[teamonkey]

> They don't seem to do much market research other than every once in a while they throw a bunch of small budget stuff out there and whatever genre sells decently gets spammed to hell and back.

Actually they do a massive amount of market research. It's not that they're ignorant of what the market wants, it's that the type of game you want is unprofitably niche.

By "unprofitable" I mean it's a matter of where to invest their money. It's not that niche titles would be unprofitable, it's that other options will always have a better risk-reward balance.

[talmand]

If they do massive amounts of market research then I would say the response to Kickstarter projects and the indie titles shows that they suck at it. It may be a niche game that I want to play but if there's enough buzz out there for a game in that genre then there's profit to be made if one can be bothered to make a game that meets what the market wants.

The rest of your statement seems to support what I was saying about their needs of showing quarterly profits which prevents risky projects.

There's nothing stopping them from going into niche markets if they wanted, just budget accordingly. There is money to be made in the long tail but the large publishers are just unable to see it that way. But the thing is, some of the "niche" markets are potentially huge but they'll never know because they'd rather push out the upteenth version of sports games and military shooters. A number of genres are stagnating right now not because no one wants to play them but because no one is making them.

[teamonkey]

No publisher is looking at Elite: Dangerous (or pretty much any other game kickstarter) and wishing that they'd have funded it first. Even Frontier couldn't justify funding it by normal means and they own the IP.

The game will probably cost at least $5M to make. The kickstarter just scraped $1.25M by calling on the core market. The game still needs to sell at least another 250k at full retail price to break even, and that's after many of the core audience have already bought it through kickstarter. Under perfect conditions, that level of sales on PC alone would already put in in risky territory.

As for indies, well yes, publishers already fund those as part of their portfolios. The ones that look like they're going to break even, at least.

[talmand]

I think I stated that the large publishers are not wishing to fund such titles and that I think they do so for the wrong reasons. It's just my opinion and I don't see how your statement is much different than what I've been saying.

The potential problems you describe sound like budget and project scale problems to me, not that the genre couldn't make money. If one wishes to spend 5 million plus on a game that only maybe 250k will actually pay for then you are destined for failure. I don't believe I stated otherwise.

If you have a large publisher funding your project, then you aren't an indie title. Plus I pointed out that they do these small projects from time to time to see if there's a chance a genre will be popular again for them to spam the crap out of. I didn't say that these projects were intended to make money.

[teamonkey]

> If one wishes to spend 5 million plus on a game that only maybe 250k will actually pay for then you are destined for failure.

Correct. But given that large, complex software projects take time and manpower to create, there is a subset of games and genres that simply cannot be developed and hope to break even.

It's not just the publishers 'at fault'. Developers don't want to downsize or go bankrupt, therefore they won't tend to develop games that won't let them pay wages in future.

There are alternative funding methods, but before kickstarter it was mostly arts grants and the like. Tale of Tales have developed several small art games on art grants, IIRC.

> If you have a large publisher funding your project, then you aren't an indie title.

No, not at all. ThatGameCompany are an indie company but Journey was bankrolled by Sony. Does that mean that it's not an indie title? Fez was created by Polytron, published by Trapdoor and distributed by Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft at least partially funded the XBLA version of Minecraft. DoubleFine's Brutal Legend was paid for by Activision, then dropped and picked up by EA (a big court case ensued). As I mentioned above, Tale of Tales have developed games using government money. The list goes on and on, because it's a very common way of working.

[talmand]

I'm not saying that every possible genre out there can be developed for and make money. I'm saying that there are genres out there that can make money that the big publishers are ignoring because it doesn't fit within their no risk taking mindset. I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing with each other here.

If Journey was bankrolled by Sony, then no, it is not an indie title. But then "indie title" can mean different things to different people. My definition is the thought that a major publisher was not directly involved in the development of the title. Fez is an indie title despite being "distributed" by Microsoft; I wouldn't give Microsoft much credit as a distributor just because it was on XBLA. Minecraft is clearly an indie title whether Microsoft partially funded the port for their system or not because that was not the original game. There could be debate whether the XBox version is an indie title at that point though. Brutal Legend is not an indie title if funded by first Activision and then EA.

[megrimlock]

Right -- big publishers' size and distribution model requires them to focus on outsized wins. Their overhead is too high to take on the many smaller projects they would require to feed their cost structure. Smaller traditional publishers face similar problems, having to make few and careful bets and so often having to sell out to survive.

Valve provides an interesting contrast here: with Steam/GreenLight they run a scaleable distribution channel for large numbers of small indies, taking a percentage without making particular and huge bets. It's like an index fund vs. managed fund, where the latter does intense research into specific options. Often that research in anchored in comparative analysis where someone has proven a juicy market exists (ex: Guitar Hero having a million clones in its wake).

[teamonkey]

It's easier for publishers to produce multiple, smaller titles. Economies of scale apply to some extent. And they do! But mainly as part of a broad portfolio.

Valve are not typical developer/publishers. They are the gatekeeper, like Apple, Microsoft or Sony. Everything they do is to bring customers in to their walled garden. Their games have effectively infinite budget and can be seen as loss leaders.

Greenlight isn't amazingly helpful for small indies because it requires your game to hit a critical mass of popularity like kickstarter. Unlike kickstarter you need to have already developed the game and have it float about on greenlight for 6mnths+ before you see any return (after Valve's XX% cut of sales).