| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (35)

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 9:04AM aaradun said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
People don't snicker about games that ask money upfront only cheap people do. The vast majority will pay for a game if it actually a quality game. This game just isn't

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 9:29AM Rodj Blake said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@aaradun

Yep, I'd much rather know how much I'll be paying up-front instead of getting something for "free" and then having to pay for all of the essential "optional" extras.
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 9:52AM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@aaradun The point is that the indie market exists for a reason. If we do not take a chance on many of these games, they will never have the resources to grow and become even better.

People do snicker at the thought of paying for a game these days...the ones that do not get laughed at are either based on an existing IP or are being touted as something special. People will easily pay 60 bucks for SWTOR, without ever playing it, based simply on the IP. This is why the "AAA" market continues to pump out generic title after generic title.

If you want something different, (games that aren't generic fantasy, different design, etc) you have to take a chance on indie gaming, period. It's the same with music or movies. If you don't, you're stuck listening to Lady GaGa while watching the latest Ben Affleck flick.

Beau
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 11:19AM paterah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Beau is positive as always here but let's be honest. Noone in his right mind is gonna take a gamble of $50 about a basically unheard game (outside of the MMO scene at least). I have bought so many indie games especially on Steam on the price range of 10-20 dollars and even if some were below average I know I got some bits of enjoyment out of them. What we have here is some first time devs asking for 50 and then 15 for what seems to be a very average and forgettable game. And the sad part is that apart from a few gimmicks like the minions and estate system it is a very generic MMO. No wonder is suffers from "poor growth".
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 11:26AM Saker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman Why do people make fun of Ben Affleck so? He's a good actor, also (good) writer/director. Extremely smart (anyone who's seen him on Bill Maher's show had to have been impressed by how smart, and quick witted the guy is) and hey gotta be honest, pretty freakin good looking! just sayin...
As for indies i agree they need to be supported on the one hand, but paying for incomplete games is something I can't really tolerate from any company big or small. That has unfortunately been the rule (not so much the exception) in game companies MMO or otherwise this tolerance and acceptance for selling unfinished and/or bug-ridden games.
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 11:34AM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Saker Well, to be fair...how would know it was incomplete unless you have tried it? That does point to the obvious need for a trial (they have buddy codes, so try the forums and see if you can nab one.) A trial will be coming in the future, too.

My point was that people will gladly pay 50 or so dollars for a game from a popular IP simply because....just like we will go pay for another crappy Transformers movie, just because....? lol

I do agree, though, that paying for incomplete. The point is that with an indie developer, sometimes the product is not as slick or perfect as another game that cost 150 million. We have to accept that. Luckily, we get past the fact that the indie movie isn't lit perfectly or has the best special effects, because at its core the movie is good. The same applies to games. It's not an excuse (someone said above) -- it's just the truth.

So, yeh...I would love the trial to appear SOOOOOON. :)

Beau
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 11:54AM MMOaddict said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

Sorry, but the track record of late for Indy games is not too good. I've purchased MO, Earthrise, Xsyon and Darkfall Online based on their feature list and trying to help an Indy company out. 1 out of 4, Darkfall Online, was the only one worth my money/effort. The rest were horrific and I regret every penny and minute I wasted on MO, Xsyon and Earthrise. It won't happen again.

Also, for the IPs you were talking about, like SWTOR, you are partly right in that people will just buy it because it's Star Wars, but at least with SWTOR, we have a TON of information, gameplay videos, etc. in order to make a nice informed decision. As opposed to buying something like The Force Unleashed for consoles. So, in other words, giant difference on how the games are presented these days.
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 4:16PM ImperialPanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

I don't agree that indie games are inherently more creative than those from developers with publisher backing.

For every Minecraft you have a DMC1, Okami, or LA Noire.

Indie games are different from "AAA" games in that they have different production values. Good AAA games are good high-production games meaning they have a lot of features and neat graphics. Good indie games are good low-production games that don't have the luxury of an army of artists and programmers.

But both are just as creative and well-designed.

It does feel good to root for the small guy though, doesn't it? :P
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 4:23PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ImperialPanda I'm not sure I said that they were more creative, etc, but different. Also, it is obvious that I am using a majority figure to come to that conclusion, not a figure that represents everything on both sides.

In other words, yes I know the indie market is not all full of winners, either, but remember that we aren't talking console or PC standalones here, we are talking MMOs. There is a very clear line drawn between independent and "AAA" games. Basically the "AAA's are the ones calling themselves that! hehe

If you look at the "AAA" releases of the last 3 years, you will see what I mean. I'm not saying they're bad games...but I am saying that they take less chances. They can't...too much money is at stake.

