[...] your way to a game dev fortune

I think @orb probably nailed some of the difference too. He has been marketing it on Humble as well. Well when I say marketing it I mean in his blog and TIG posts he mentions both Steam and Humble.

 

I sort of like that YouTuber's Life at least in tat they are trying to be a bit creative and original, at least the bits of it I watched. I felt the game would have been better served though if the announcer put the drama of his announcing instead into the game.

 

If you look at golf with friends it didnt do anything really special, it just made the best mini golf game out there on steam and if you look on steamspy youll see that minigolf games do well (so it was a niche that wasnt being catered to). You could probably do the same for pool
http://steamspy.com/search.php?s=golf
http://steamspy.com/search.php?s=pool

 

The funny thing is we had all of this discussion about the reskinning and ultimately I don't think I'd ever make something that could be easily reskinned anyway. Although I have considered making some spin-offs of Space Invaders. A Donut Devastator, Bill Blaster (as in the bills that come in the mail) and things like that. Be good for web portals I think.

 

Ha ha! This seems like an oxymoron to me...

 

They did nothing original, but did it far more polished than what little competition there was. Polishing the hell out of something isn't original, just very welcome

 

It appears to me that the confusion may be the other way around. There's a fair difference between lovingly crafted games that has been given due time and attention as opposed to something that's bashed out in a day, with no reason for being other than maximising statistical chances and trying to increase monetary value.

This applies to more than games, but in this context it's applicable to anything bar the most basic of games (like a match 3).

There is one reason I want to do the game I'm trying to do, that's because I have a passion for that type of game. Not because I want to fight with AAA / AA neither do I want to "outdo" everyone. It's just a matter of enjoyment for every party involved.

It doesn't have to be complicated, it doesn't have to be massive.. It just has to be well done no matter the type of project. Which already puts it in a category way above the never ending slurry of re-skins, they are nothing more than shadows of a better product.

Doesn't mean you'll be "successful" either way, but it statistically increases chances if you can hook in differences with marketing spiel. There are some types of games which do greatly increase the chance, but hurt more if you fail. Where the line is drawn there is completely up to the dev..

 

Do what we like and hoping it makes enough so we can continue is the most popular business plan not necessarily the most successful.

 

@GarBenjamin I think you nailed it when you said that no business is sustainable if everyone is doing it. That's the whole point, that's the imbalance that forces the industry to evolve. In a strict business sense there would be no point for anyone to create anything new or better if everyone divided up the market share equally.

The question that a lot of people stumble on however is whether games should be seen in business terms or not. My answer is: yes and no - and when I say yes and no, I don't mean half and half, but both at the same time, 100%. A game should be a profitable entity, and it should be designed to be a profitable entity, totally apart from the fuzzies that went into its creation. That's the only way to succeed without leaving things to chance. However, from a creative perspective, a game also should be something that means something to you, something that you want to share with the world. Otherwise, you're probably not adding a lot to the player experience.

And that comes back to the real point, the player. Why is it that in every single discussion about reskinning or some other 'cold-hearted' game development tactic, the players are rarely if ever mentioned? It's as if the developers are a bunch of narcissists who see the players as totally un-self-sufficient entities who can potentially be guided in any direction whatsoever. There's only one group who have any valuable judgement to make on any game development issue, and it's the players themselves. And since they usually vote with their wallets (with more and more freedom due to stuff like kickstarter) then probably the best judgement of whether or not a game 'should' succeed is whether it actually does.

Any time I see a developer declare judgement on what is right and wrong in the games industry, I dismiss it out of hand, because while it may happen to be correct, they aren't and never will be in a position to tell players what kind of games they should or shouldn't buy. As developers, we cater to our players, we provide value to our players, and they ultimately call the shots on what the games industry should look like. We can only show them options and try to convince them, but if they don't want your stuff, that's just too bad.

 

That's not the same as doing nothing special. If the game ended up far more polished than the other games well that is the special something that they did.

 

As a side note, I just wanted to say to any budding entrepreneurs out there: This mind set will melt you. If you give yourself an out, you're going to eventually use it. When things get tough you've made it that much easier to quit. To truly succeed, you must push through.

Don't be afraid to jump off a cliff without a parachute.

 

Well I think it could let me be far more focused on the game. Because I wouldn't have any concerns over how I was to survive what I was going to do down the road. I'd already know that would be taken care of I'd just have to go back to a job. So that means I could focus completely 12 hours or so per day just working on a game.

