Don't monetise your games

I kinda get what the article is getting at, but I disagree.

Money is an ugly reality of living in the real world, and I don't think anyone should feel like they need to apologize for making a living.

So yes, new people should focus on learning, but part of that learning needs to include things like putting ads in your game. And I think that whoever makes the next Flappy-Bird should get their dues.

This whole money doesn't matter thing is just kinda, well, snobby to me.

 

Money is just a way to decide who lives and dies in any system in which you have finite resources with an uncapped population

Too bad we didn't balance the rules at all. A small percentage of the population owns a large percentage of the money. Some will live with extra comforts and precious materials at the cost of thousands that will be homeless and starving. Is it fair? Is it right? If people can live on 60,000-100,000 a year, why have a system that gives most people less than that and then very few people earn millions+ a year?

Or the next 5 night's at freddy's. Scott's prior games were ... not as good.

"The Pilgrim's Progress - A huge world to explore, an innovative battle system and a deep and uplifting story based on the greatest Christian novel of all time!"

 

Of course money matters. Very much a bummer but still a fact of living as a modern human being participating in the modern world.

Money is important. I think we can all agree on that. But why is someone making their very first game or three even thinking about the money part? If a person wants more money that is what jobs are for. That is one surefire way to make money. Another way to get money is to work freelance. Get some odd jobs / projects do the work and get paid. That is another fairly easy way to make money. All that is being said is to focus entirely on learning and improving game design skills in the beginning. The beginning. The first game or two or three. The odds are very high those first games will make very little to no money anyway. So spending time thinking about and implementing monetization methods is not an efficient use of time.

Spending time designing games, learning skills necessary to build the games, getting experience as a game developer and learning what players want is an efficient use of time. When a person understands what makes a great game and what players (at least in their target market) want then work on monetization. So it's not a matter of never ever try to make money from games. That would be silly. It is don't focus on making money from your very first game or two or three. That is the time to learn and improve your skills so you CAN make games that will make money.

The advice is not to hold people back and prevent them from making money from games. It is intended to help them waste less time and get to the point where they can make money from games faster. At least that is how I see it. But still all of this focus on money is a bit strange in that there are other better ways (as in much more likely to make money) than making games especially in the beginning. If a person needs money so bad they are making their first game or two thinking about how to make as much money as possible from it that should tell them they need to get a job asap or a better job or maybe a second job or find projects they can do to get the money they need right now.

 

The original article of gamasutra is no help cuz it says too matter of course. But I don't find any wrong thing about thinking of monetization from the first of make game.

You will know yourself even before make game. This game will be fun or not. If the answer is no, then why make that game? It can be learning, but no return money is sure thing that does not need to be uncovered.

When game design fails from the start, it will have no or less fun, then the efforts, money, time you input to that will not be compensated by money cuz lack of fun. That's all.

Its not pro's world. It seems amateur's world, logic. And if you are pro, or producer, you should think game's fun, marketability, money before start project.

 

Yes, this is part of the problem I have with the current obsession with monetization. Developing games is a terrible way to make money. It's insanely risky, even for big-budget titles with tons of money to throw at marketing. For small-time indies it can be even riskier. You can pour years of work into a single title, and get no money back for all your effort. And during that time you won't be making money either.

Even for employed developers working for major studios games are a terrible way to make money. The vast majority of them are grossly underpaid compared to what they could be making in other industries.

For the odd CEO or business owner, there is a cash-out when they sell their company or intellectual property. For most game developers, though, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Most indie developers will never "hit-it-big."

 

Agreed. I don't "get it". Sure I can understand the dream of someone making their first or second game, releasing it and it is a big hit with 100,000+ downloads the first week. It is the same as people dreaming of winning the lottery. But to take it so seriously that you focus on the money part so much is just not wise. It is a waste of time.

Worst case scenario is a person releases their first few games for free and get a few more downloads due to no ads or permissions needed or charging up front. Think of it like sending a probe out into the market to collect data. Feedback. Use the feedback to make a better game. That is a logical process to follow.

