Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

This happy medium is just the best we can reasonably hope for.

No, not selling out at all is the happiest medium, and one we should ethically and reasonably expect. Those who say, "Just don't buy it" seem to think that there are endless streams of competent game companies ready to fulfill every niche. In fact, those that arise and are praised by their niche consumers often do sell-out to the mainstream eventually, and leave a gaping void. In effect, you say to us abandoned supporters, heartlessly enough, "Shut up and buy no games at all! Your niche doesn't matter. Stop liking what ten million people don't like."

Niche audiences are getting more and more attention, mostly thanks to various effects of the internet.  So it is getting more reasonable to expect quality niche service.  Honestly, I think we can only complain that our niche isn't being served in a quantity that keeps us satisfied, but that's just an unfortunate quality of niche status.  We can not reasonably expect large amounts of resources being targeted at disproportionately small audiences.  It's just not practical given our current way of life.

Remove money from the equation, and everything would be niche.  People wouldn't bother creating unless they actually believe they have something to offer, and that offer would be specific to their own interests, which by that nature would appeal to a smaller ratio of the populace than the current method of "Let's throw together the lowest common denominators of everything that manages to make profit."  We'd have less quantity overall, but a better distribution of it and a probably a massive improvement in quality.

[Sordid]

If you include cottage industry, there are tons of people producing goods for the love of the craft.

Do they? If that were the case, they'd be willing to give it away for free. Since they aren't (at least the vast majority), money clearly is part of the motivation. Maybe not the main part, but still pretty significant.

Another brother-in-law does work as a volunteer fireman for free because he dreamed to be a fireman as a child.

See? That's what I'm talking about. But that's not how he makes his living, is it?

No, not selling out at all is the happiest medium, and one we should ethically and reasonably expect. Those who say, "Just don't buy it" seem to think that there are endless streams of competent game companies ready to fulfill every niche. In fact, those that arise and are praised by their niche consumers often do sell-out to the mainstream eventually, and leave a gaping void. In effect, you say to us abandoned supporters, heartlessly enough, "Shut up and buy no games at all! Your niche doesn't matter. Stop liking what ten million people don't like."

I thought it was quite clear already. If you don't sell out a bit, chances are you won't be able to make enough money to support yourself and your company. What you're heartlessly saying to developers is "Your livelihood doesn't matter, satisfying my desire for entertainment that is exactly to my tastes is more important".

[Desdichado]

It's a surprise that only SalmonGod is willing to see creation as more than an economic activity, although I can't share his belief that non-mainstream gaming has enough production; but most here are far too cynically obsessed with money, and as a result, readily excuse greed in others. There is a reason that Greed has been villified since the earliest societies: there is no society that mindless greed and its apologists cannot destroy. Humanity thrives only by measured give-and-take.

 

If you include cottage industry, there are tons of people producing goods for the love of the craft.

Do they? If that were the case, they'd be willing to give it away for free. Since they aren't (at least the vast majority), money clearly is part of the motivation. Maybe not the main part, but still pretty significant.

Why would someone lovingly craft a thing, and then just give it away free for anyone to treat like worthless garbage? The new owner would hardly appreciate what cost him nothing to acquire. My brother-in-law who makes furniture sells it as pricey as he can manage. No shame in that, and no knock on his love of woodworking, since his craftmanship doesn't falter a bit. It does ensure that the new owner doesn't want to use his chair as busted-up kindling.

You're forcing the issue here. There is nothing against valuing one's own creations highly and selling them as costly as possible. It shows pride for one's work. Everything you said is made null by your false insistence that "loving craftsmanship == communism" when in fact the real communist economy caused notoriously shoddy products. As long as quality is there, I personally don't object, even to very high prices.

People ought to work hard, feel pride in their work, and expect others to value it; but selling a soulless cash-in for anything above bargain-bin prices is shameful.

See? That's what I'm talking about. But that's not how he makes his living, is it?