I do see what you are saying. I suppose in a way some folks would be like I have to make this work I am desperate I must succeed if they truly thought they had no other option. So that could be a motivator. But I've been able to take great action before even while working at a job and doing things on a side.

For me it's more that I had a goal for quite a while to make my living working at home. When I got that in 2011 I attained my last big goal. And now life is quite content. I do get what you're saying in that I did have more drive before I had accomplished my goals. But I also think that is normal. Like I achieved the goals and now I am actually enjoying the life I spent all of those years working to build.

But if I truly set it as a goal then I would definitely give it my all. I take setting goals quite seriously. That is the reason I am not sure if I want to set it as a goal. Because I think... well I really enjoy not having pressure on my personal time. Deadlines and such. So for me it is a big decision to make "do I really want to do this?!"

And at the same time I am thinking about testing a different approach. Seeing if a goal can be accomplished with a very relaxed casual attitude instead of the "do or die" I have used in the past. I think this is the way I would approach it. Just set some basic goals for each week and keep it all stress free and fairly relaxed.

It might not work. I don't know because I have never approached a goal in a relaxed way.

 

Says the bird to the turtle

 

I agree. That's exactly why I set the target for the games to the scope mentioned above. I need to set a scope that is reasonable for me to complete and create something that is very cool. Like those example games I listed. They are all lovingly crafted as you put it.

I'm not sure really if you're agreeing or what the difference is in what we are saying?

Oh I guess you are referring to the skinning thing. Yeah I definitely agree it would bring me a lot more satisfaction to be able to build something along the lines of the games I posted screenshots of than it would to make an Infinite Runner game or Space Invaders and then reskin it a hundred times. There is no doubt about that. As far as personal satisfaction to me is concerned the reskinning would not be as fulfilling. Maybe the first 2 or 3 times but then burn-out would set in.

That doesn't mean it is a bad thing to do though either for the players or as a business. In time I am sure a dev over here will make a version of Space Invaders basically reskinned and a dev over there will make a version of SI reskinned another way and yet another will make a version dressed up with another graphics theme and so on. I don't think it really makes any difference whether these games are being made by one hundred different developers or if a single developer is making all 100 different themes. Other than the single developer will then be able to capture all of that market that would have been split across those other 99 devs (maybe... kinda... in theory). And in that case then it might actually have been worth their effort and time in making the first game.

 

Hah!

 

This. I can testify to it from the other side. I'm working a semi stable day job. And so its very easy to put down games whenever they get to hard. To call myself a hobbyist. To say 'Well I never really needed to sell the game anyway'.

 

The ultimate point is, I don't see (or understand) from a logical or stastical standpoint how "re-skinning" is a good thing and / or even a good idea anymore. How is it good for players? I mean it does nothing but clutter and abstract from decent games. Loose for dev, loose for player..

People don't just cyclicly play variations of the same thing over and over, in terms of "choice" there's hundreds of thousands in play. I mean what was it on IOS alone last year? Around 500 games a day? You're also contradicting yourself, I'll quote you "When everyone is doing something you need to stand out in some way or you need to do things in a smarter way."

You think copying the same games in which there are ten's of thousands in every defined mobile segment market is either smart or standing out?

In what possible way does this sound like a fiscally viable method? It's now akin to giving out your music hoping people will take a real interest in yours. In reality it'll be so lost in the massive ocean that nobody will probably ever listen to it..

Although I'm happy to be proven wrong, I really am.. If you did this years ago when it was rare and fiscally viable, coolio you were smart and ahead of the curve. Today it's probably one of the worst idea's you could have, ever.!

 

There was a college football player, he purposefully got tattoos on his face because he said he never wanted to have the option to get a job that required an interview. He was all-in on being a football player. There was some famous musician that had said something similar.

 

Yeah but it was just one little tattoo. Can't imagine that would genuinely hold someone back from most jobs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ethan-westbrooks-face-tattoo-2014-9

 

We have 3-4 artists on our team with facial tattoos.

 

So you only have 3-4 artists?

 

No, those are only the ones with facial/neck tattoos. Its a little less than half. (on my current team). I think facial tats are a requirement for lead positions.

 

That's dumb. PEDs didn't make him talented enough and a tattoo on his face that can be erased. The dude's problem from the start is that he holds himself to be better than the rest of us. Certainly when you regard this one you think this person has practically advertised to the world they think they are above the law so what should be done about such a person? You see to it that the same laws that apply to you & me apply to this dude and you let him eat crow.

 

My topless devil chick tattoo works pretty well as "regular" job repellent.