At the other end if one of the first games actually is the rare case of being phenomenally popular they have not really lost anything. Their game will be all over the Internet featured in various articles. Their next game that has ads or is charged for will likely see a good degree of popularity, at least initially, even if it sucks. They can also make an update for their hit game the very next day or two to monetize it. They can make a YouTube video channel for "how I made so-and-so game" and earn ad revenue from their videos. They can write a book about their success story.

I just think people don't understand all of the options that are available to them if, by a miracle or trial-and-error, they make a hit game. They seem to think if they don't get those ads in right at launch all will be lost. They are so focused on missing out on 50 cents in ad revenue they put time on monetization that should have been put into game design, development and improving their skills and understanding their market to increase the chances of them getting that hit in the first place.

 

Let me give you a little real-world example from the bigger-budget mainstream industry.

EA developed the latest entry in the SimCity series with monetization in mind. They wanted to keep it out of the hands of pirates, and make cash-money. They wanted to microtransact the crap out of it. And in service to these motivations, they had the developer significantly alter numerous core aspects to the original design of the game.

Cities: Skylines was made by a small Finish team who wanted to make a city-building game. It was a genre they were passionate about, and had been working towards for quite some time. Some of their previous titles had been a kind of proof-of-concept for what would eventually become Cities: Skylines. After the debacle that was SimCity, Cities: Skyline's publisher gave them the greenlight to develop their game, and didn't muck around with their design to try to make the game more of a money-maker.

One of those games turned out well. The other did not. One of those games could very well be popular and successful for years to come. The other is a cautionary tale for what happens when you focus too heavily on monetization when designing games.

It's looking like Cities: Skylines is going to be a financial success. They are generating the kind of sales that will make the game profitable for both the developer and the publisher. And no one is going to grudge them that. It's good to see solid effort being rewarded. But they designed the game to be good, before they designed it to be marketable. And the market has spoken on how it feels about that approach.

 

I think there's a huge difference between someone who is learning putting ads in a game, and a morally bankrupt company cannibalizing their property to push the limits of what their consumers will tolerate.

Well...

This is kind of a huge concept I have in the back of my head that I'll try to make manageable.

This simple truth is that while the video game market is considered "saturated" and that's why so many games fail, I think the reality is that an overwhelming amount of games made are simply sub-par in design, art, content, and execution. You hear about all these games that fail, but to be brutally honest 95% of those failures never stood a chance because they should have never been released in the first place.

I think that people need to learn to be more critical of themselves and learn to release products that aren't a waste of everyone's time. You need to put in the time, put in the polish, and pay for the assets that you need. And if you do do all those things, then the market isn't as saturated as it seems.

And for the developers that do put in all that time, effort, and money but still doesn't catch on, they need to get right back on that horse and try again until it does. And when a game does catch on, the previous games that did not may get a second wind (especially if it's the same property). Popularity compounds exponentially and you need to keep re-investing to get that fire started.

But hey, that's just my personal observations and I'm currently a nobody at the moment so I guess time will tell with my hypothesis.

 

And I never said that it was bad to put ads in your games. Tacking on a little monetization at the end, after the game has already been designed and developed, isn't the problem we're talking about. And we aren't advocating that all early games should just be free all the time. If a game that was once free gets enough attention, and the developer wants to release a game+ version that they sell, more power to them. This is an approach that Flash games have often taken.

No, I'm speaking out against the trend in the industry to encourage every new developer to become the next Zynga. To focus so intensely on the business aspects of the industry that they allow those considerations to seep into their game's design from the word go. That's the trend that I find worrying. And it all starts with the initial motivation. When you train students to approach game design from a mercenary perspective, it forever clouds their view of what games can be.

There needs to be a space where students and hobbyists can experiment freely, without approaching this craft with an eye for making games that sell. But all I hear from even small indies is the importance of monetizing. For people actively trying to make a living, it is a constant consideration. For those who haven't made that leap yet, I don't think it is fair to have such views pushed on them.