Beau
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 6:33PM Seffrid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

"People do snicker at the thought of paying for a game these days."

Some people do. Not everyone does.

Many of us have still to find a pure F2P title (as opposed to a hybrid model) that has sufficient depth and variety to match the better P2P or hybrid titles, and quite a few of those who enjoy the F2P titles end up paying just as much as if it were a P2P one. That will increasingly become the case as developers milk the cash shop cow for all its worth and more besides.

Ultimately people want quality, and at least above a certain age most people are prepared to pay for it. When the pure F2P titles can compete with the P2P and hybrid F2P/P2P titles then more people will play them.

Pure F2P games appeal primarily to those with no attention span, they can flit from one game to another without making any commitment, as well as to those whose job it is to promote F2P titles, along with those who have personal axes to grind against the established P2P developers.

Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 11:35PM ImperialPanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

Yeah that's true. FFXIV did take a chance though, although they failed miserably.

But if you're using the actual definition of "independent," then I think the field is more even. Trion Worlds is an independent developer; is Rift really *that* different? AoC was made without backing from any video game publisher.

Perhaps a better distinction is whether a game is high-budget or low-budget. Just because a developer is independent does not mean they're homeless. They can still have significant financial resources and be under the same pressures.

Anyways yes, generally you are free to be more experimental with game design if there isn't an exorbitant amount of money on the line. And in MMOs yeah they tend to cost much more than developing a game of any other genre.

However, I still think "taking a chance" on these games just because they're indie is just as silly as paying $60 for a game just because of the IP. And like MMOaddict said, more often than not you get the short end of the stick. If the game isn't good, then don't feel compelled to buy it just because the people who made it is indie. This isn't charity.
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 11:36PM ImperialPanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ImperialPanda

This thread has gotten too long for me I think I may have gotten turned around a few times at some point. :P
Reply

Posted: Jul 20th 2011 11:16AM Transientmind said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

I'd love to take more chances on Indie games, but how many times can you get bitten before you start getting shy? I'm not a charity here. But i tried, I really did! But... Mortal Online? Tabula Rasa? Earthrise? And even though it seemed like a sure thing and a safe bet... dear god FFXIV.

I've been hurt, Beau. I've been hurt bad.
All I want now is to be swept up safely in Jennifer Hale's arms as she wisecracks and murders a path to safety.
Reply

Posted: Jul 20th 2011 11:23AM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Transientmind Then the question is: how many times have you paid for, and later abandoned, a subscription based or "AAA" game? The point is that indie games are many....have you tried Wurm Online? Alganon? Wizard 101? Ryzom? Spiral Knights?

There are toooonnnnns out there that cost nothing. Keep looking. :)

Beau
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 9:05AM Nandini said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Was Heatwave upfront about its employees going to Metacritic yesterday to vote the title's user ratings up? It has not gone unnoticed.

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 10:43AM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nandini
dude, that's a serious allegation you just made there about someone's business ethics as a company.

You have any proof to back that up or just read it?
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 11:10AM Nandini said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom

I just read it. That's why I was asking if there was any more information about it.
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 11:39AM Saker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom "business ethics as a company"
What a wonder concept, unfortunately it's just pr-bs-spin from the chamber of commerce-scum. Unless you can find a line for it in their holy-ledger-book it doesn't exist.
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 5:35PM Vazzaroth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nandini

Honestly, I think this sort of thing happens almost constantly with anything less than huge game companies.

I have personally been asked by employers in the game industry to log onto websites and "upvote" a product en masse. Luckily it was not required of me explicitly and I did not partake. I no longer trust any reviews or ratings on Amazon or Android marketplace that are a little too positive...


I played G&H in beta, it felt about 8 years old, which is unsurprising based on the game's development cycle. It was surprisingly good, but that's with extremely low expectations in the first place. At the time, at least, it lacked most of the features that we've all agreed a Themepark MMO needs, IE clear quest objective summaries and markings on the map, informative tool tips, responsive UI. I do like more companies looking for low-entry methods that aren't free to play. I love the concept of free to play w/ a sub, but I despise all the cash shops in those games. If I'm subbing to a game, I want %100 of the game, not 90% or less.

I think GW/GW2 has it right. You either need a Cash shop and no sub whatsoever, or a sub w/ no microtransactions.
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2011 9:12AM Ably said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
themepark mmorpg #437264 doesn't run well? what a surprise!

how about delivering unique gameplay, instead of taking the railroad on themeparkhill down into mediocrity?

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW