an example, who here still plays Star Craft 2 as heavily as when it first came out? When it first launch that's the ONLY game people were playing; but I doubt someone like @dislekcia, who was in the top rankings, is playing as much of it as he used to. That ship has sailed and he's playing the next game.
Note: He is selling code for people to release shitty games and at the same time suggesting that buying his code will make you money.
Surely someone would have to be kind of gullible to just take his word that this is good business? It's not like this guy seems all that trustworthy.
I think any philosophy taken to the extreme is stupid. Pure tasteful games which keeps its developers poor forever is silly (barring of course the one or two lucked out ones which inevitably get pulled as examples to the contrary), and pure games for money is just baaaad.
But bitching about it and shaking your head at it won't help - what could change this dynamic? Is it building a more educated consumer base? How might anyone do that? Is it forgetting about the mobile appstore? Is that possible? Is it dancing a voodoo dance to the gods of Hra'lek? Where do we find the ritual?
Can we turn this into something constructive?
(in before someone will just says "make better games")
The point is that today there is no difference in the way you get a hit from 3 years ago. A good game will generate word of mouth via press or players or via advertising. Maybe advertising is more prominent now than before, and becoming more important, causing the rise to power of mobile publishers such as Kabam, but the game has not changes, and these rip off artist guys have been there since the start. The problem with user acquisition is not a battle against people like this, it is a battle against the vast amount of high quality apps specially created for the market.
Why waist your time and effort even discussing a guy like this anyway. Ignore him and let his post fade into nothingness to show him you are really apposed to the concept. ;)
Also unsure why there is a focus on IAP (IAP is not the problem). I think it's more the model of "reskinning" that is causing most people to cry foul. He even says in the article that IAP is not really worth it and that advertising is the way to make the money (and goes on to discuss how to maximise this income stream). He also readily admits that these are "cheap" and "throw-away" games. And I'm with @Fengol here, if it makes him money cool. I read it and my gut reaction was that this was not cool. I'm not sure why though. Maybe other people could try elaborate on their feelings of disgust?
I'm also with @Blackships this is essentially a marketing pitch for him, he doesn't really provide any proof that this methodology actually works. So treat it with a pinch of salt.
I think an aspect that maybe people are over looking is what the market *actually* is, and understanding that market is fragmented and that some of the people who play Candy Crush, or Lady GaGa GO GO or what ever other mass market game is out there will never and would never play "non-casual" games (and I use this term loosely). Is this guys games *actually* competing with you and your game? Is the problem that we assume that the mass market is even interested in playing "non-casual" games?
I think there is a legitimate discussion to have here if this model is sustainable, and good for the industry as whole. Flooding the market and racing for the bottom with cheap disposable games can't be a good thing if it requires predatory and exploitative means to then recoup the costs. Down this road government regulation lies, and frankly that is not something I want for the industry.
I have far more thoughts on this but I can't seem to express them well enough :/ Need more time to think
Now... if we can push emotion to the side for a moment... there are guys doing awesome/brilliant/ground breaking work - but normally these are the ones that do not point fingers and complain all the time - these are the true artists, and I applaud each and every one for doing it for the love of the art. I wish I could be like that, but I'm not - and I accept that.
But there's another world out there that has nothing to do with art and games, and it's called good business. And some people know how to exploit it to great effect. This may be an ethics issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with morals, because there's nothing actually wrong with it. They are not hurting anyone and they are not forcing anyone to do anything against their will - and the market clearly supports them in the way that counts the most: their wallets. Most people don't care about deep experiences that takes time and effort anymore - they want a quick fix and move on - and they are more than willing to pay for that portion of fun, even repeatedly.
Times are changing, business is changing, and the old ways of selling games are not viable anymore, and if you think you can do it better, then do it - but don't judge because someone else is making a buck - people have been doing it since the dawn of time - shady or otherwise...
Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings...
--
Edit: I'm not speaking of IAP per se, but rather that the market wants what they want (even if it's crap) and IAP just makes it so much easier to distribute crap. Just to be clear - I fully support the abolishment of crap everywhere - I'd just rather work on what I can do myself, and keep believing that if enough people can focus on creating unique/quality games - then maybe we can make a dent in the crap and bring back the goodness.
Very interesting insight I think :)
Lets consider this as if it was another market.
We discover that someone has a formula to make a restaurant that makes money in the over saturated food business. They do so by actually figuring out how to supply eatable goods (not food) that taste OK are dirt cheap and despite having no nutritional value. They set up shop next door to us and then new restaurants open all around all around us. Eventually people think all food is like this. They lump our food in the same category except more expensive so they don't buy from us all the while they complaining about the low quality of the food.
Now look at it like the person trying to find the good quality food i.e. I walk all around the mall but these food hacks are putting out this nasty food all over making it hard for me to find the one place I would appreciate the food. In fact I walk past that shop over and over never seeing the quality food as the other places have more money to advertise and lure me in with flashing lights and great marketing campaigns.