 

You hit the nail on the head. I have mentioned several times in posts about all of these people coming into game dev for the money. Or chasing the dream of making money. I think that is also a big part of why we see so many people working on their first game and focused on monetization. They read about Flappy Birds, Minecraft and other games that have found rare phenomenal success and they figure geesh I wouldn't need anything close to $50k per day. I would be happy with just $500 per day or even $50 per day. That should be easy to get! And so it begins. Others I am sure you are right they hear other people pushing the importance of monetization from the very beginning.

Bottom line is I don't see nearly as much focus on how awesome game development is and on making awesome games as I do on making money. At least here on these forums. It stands out to me because other forums and groups I participated in the people were all focused on the actual games themselves including a lot of focus on the software engineering side. Algorithms and so forth. Usually the projects were made and just put online completely for free and some released as open source.

I do not understand why there is so much focus on the money side here. Although I think the media ranting and raving every time some game hits it big is a huge part of why game dev is turning from something done for passion into something done right from the start to make some money. The sad part is game dev is not the best way to make money. It is not even a good way to make money quickly or easily. Sure... if a person gets some success and grows a business over years or if they hit the lottery with a Flappy Bird kind of hit... then it is a good way to make money. But the odds of the latter are so tiny and the expectation of money and consequent disappointment from even the very first game makes it unlikely most will stick with this long enough and learn enough to grow a business.

You can see the resistance right here in this thread. To set aside monetization for the firet game or two or three and focus on game design, dev and understanding what players want. It is a very reasonable bit of advice but people just cannot get that money part out of their heads. Lol

 

I dont think its a good idea. If your not at least trying to sell your app, then you arent going to try as hard (something doesnt quite work properly -- your like meh its only a free app why should i care). If you know you wont get any money back from it (100% sure of it) then your going to be less likely to invest money into good looking art/music assets. Your games probably wont have as much polish on them as they would if you were trying to sell it. I'd say why dont you try to actually sell it, Im sure you'll be motivated to work harder etc. Then when your game doesnt succeed make it free.
=

 

My experience was the opposite. There were parts of the game I knew were broken. But I was in a hurry to deploy it so I could start making money. I've found reputation is a bigger motivator to get things right.

 

I guess it really depends on the person if you can motivate yourself and your team to take it all the way, if theres no possibility of making a dime then great.

 

Why not hone your craft AND make money at the same time? This is America, after all

"Hone your craft" is pretty personal. People learn and grow in different ways.

Furthermore, to me this implies there is a point in your life where you can cease to "hone your craft" and live the rest of it a master. That's not true. You can ALWAYS improve. So how long do you hold off trying to make a living?

People widely regard Shigeru Miyamoto as the greatest game designer of all time. Mario 64 and OoT probably the greatest games ever. Miyamoto wasn't satisfied with them. He's called them unfinished and wanted at least a year more to work on them. He was disappointed in Nintendo's first attempts into HD with the Wii U. His creations have generated BILLIONS of dollars. Yet he's never fully satisfied. The guy is 62, retirement age, and he could easily retire as a millionaire regarded as the most important person in the entire industry. But he still works as hard as he did when he was in his 20s.

If anything, deliberately limiting yourself from the goal of selling your work as a legitimate product seems to me something that will keep you from honing your craft. Your ambition has to always be higher than your grasp or you'll never grow. Miyamoto's first attempt at making a video game was Donkey Kong. Imagine how different video games would be now if he had the attitude that it wasn't worthy enough to be sold for a price

 

Well this is basically what this is all about. Miyamoto had experience in building toys before starting at Nintendo. Something he did for fun. Miyamoto was involved in the creation of several arcade shootemup type games sort of like Space Invaders and others of the day. His first own game design was Donkey Kong. He drew heavily from the expertise of Gunpei Yokoi, a Nintendo veteran. He did the design including story and characters not any of the actual development. Not taking anything away from the man. He is a legend and created some of the most popular franchises in gaming history. Just saying he hardly just woke up one day made a game and decided to make money with it. He had a lot of experience in art, creating comic books and building toys before ever getting a job at Nintendo and getting involved in the creation of other video games before doing Donkey Kong. Although I think his involvement was mainly limited to the outside cabinet design & art and so forth but still he was in the industry working with experienced people on video games. And he had that experience of building toys which, as far as I know, he never attempted to sell but simply did it because he enjoyed it. Which is the same thing that drove him to accept the interview his dad set up for him at Nintendo.