No. And my furniture-making brother-in-law does well enough in his real job that an occasional sale is not a serious part of his living, either. But he isn't going to give away a month's work on a dining set to any passing bum for nothing, either. That's just low self-esteem for one's creations.

I thought it was quite clear already. If you don't sell out a bit, chances are you won't be able to make enough money to support yourself and your company. What you're heartlessly saying to developers is "Your livelihood doesn't matter, satisfying my desire for entertainment that is exactly to my tastes is more important".

And I already pointed out some companies that manage well with no selling-out like Paradox. This isn't an emotionally-charged "I'm gonna starve!" scenario that you'd like to portray. Going mainstream is not about feeding families. It's about gassing up porsches. Okay, I will give you a chance to convince me. Go find me some programmers that starved because they only sold 100,000 units to a smaller base and not 10 million units to the mainstream.

[Sordid]

Why would someone lovingly craft a thing, and then just give it away free for anyone to treat like worthless garbage? The new owner would hardly appreciate what cost him nothing to acquire. My brother-in-law who makes furniture sells it as pricey as he can manage. No shame in that, and no knock on his love of woodworking, since his craftmanship doesn't falter a bit. It does ensure that the new owner doesn't want to use his chair as busted-up kindling.

Oh, so the cost to the customer is actually doing them a favor and teaching them to appreciate what they bought? I don't buy that, that's the most ridiculous, conceited, and self-righteous thing I've heard all day. If it was about the cost to the customer, the craftsman could for example stipulate that he will give his work to the customer for free if the customer donates a certain amount of money to charity. That way the customer would lose money (thus teaching them the value of the thing they 'purchased') and it would actually do some good in the world. But do craftsmen and artists do that? Nope, definitly not on regular basis. There is no way around the fact that people sell their work to get paid.

You're forcing the issue here. There is nothing against valuing one's own creations highly and selling them as costly as possible. It shows pride for one's work. Everything you said is made null by your false insistence that "loving craftsmanship == communism" when in fact the real communist economy caused notoriously shoddy products. As long as quality is there, I personally don't object, even to very high prices.

I'd lived in a communist economy, thank you very much, so I don't need your lecturing on its merits or lack thereof.

No. And my furniture-making brother-in-law does well enough in his real job that an occasional sale is not a serious part of his living, either. But he isn't going to give away a month's work on a dining set to any passing bum for nothing, either. That's just low self-esteem for one's creations.

What does that have to do with anything? I don't see what the quality of the work has to do with who you sell it to and for how much.

And I already pointed out some companies that manage well with no selling-out like Paradox. This isn't an emotionally-charged "I'm gonna starve!" scenario that you'd like to portray. Going mainstream is not about feeding families. It's about gassing up porsches.

Oh, so first you bang on about how charging money for one's work is nothing to be ashamed of, and now suddenly making tons of money is somehow immoral? So what would be the appropriate amount of money to make according to you, hm?

Okay, I will give you a chance to convince me. Go find me some programmers that starved because they only sold 100,000 units to a smaller base and not 10 million units to the mainstream.

I'm afraid that's not how it works. But you can convince me if you can find some developers who do as well as mainstream companies by making niche games of comparable quality.

[Neonivek]

the problem is that you can't really know whether you like it or not without buying it

Not that hard if you know yourself really well and you don't get suckered in by what you THINK you like.

[Gantolandon]

Oh, so the cost to the customer is actually doing them a favor and teaching them to appreciate what they bought? I don't buy that, that's the most ridiculous, conceited, and self-righteous thing I've heard all day. If it was about the cost to the customer, the craftsman could for example stipulate that he will give his work to the customer for free if the customer donates a certain amount of money to charity. That way the customer would lose money (thus teaching them the value of the thing they 'purchased') and it would actually do some good in the world. But do craftsmen and artists do that? Nope, definitly not on regular basis. There is no way around the fact that people sell their work to get paid.