This is the failure of free market economics as it requires an informed purchaser and a balance or supply and demand. Supply in an electronic world is almost infinite the typical supply and demand aspects are literally removed. On the Mobile entertainment side we are seeing that failure highlighted better then most anywhere else.
Take a look at this blog http://zahablog.wordpress.com/concepts/where-markets-fail/market-failure-where-supply-does-not-demandat-least-socially/ specifically the section on Imperfect Knowledge… where they state outright ‘A scam is a market failure’ to me the stuff we are complaining about falls into the category. When I complain I am not complaining only as a producer but also as a consumer.
If you consider the goals of a free market then these products are arguable producing a failure in that objective and that certainly a reason to complain about them. The complaining has the possible outcome of getting the information to the consumers and potentially turning the situation around.
And for the record you certainly haven't hurt my feelings as I said I think its good to have this debate and it needs a champion for that side of the argument as much as this side.
The ethical man knows not to cheat on his wife.
The moral man does not cheat on his wife.
I'm not trying to make an "opposite" argument just for the sake of it. I'm taking the side of rationality - and my understanding of our history and the world beyond gaming and IT has a huge influence on my point of view.
@WelshPixie: Simply put: Morals define personal character, while ethics define a social system in which those morals are applied. All societies agree that murdering someone at the dinner table is bad - this is morally wrong. Some societies agree that eating the murdered person at the dinner table is bad - that's ethically wrong (in those societies).
The answer "there is nothing we can do about it" is so blindly diss-empowering and has been accepted too easily throughout history. Its only when people no longer accept "there is nothing we can do about it" we see the most change and more often then not that change moves us to a better place for all.
For the record if you look back over history you will see that the free market concepts and ideas come to play because people decided there was something they could do about it. This was actually to the best of my knowledge only in the 18 hundreds. Before then the choice to partake in a specific trade was decided by kings or blood lines, I am sure then people also said "there is nothing we can do about it". They were clearly wrong.
I for one refuse to become someone that believes nothing can change but rather be someone that will stand for that change and argue against the statuesque when I can see its not in the best interests of everyone.
As for the rest of your post I'd like to respond, but you misquoted me, which sort-of distorts my message a little bit:
Keep in mind, it's not only developers that are struggling - console makers, pc makers, the whole eco system is struggling. The consumerised mobile world is the new "in" thing, and unless you flood the market with good games (for mahala), there's no way you will be able to compete in that world without breaking some eggs...
However, there's still a market for games outside of the mobile world where we can hold on to our pride (for now) - the audience is smaller, the bucks is less... but we can still uphold the art of gaming... or something to that tune...
EDIT: If you meant which press and forums, I mean them all, pocket game is a good start though, but IGN and all those ones too.
@welshpixie: why do you insist on arguing against a point that I'm not making?
Either you made the point or you're really bad at putting your actual point across.
I once had someone explain that "morals are how you treat people you know, ethics are how you treat people you don't know" and that's a pretty good benchmark. They both come from the same root - how you behave and what is acceptable or not acceptable behavior. I don't see how appealing to money being the most important factor of judgement of behavior has anything but an erosive impact on both ethics and morals.
"It's good business" isn't a justification for anything. "Good business" is not spending money on R&D when you don't have to (just don't call it stealing ideas). "Good business" justifies outspending your competition's marketing budget and having to pay smaller salaries to compensate and remain profitable. "Good business" is forever shortsighted and bad at planning because reputations aren't fungible and you have to answer to the shareholders every year. "Good business" is stealing and not getting caught. "Good business" is paying the fine because it's cheaper than changing your process. "Good business" is exploitative and dehumanising because that way everyone's too afraid to leave their jobs and complain.
We instinctively punish cheats at a genetic level. We're selected as a species to be altruistic because it's how you survive inter-group competition. We're also genetically terrible at numbers - too many people and suddenly they're not human like we are anymore. Every impulse and argument that reduces people to less than other beings we should empathise with is something that should be fought against tooth and nail. Otherwise we risk the fallacy that a system that measures only acquisition of money (a market) is also good at measuring other things (like skill or compassion or "worth"), which it isn't.
my message is only clouded by your own over-sensitive assumptions. But let me simplify, because I'm not famous for my eloquence.
exploiting children is bad. Exploiting a market is good. Business 101.
selling crap is not the same as selling stolen goods.
no. Indies should spend time on making their own, better games. And who are you to judge how other people make a living?
yes. 90% of indies are also just generating crap which does not help our cause. I understand the educational value, but that's where it ends.
Now, if you're done attacking me, let's move on please.
I'm not attacking you. I'm defending my position that ethics/morals play a definite part in this decision, and that those ethics/morals are bad. <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3. Nothing else to say about that, really. :)
I'm not advocating that money be your own personal prime motivator (it's most definitely not mine) - I'm just saying let those to whom it is be, and lead by example.