Again, it is not about limiting anything. It is simply be willing to make a game or two or three and focus on the fun of doing so, improving the game designs and so forth. Obviously, anyone can try to monetize their very first games and most seem to be doing that. And it appears that most are finding out it was not worth doing so. I wonder though how many people if they had not been exposed to all of this talk of monetization and seen all of the hoopla over Angry Birds, Flappy Bird, Minecraft and so forth raking in money... how many would have been content to simply design their first game or two or three just for fun and to get better at making better games? Instead the focus from the beginning has switched to monetize.

It's kind of like anything else. A person could decide they want to build bird houses or maybe full size log cabins. So they take their first shot at it and learn a lot in the process. They could start trying to sell their very first work or they could give them away for free just to get feedback about what people like and what they don't like. Then take what they have learned from the design & development experience as well as the feedback and go through a couple more iterations until they are making a better product. Then try to sell that one. Again, nobody is saying never try to make money from games. Basically people are saying it is rarely worth focusing on making money from your very first game or two or three.

 

How many would be content if they knew some of the history behind those games? Angry Birds, Dwarf Fortress, Flappy Bird, and Minecraft all share one thing in common. Their developers had extensive experience.

Angry Birds was Rovio Entertainment's fifty-second attempt at creating a mobile game.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/24/i...quarters-photo-gallery/?utm_source=scoopinion

Dwarf Fortress developers Tarn and Zach Adams had been developing games since childhood. Their first fantasy game dragslay was written in BASIC during sixth grade, but they had developed games earlier than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarn_Adams

Flappy Bird creator Dong Nguyen had been developing games since he was 16. At the date of Huffington Post's news article he was 29. Therefore he was 28 at the time he released his game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flappy_Bird#Development
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/flappy-bird-dong-nguyen_n_4737327.html

Minecraft's Markus Persson began learning programming at the age of seven on a Commodore 128. He released the alpha at the age of 30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Persson#Biography

 

You look around the forums too. Almost all of the success stories (in terms of real money that allows independent living) are from people with histories of game development. Most of the successful indies learned their trade working for other companies. A few built their way up from the ground. No one made it on their first try.

(If anyone did make it first time without prior experiance I'd love to hear from them)

 

The guys who made paranatical activity made it on there first try, they just screwed up with the PR threatening to kill the gaben
They sold it some third party anyway and someone made a mint off it -- over 100k units sold at $10 a pop (though probably most of those were from sales of some sort).
http://steamspy.com/app/250580

 

I'm not 100% sure that's true, I think I have heard over the years of a few cases of first-time success (though admittedly I can confirm precisely none of them). It's kind of irrelevant, though, because like someone said before it's like winning the lottery - it's certainly not impossible and it does happen from time to time, but you can't plan on it happening to you.

The thing is that people often raise supposed first-time successes as the basis of their plans without realising that. For every Angry Birds there's at least a hundred Crush the Castles. Ignoring that is nothing but confirmation bias.

Also, semi-related is that many of the examples often cited as first-time successes just flat out aren't:

 

Well angry birds wasnt there first rodeo, they had made 50 other games before that one.


The guys who made ziggarut made a bunch of games before hitting relatively big (62k units at $15 a pop) but that took 25+ games
http://www.milkstonestudios.com/
http://steamspy.com/app/308420

 

The first try thing - some people win the lottery, most don't.

 

There are always some exceptions to the rule. Tom Francis had a hit with his first ever game Gunpoint. He was already a games journalist so was arguably already in the industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpoint_(video_game)

 

It is worth emphasizing that they were successful not because they focused on monetizing their game but rather because they focused on developing a good game. Tom Francis already had understanding of what games a good game, but he didn't stop there. He released a working prototype to measure interest and collect feedback.