Desdichado's argument was pretty conceited, but his point still stands. Why should working for money and working for satisfaction be mutually exclusive? Selling your work gives you cash which you use to satisfy your needs, it's pretty simple.

Still, the satisfaction from work is also a huge factor. You won't be able to be productive in the workplace you hate, even if they pay much more than the standard. This will more likely than not lead to many unwanted consequences.

I'd lived in a communist economy, thank you very much, so I don't need your lecturing on its merits or lack thereof.

Ah, the argument from national trauma. Its relevance here is nil, but given the fact you could have at most five years when the Berlin Wall fell, it's a bit ridiculous.

What does that have to do with anything? I don't see what the quality of the work has to do with who you sell it to and for how much.

There is a correlation here. The larger the group of your potential customers is, the harder is satisfying all of them. From some point you're pretty much forced to seek the lowest common denominator and spend huge amount of money for marketing and advertisement instead of improving your product.

Oh, so first you bang on about how charging money for one's work is nothing to be ashamed of, and now suddenly making tons of money is somehow immoral? So what would be the appropriate amount of money to make according to you, hm.

Here you are starting to beat up a strawman. The problem is not in earning too much money, but in decreasing quality of the product to maximize profits. Especially if the quality decrease is not transparent to the customer and more often than not he learns that only after buying the game.

Yeah, it is natural. Earthquakes are too, but we are not supposed to like them.

I'm afraid that's not how it works. But you can convince me if you can find some developers who do as well as mainstream companies by making niche games of comparable quality.

The point is that they don't have to do that well, especially when you pretty much define "doing well" by "being big". You also seem to mix up developer as a company with its workers. Most people who actually create the game don't see even a small part of the company profits, no matter how large they are.

[Sowelu]

If your creative efforts don't give you enough income to support yourself, then you have to take a second job.

Taking a second job takes a lot of time and energy away from your creative efforts.

"Supporting yourself" gets harder when you have to support a family and children, too.  Which is why people tend to 'sell out' or 'get real jobs' once they have family to worry about.  Hell, family also takes time, so it's hard for a family man to pull off the art + job double-life.  Also, art means you never really know when your next big hit is coming from:  If you work for a big publisher, your next paycheck is mostly ensured.  If you work in a garage, who knows?  You can't support a family on that.  Health insurance is pretty nice, too, but I guess only sellouts get that (in America at least, but let's not start that argument...my point is, not all luxuries are just luxuries).

So...Don't be too hard on people who can't follow all their artistic dreams.  Some of them have to make conscious choices to follow their OTHER dreams.  It's not fair to tell someone that just because they don't make ideal, perfect, indie games anymore for need of a steady paycheck to take care of their kids, that they shouldn't be allowed to work in games at all.

[KaguroDraven]

I'll put forth a basic idea that was mentioned in the show I mentioned a few pages back. Why don't game companies do the same thing as Movie ones? Put the biggest part of their budget into their crappy games that make them a ton of money, but set aside a decent portion for an 'indie' arm, not so much money is sent there that it would be a huge loss if the games don't sell well, but enough that the 'Indie' programmers have more than they would normally have to work with, if their ideas work out then the game company makes a shitton of money and can give the sequals or things based off of any innovation it brings to more experianced progammers.

[Sordid]

Why should working for money and working for satisfaction be mutually exclusive?

What part of "happy medium" did you not understand?

Ah, the argument from national trauma. Its relevance here is nil, but given the fact you could have at most five years when the Berlin Wall fell, it's a bit ridiculous.

Still more than you. But you're absolutely right, because the quality of living had instantly jumped to western standard the moment the Communist government toppled. And I'm being ridiculous? Pfft.
Also, you fail at elementary school math.

There is a correlation here.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Here you are starting to beat up a strawman.

You're one to talk.

The problem is not in earning too much money, but in decreasing quality of the product to maximize profits. Especially if the quality decrease is not transparent to the customer and more often than not he learns that only after buying the game.