 

And yes, we've heard you moaning about it and the precipitous financial situation it puts you in too in the forums although given me own tattoos and the USAF crossdressers with the Farrah Fawcett and lovely long manicured nails I've worked with, to name just 2, I sincerely doubt it's that tattoo of yours that is causing you employment difficulty.

 

Well its going to be alot easier to make the best golf game then say the best FPS game to compete in that space. I could make the best shuffle board game and win by default (but the better I make it the better I guess)

 

I like the ideal of a shuffleboard game. Go for it. I haven't seen one of those since the one they put by the pool at the hotel I used to work at.

 

LOL! Wow. This thread took a heck of a turn somewhere up there.

@ShadowK I was looking at the angle of "doing things in a smarter way".

Let's say someone loves Infinite Runner games and you make an Infinite Runner game that is really well-received. The theme is a robber running to escape police. You could spend all of the time to come up with a different game or you could simply reskin that game to be an Indy Jones dude running through a jungle dodging rolling boulders and monkeys throwing coconuts. Different story, different theme, different presentation. To players this is a different game. Yet it was a much less work than designing and building a new game from scratch.

The other side is you make the first game (let's say it was called Infinite Robber Runner) and it doesn't do well. You then reskin it as Wild Jungle Runner and people love it. Something about this particular theme just appeals to people much more. Again, you could have started over from scratch and made a new game or you could just reskin and have a new game.

This is assuming the actual game itself is solid of course. Doing reskins of a broken game I expect wouldn't have much value.

As far as how does it help players... well that is from offering different themes. Different themes appeal to different people even in the same genre. Some people like certain things. They just find those things very appealing, right? Like some may love watching Indie Jones movies. Those people who also like IR games would most likely check out the Wild Jungle Runner. On the other hand, there are people who would like the Infinite Robber Runner theme much more (and maybe they hate Indie Jones movies so are completely put off by WJR). So what it does is provide options for these people to enjoy your work who would never otherwise enjoy it.

Again... I am just presenting this for consideration. Not saying it is concrete a great thing. I just think it may make more sense all around than what I had previously thought.

IF it is a very reasonable thing then basically that means it just makes sense to plan on reskinning the game from the very beginning. Because we examined reskinning if the game is a success and also if it is a failure.

This means when making Infinite Robber Runner you may as well just plan on reskinning into Wild Jungle Runner and perhaps a half dozen other games.

 

Not to mention most fps games might as well be called reskins. Or rpg games for that matter. Art and story are all that really change between them.

I guess it's just kind of hard to call something a reskin that cost $50 million to make.

 

Yeah I think it's just kind of a different mindset. Like someone (I think maybe it was @neginfinity) mentioned that (some) game devs have this expectation that game devs should be putting in as much effort and work as possible. Something like that.

And really that is not focusing on the player (as you mentioned) that is just focusing on the game dev saying "hey look at how hard I am working. How much blood, sweat and tears I put into this thing." Really the goal is to provide a enjoyable (scary, educational... whatever but I kind of wrap it all up as) entertaining game experience for players.

It shouldn't matter if that is accomplished through reskinning or completely building each game from the ground up completely different from each other. To the player it may not matter any more than someone developing the game at a super low level building their own game engine versus using Unity.

I don't know... I just think it is worth considering.

 

@GarBenjamin

Isn't that sort of just a different game though? Let's take a more complicated scenario, most of them include a third party camera / controller / health / magic / inventory and some sort of dialogue system (spoken / non spoken).

Now, you may modify the base concept but ultimatley many of the component systems are shared throughout the genre. There's no real reason to start from scratch as frameworks will of course speed it up, visual cue's may be custom but the base components to that genre pretty much always remain the same.

If we're talking about core concepts with different visual cue's, story and theme then we're are essentially talking about 99% of all games ever released.

This may be a terminology thing where we're getting confused, I class a re-skin as literally someone copy's a game pretty much like for like with a slight variation based on a framework with little to no effort at all. Like flappy birds and crappy birds..

Or in an even worse scenario, people changing the name of a framework and just releasing it.

Edit @Billy4184 beat me to it ..

 

The thing is, nobody cares about how much effort you put in - quite the contrary, it makes you look like you don't know what you're doing. Why should it mean anything to them? What players care about is if you get it done for them, if you give them the great experience that they want. When devs focus on that they will get a whole lot more successful.

There's nothing worse that these silly little prisons that indies lock themselves into, and all this moralising only serves to gain a ranking amongst other devs who are happy that you're probably not going to be a threat, and that you will give them moral support in their failures ... while the players couldn't care less and flock to people who give them what they want.