 

I think from the artistic point of view I agree totally. While this concept is hard on your finances, it is the only way to produce quality games. I think it is the better longterm strategy to have success. So I agree completely with Bored Mormon

 

I've always found the premise simple, you need money to throw at it to gain anything back (to at least get what you need to make the best product you can). As everyone says, there are simple clones of everything so to stand out you have to go all in. Which takes more time, money and experience..

I've never seen a truly successful game appear by fluke, marketing can vary (word of mouth like Minecraft) but the premise of a good product still sticks. None of this is really a lottery, it's common sense in most cases..

If you can't build a reputation, you need a marketing budget.

It's up to the developer to be objective and I've seen a lot of Indie games lacking, if you can't go all in. Someone else can...

 

I agree with the premise of the article. I didn't read the link, but I read most of the comments in this thread so I think I have a pretty good idea of what its about and the vast variety of stances taken on it.

My take on this:

Many a time a new opportunity appears and gets lots of press or many people find very appealing.

I mean who wouldn't want to make games? Its like creating fun, putting your wildest imaginings in a very real form.
Youtube gaming personalities make money just by playing games which has loads of appeal. Who wouldn't want to play games to make money? What many don't realize is it takes lots of effort, time, frustration, sweat blood and tears to make it big on Youtube or Twitch and still make money doing it. Creating video requires a time investment (editing, skill development, talent, etc.), worse yet the initial investment for it is ridiculous!

My analogy for doing anything like being a Youtuber or a Twitch streamer is you pay a large sum for an initial investment (recording equipment, editing software, computer parts, bills, etc.), you work a full time job and you won't get paid a penny for the first year, or the next one. If you're really lucky you will make it with hard work; but only after a substantial amount of time has passed and work has been put in.

PewDiePie makes literally a million dollay annually I've been told; but you know what? He is actually quite an entertaining gamer and he is an extraordinarily lucky soul to have received so much. Seriously. Its dumb luck with all the other gamers making videos out there!

A million isn't much these days either. PewDiePie is an exceptionally rare case and you know who makes more than that in just a month? CEO's, executives, businessmen, etc. and they have loads more than just a high figure income.

The "market" for youtube videos is substantially saturated too. I think when people saw that other people could make a comfortable living doing it they thought "Hey I could do that too! It will be fun!". Those people were the few able to take in money for Youtubing, and I think the large audience exposure those people got helped multiply the spread of that image of "easy fun money".

Some Youtubers have made uploads about why you shouldn't go in to it expecting to make it rich quick. The world just doesn't work that way; and they're right. Some of those Youtubers say "I'm telling you DON'T do it! It will be a horrible mistake! You'll never make it!" And perhaps for the majority of those who try that will be true. But to tell someone they can't or they won't or making mistakes is a horrible thing is wrong and not true. Making mistakes is how you learn. Making mistakes are a good thing and nobody goes through life without making a multitude of them.

They aren't going to listen anyway. They may find out the hard way, like I did but I am glad I did. I learned that though video making is enjoyable; my real passion was to make games and program computers.


I feel sorry for those fools who actually made it big who had the express intention of making money, and who now lament that they are stuck. If those people even exist. Making money from Youtube videos is just as much a job as any other and to do a job you hate because you like the money is hell on earth. Simple as that. College advisors tell students not to choose a career based on the salary. Its good advice!

Plus to be any good at something I think you need a passion for it. You need some talent. The money will come later.

Don't ever go in to a career choice thinking you will make the big bucks instantly. Nobody strikes it rich overnight.

 

There is luck and LUCK, the first is pushed by value the second is totally lottery type.
Angry birds deserved it, Minecraft totally deserved it, Crossy Road although simple in concept you could see they spent lots of time polishing it and thinking through all the aspects of the game.

Flappy Birds on the other side didn't have anything to deserve it, it was a totally simple game like million already out there, didn't stand out for anything and become famous by pure luck.

Returning to Crossy Road. They could have chosen to make a paid game and maybe it would have flopped like many other. Instead the monetization is integral part of the gameplay, clearly spent lots of time around it and thus the bent the luck to their favor.

