Whether or not you like to make casual games, there is alot of money to make from them (and especially if the browser plugin is done!!). I predict playing small funny games from browser will be a true cashcow. People can spent how much they like, and if you do this clever, you can let them keep spending on the same game . They really pay the amount how much they think it's worth.

But that casual games can be cashcows, doesn't mean that other types can't. To create a big quality title, you really don't need hundreds of dollars. In fact, if you are a programmer, then you can achieve a tremendous amount of (graphically good looking!) work by just doing research to latest techniques, and don't be satisfied by average movement/animation results. If you can create "self-learning" movements and take in account the physics, then you barely need an animator.

But who of us already tried to achieve this? Barely half a hand full of people are researching in the innovation field (like ChrisB with his procedural terrains and Slin with his research to over 6 different physic engines!), but I think most of us just look and stand back, watching what those few other can do. I agree that the look of models and environment are important, but seriously, a great textured environment looks just as good as a "stuffed together" environment with detailed particle effects, lensflares and waving grass everywhere. Those aren't artiscian jobs, those are programmer jobs. New revolutions in the 3d world cán be implemented in lite-c, and google is your friend

you are all talking awaqy from ym main point.
my main point was, that we cannot compete with whatever super grafix game is out there, because we just dont have the cash, amrketing and whatever is needed to convice the idiots that should buy the game that our game is must have.

but when we focus on smaller games that are fun, we have a chance to sell them. whatever you call those games wont matter, but the general public calls them casual.

Wrong, I am selling more games than Crysis.



Bingo, ding... ding... correct...

But, they are only small to us, on the inside. Consumers have no idea, nor care, if they are limited resource games or not..

Spike, I love your game with the Crazy Pumpkin head guys. I think it's brillant. I want to see it as a complete game.

Have you thought about trying different play machanic's using your current work. How about a "Battle Chess" style game. Where you move and then battle for the square.

Maybe a Bomberman play mechanic frantic mayhem using your cool killing techniques, to acquire the most squares...

Maybe to you think this would be a small game / effort. To me it would be a full game, and I would never call it casual....

Profit is the key, as long as you are making a profit, you will be able to create more games. Stop making a profit, and you will disappear like many of these grafix / money heavy developers.

I am having no trouble competing with the big boys. Hell, since I make a profit each year, I am in a better position than 75 percent of these guys....

Ken

Well didn't I say that you can finish a big title without cash?
Aside good skills, you do need to know how to push it into the market. There are some tricks to do that without the need of massive advertisement launches for the media. You can get the ball rolling by starting on the net .

Knock at the doors of big game communities and forums, and if they like your game (yes, "if", well it's up to you to create a good game, this is about the marketing part) make sure they keep playing it. (e.g. multiplayer is one big important factor). Mouth to mouth advertisement is nearly as good as a tv-commercial. Just keep promoting the game everywhere for a while, I'm confident that the big masses will notice it soon enough.

I think you've got it up-side down there... if publishers don't feel like pumping millions into a project that really does need these resources to become a commercial success, you can hardly blame the gamer when a publisher decides not to give more money to make the game better.

Lets face it, gamers won't buy bad games, in fact, nowadays many won't even buy mediocre games... From a publisher's point of view it makes sense to not do too much risky things, but developers should insist on getting more money for the more risky projects.

Also, there are a couple of examples of ideas that really weren't great to start with, no matter how much money they would have pumped into it.



I disagree... usually they go with a commercially tested kind of game, lets say the standard kind of sci-fi fps game, but they add a new (usually gameplay related) gimmick and then call it 'innovation'.

That's not the kind of innovation that's really risky, unless you make the entire game bad. Examples that come to mind are Infernal or some of the other games that have time altering gimmicks... versus for example Prince of Persia Sands of Time, a game with somewhat similar features DID work and had great commercial success.

I have no doubt that for example Infernal could have been much much better than what it turned out to be... Ubisoft had all confidence in PoP and came with the resources needed. I think, to some extent at least, that it's as simple as that. Also the whole innovativeness of Prince of Persia wasn't the actual gimmick, but more so it's implications on the actual gameplay.

I think Rayman is also a very good example when it comes to gameplay that got an extra boost by the various new innovative 'gimmicks' in the last few games yes, but it's a game series that started out more or less like a 'Mario' type standard gameplay thing. They simply build up the game's name, put enough money into the series and that's why it's where it's now.



There are all kinds of ways to make money while making your artistic game. NOT to start your artistic game because you have no money is actually fooling yourself. Most companies that make even smaller games in between to get some development money usually end up making only these smaller games, as it's easy money.

It's somewhat of an illusion that this would really work... especially because those in between games have to be of good quality as well.



This should be heard and said WAY more often... as it's definitely applicable to most indie developers.



Yeah, I agree. As a developer you have to also treat those games like 'full games', not like 'in between cash cows', because quality will inevitably suffer when the attitude isn't right.

I think the spin-off game ideas are great by the way, probably something to look into indeed!



If your game ends up getting mentioned a few times on some of the bigger blogs and your game is at least mediocre / good, then you can expect a reasonable amount of mouth-to-mouth advertising for free and a percentage of sales because of that... It's usually / probably a short-time thing, but if people like your game, then they might be interested in your next game. 'Creating' a core fan-base is probably the most important thing for a indie developer to achieve, but at the same time spending a fortune at advertising for their indie games usually isn't.

Cheers

Better read before you quote! I got nothing there. I talked about sales statistics and reports from magazines.
Because of this no comments are needed on your other quotes as well. It will save us a lot of discussions.


@Nardulus:
This is an interesting view point. I will keep this in mind. Though I have to learn some new technolgies now to make games for the phones

From Gamasutra Today....



No Shit Sherlock.....

The elusive casual gamer classification fools them again.

So why fricking bother.... Since it's made up bull crap, it will get further mushy reclassification next year....

PS. Funny on the Big Fish Games site, I have not been able to find the word "CASUAL"... HMMM wonder why??? Because it's bullshit maybeee...

Ken

How very close minded of you... so because it was written in some magazine, by some guy it must be true or did you mean to say you did not agree with the magazines? In that case I misunderstood.

But if you really believe in what those magazines wrote there, then I was also criticizing what you think. Take it any way you see fit, you don't have to discuss anything with me if you do not want to and with all due respect I couldn't really care less.



To me it's easier to see the innovation in a title like Spore than in a title like Bioshock or Halo 3...

Cheers

I believe calling me "close minded" is a personal attack.

Gee, you are touchy! How old are you? That´s so childish. How about using the ignore function of the forum if almost every post of phemox agitates you like that?