 

I might be wrong in my definition. But things like Crappy Bird are just outright clones. Reskinning is taking one game and transforming it into many different games by changing the name, theme and presentation.

The games will all play exactly the same mechanically but they may not feel exactly the same due to the different theme (different story, environment & perhaps radically different presentation).

Clones on the other hand can be like a reskin but the difference is that is someone else trying to make a carbon copy of your game. It may not play as well or it may play much better.

I agree the line is kinda gray as to exactly where one ends and the other begins. In a sense reskinning is kind of like making clones of your own games but doing it intentionally to make more games that appeal to the same players as well as make games that will appeal to different people.

According to the dictionary

Reskin "to replace or repair the exterior surface or coating"
Clone "a thing that duplicates, imitates, or closely resembles another in appearance, function, performance, or style"

Clones don't really bring anything new to the table IMO. These are the debris that floods the mobile markets.
Reskinning is bringing new content, new stories and new experiences for the player.

That's just how I see it. BUT... like I said man the line is definitely gray. A lot of what people call clones are kind of like reskins just done by a different company. lol

 

$1.99 games can sell in the app store? Where do you live?

 

I think he means by 'very limited' means one doesn't recoup development costs. It's certainly not going to hurt to ask for it if your chances are small already.

 

Pfff not talking about the app store, at this point I'm talking about Steam..! Not sure what that's got to do with location?

There's more than one market last time I checked.

 

I still maintain its nothing to do with reskinning. It's to do with the quality of the game. And the quality of the reskinning job.

Age of empires two was released with a bunch of different skins. While none of them did as well at the original, they were hardly flops.

One can produce crap at the bottom of the market by reskinning. One can produce high quality AAA games by reskinning. Reskinning in and of itself is not bad.

 

Well now I know what @GarBenjamin means by it, sure why not?

 

Yeah, it's not like you'll need to do it second time anyway.

 

I see you've never high dived in Acapulco or elsewhere or realize just how tough a carapace is.

 

Nobody said there's water below the cliff, you know. Or that the cliff is as high as high diving platform.

 

This was an interesting discussion. We wrestled with definitions, morality, efficiency and so forth. In the end I came out of it with the idea that reskinning any good games I make is a good idea. It's good for me and it's good for players.

Oh and also I kind of want to make a Space Invaders game now.

 

Tounces knows better.

 

Or to put it another way... "We wrestled with definitions, morality, efficiency and so forth. In the end I came out of it with the idea that water is actually wet."

 

Depends on which shader you are using.

 

LOL Well I should have phrased that as I started out thinking it was a sensible idea and wondered why "reskinning" had such a bad view. I encountered much negativity here (partly due to that article for sure) and at the end both myself and others came away from discussion knowing that reskinning is a good thing.

I think @BoredMormon hit the nail on the head that people just blamed the process and in itself it is like everything else neither good or bad. Some folks use it on games that people think are bad (I guess) so they saw it negatively. And @neginfinity hit on another with some people thinking a game has to take a certain amount of effort... maybe even be a struggle... or you're cheating.

I imagine there are still people who view it as spamming out games helping to kill the markets or simply as "cheating". And that is fine too.

 

Can't they?

 

I still wouldn't say it's necessarily always a "good thing", I did overlap the definitions between clones / re-skinning because in obvious cases they are one and the same. New graphics / name / maybe story? But exact same components that does nothing but contribute to noise.. The cyclical game bash out.! (they've been re-skinning for years, this ain't a new concept).

At some point it gets to an "RPGMaker" scenario, where it's a cutout template. It's not really a clone but it's a close component re-skin and I'm not saying all RPGMaker games are bad, some took real initiative and they deserved to be succesful.

So ultimatley I'd say it depends, there are several components in games where re-inventing the wheel just seems pointless and to create a system that does things in a different way serves no other purpose then to annoy people.

I'd sum it up saying, use the path of least resistance. If a framework can exponentially speed things up so you can focus on the meat and gravy use it, but it always takes initiative and hard work.. If it's just a case of spamming to appeal to many segments with low quality games done million's of times before, I'll agree with pretty much what everyone else says.. There's far better ways to earn money than games and the market for these types of games are long gone..

 

Reskinned games - that would be most slot machine games which are notorious for being practically the same game with different textures.

 

But wait, that one there is "Caesar's Temple" and the other one is "Pharaoh's Gold". Totally different machines, plus I feel good about this one, "Gold Runner Dungeon". Any minute now. Ching ching ching ching...