Moral of the story, don't believe who says that it's just luck. Sure in the end you'll need it, but you can make that 0.00000000001% chance of making it, a 1% if you do everything well.

 

Timing is key, quality of the product is another and uniqueness. If a genre becomes hot, and you get in it before it becomes totally over-saturated your laughing, you'll still need good production values, as it starts to fill up its going to be that much harder to stand out (your going to need practically AAA production values to stand out).

If you look at the rogue-likes list, its now 143 titles on steam, if you wanted to release a roguelike today you would need to be competing against hte best out there (and need really high production values). Lets look at two early adopters paranatical activity, fancy skulls and you can see the difference in terms of visuals and sales.
Paranautical Activity:180,655 units - $10 a pop, Release date: Oct 20, 2014
http://steamspy.com/app/250580
Fancy Skulls: Owners: 12,299, $8.99, Release Date Jun 16, 2014
http://steamspy.com/app/307090

If you look at 4089 another FPS roguelike -- hes too late to the party
Owners: 2,733 - $7.99, Release Date - Jan 9, 2015
http://steamspy.com/app/329770

You find something thats niche, theres nobody covering it, you find a hole in the market no your laughing. You dont need that great production values (but a pleasing art style) or even that much content (was less then 1 hours worth of gameplay)
IE Light - 30k units at ~$12 a pop.
http://steamspy.com/app/271730

You look at Depth - a unique underwater shark vs human multiplayer game. Cleaned up - 132,826 units at $25 a pop.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/274940/

 

If your game was good enough, then the money will go after you. So product is the first priority.

 

hmm , you are the only one ( you !) to think about you are going for monetise or not ..moot point discussion without context ..and everybody have right to make mistake ( mean try to get rich with what you think is the mega super game you made..) ..)...just rock'n roll and see for yourself

 

Well, I'd say that Angry Birds was a corperate clone job on a truly indy game, but that's another problem all on its own and I do agree with what you're saying... to an extent.

Flappy was 'lucky' in some ways, but they put in the time to pan for that gold nugget and I still think they should get their dues.

 

I can understand the subject in two ways:
1) don't monetize with ads - and thus make free games without ads
2) don't monetize with ads - but sell a game
i'm not going to make free game(s). so in any case the first is not an option for me, second one is all right

 

Except it sounds like you didn't understand the article at all. You absolutely should monetize your game... once you're experienced enough to make a game that will stand a reasonable chance. But before then you should give away some games to create a fan base that will eventually buy the games you do sell.

This is important for an indie developer as you aren't simply competing with a handful of other developers like a big studio but rather with millions of developers. Many of whom are capable of putting out a new game every quarter.

 

A high barrier of entry would've been nice for these market places. Too little too late. There's always 3rd party stores for those who itch to get their first games out. Hell, I plan on sticking with Newgrounds and Gamejolt until I "Git Gud".

edit: Then again, I see fallacies with too high of a barrier as well. Meh.

 

The point is, it doesn't matter at all. The only thing to consider is lack of feedback for a paid game. But to put an ad at gameover takes virtually no work at all, and it's another data point for your analytics. I don't see the value of wasting the opportunity to pop an ad in, and I doubt anyone is going to avoid downloading it because if that, considering it's the norm.

 

You make a game that gets played 250K times you will make money, whether or not you monetized that particular game.

I mean look at how many different ways we've been told that we should monetize our games now. That is why I don't read such sites, it only monetizes their pockets and sends their readers out chasing their own tails in a circle.

You can only make your game and if it's good enough, whether 1 person buys it or whether one person gets it for free, they will tell their friends about it and those friends likewise.

So the point about the best way to monetize your game is flat out wrong because of course the best way to monetize your game is to make a game that is fun enough that people tell other people about it and then it doesn't matter if you charge a reasonable price or if it is free. It will be always that way, these other articles are big businesses buying customers and not necessarily writing good games. The one thing in my limited experience I don't want to do is IAP because that seems like milking the customer's impatience, rather than creating a good game, but hey if you want to do IAP, go for it.

 

The point is focus. Your focus clearly isn't on honing your craft if you can't resist cramming an ad in there to... what?