And yet mainstream games tend to be much better made and polished than indie niche titles.

The point is that they don't have to do that well, especially when you pretty much define "doing well" by "being big". You also seem to mix up developer as a company with its workers. Most people who actually create the game don't see even a small part of the company profits, no matter how large they are.

I guess that would depend on the structure of the company, who owns it, and what kind of contract the people have with it. As with many other points, I don't see how that's relevant.

So...Don't be too hard on people who can't follow all their artistic dreams.  Some of them have to make conscious choices to follow their OTHER dreams.  It's not fair to tell someone that just because they don't make ideal, perfect, indie games anymore for need of a steady paycheck to take care of their kids, that they shouldn't be allowed to work in games at all.

My point exactly.

[SalmonGod]

Hell, family also takes time, so it's hard for a family man to pull off the art + job double-life.

I'm facing this nightmare myself.  Had my first kid 4 years before graduating from IUPUI with a 'Media Arts & Sciences' degree.  I learned a general knowledge of all digital art forms, but focused on 3d.  The last two years before graduation, I worked full time while raising the kid with my wife who is also a student.  Barely scraped by.  My second kid was born 4 days after I presented my capstone (which was a great success).

I lost so much sleep over this 4 year period that I don't think I'll ever feel the same.  I graduated in fall of 2008.  Since then, I've been torn between supporting my wife while she finishes school, keeping my sanity afloat while working at this job that I hate so much. and working towards a digital art career.  I'm pretty sure I have the talent and ideas to make it independent, but that takes a huge up-front investment of time to make my first product.  I don't think I have much hope of getting hired into a major company in the near future, because I've never had the time to build up a good portfolio or do any internships.  Plus, there are very few jobs in my field in the midwest.  I'd most likely have to move hundreds of miles away from everyone I know, which is a big deal when my son is diabetic and my immediate family (who went through training with us when he was diagnosed) are the only people who can babysit him for us whenever we need to get shit done.  I only get 1-2 hours of free time a night, which I can either put towards career building or relaxing.  I got frustrated with the pace of things a few months after I graduated, and announced that I was giving up gaming until I got a better job.  That lasted two weeks before I got a MRSA infection that put me in the hospital for 10 days and almost took my arm.  Doctors blamed it on stress.  I've accomplished almost nothing since then.

So yeah.  Creative industry is not easy.  I don't blame people, especially with families, for selling out to a reasonable extent.

[freeformschooler]

I would just like to say that this has been a great thread. I have got my giggles for the day.

Anyway, the author was on most things spot-on. I agree that he wasn't trying to make bad games seem good, just make people understand why there are so many.

My problem with newer games is that publishers put draconian copy protection on already awful games. Said games are thrice rehashed versions of a game/engine that was previously/originally developed by the implicit studio in question. Said game therefore does not appeal to the "new games are awful for a hundred different reasons even though the real reason is that they are not like my old games that I used to play and am now viewing through my nostalgia glasses". New games as a topic is one gargantuan clusterfuck that envelops a similar amount of time from the old guys willing to argue as the time taken by said games from people who are going to be buying and playing them regardless of what crotchety old people think about them, thus keeping the games business afloat, controversial and talked about. It's a bubble, really. A bubble of strife and glorious moneymaking. So sums up my problem with new games.

Also, SalmonGod, thank you for adding a whole lot of realism, there.

[Sordid]

My problem with newer games is that publishers put draconian copy protection on already awful games.

I tend not to mind very much, because I just download cracks for my legit games. Requiring the CD to be in the drive was acceptable back when HDDs were so small you couldn't afford to copy all the data to the installation directory, but that hasn't been the case for a decade now. I'm not a fucking juggler, and I have better things to do than keep swapping discs.

[Sowelu]

Lol people who don't use Steam.  Why waste time cracking your legit stuff?  Steam just works.

/flame on

[Darvi]

Because my account is blocked?

[Taricus]

Because mods don't work as easily with it?