Advertising is NOT marketing. The marketing is bad. Bad price point especially for niche multiplayer, TERRIBLE timing to launch an indie, failing to understand the difference between early access and full launch, unclear screenshots, bad selection of clips, wall-of-text in the description, the list goes on and on. But kudos for making a game (especially a multiplayer game). They clearly did put in lots of work.
@@jeremynunns7496 typically when there's a known holiday coming up there might be a huge sale on steam. It means that your full price game has to compete with a lot of games that go on sale. For example a lot of horror games might go on discount during holloween to try and ride that trend before going full price again. You might get some traffic thanks to a lot of people shopping on steam BUT it also means there's TONS of competition. The same thing applies to the huge December rush. I'm sure there's more to it too but that's what i could think of since the game released in October
I'd definitely expect a game like this to be under $10. There is a lot of risk buying a game from an unknown dev, an early access game, and a multiplayer-only game. The more risk, the less I am willing to pay.
This. Multiplayer Games nowadays live from being run by massive devs or from blowing up big time early. Even then (Among Us) they tend to die down sooner or later. Spending that much money on a game whichs site is somewhat poorly managed is just not going to happen. So a low price to get people into the game when you are confident it's something great is a good way to start getting attention. SPECIALLY with having it in Early Access. Early Access is basically a huge shield of "this game will be different or will never be finished" on your page. You get around that by having it fairly cheap so the loss if you mess up isn't as big for the buyers.
I dunno about "under $10". I think $15 would've been a fine price point (note: I still wouldn't have bought it because it's just not my kind of game). If I was the developer, I'd've price-matched Phasmophobia even if I felt like it was a much better game, because the demographic for the kind of game it is (paranormal, dark, scary, multiplayer-only, asymmetric competitive multiplayer) is *extremely* narrow. And Leppits, Among Us had been out for *two years* before it "blew up". And the reason it "blew up" - I heard - is because the developers gave it away to some streamers (no idea if extra arrangements were made, that is, if the developer/publisher paid them to pay it).
Wishlists are often used as reminders of games coming out that you MIGHT want and wish to keep an eye on. Never take them as a reliable metric for sales.
Especially when it's a 5 player game, when it launches you'd then check with friends if they all want to buy it, and if they don't, you won't buy it. People that make these games where you require friends to all agree to buy it and play are nuts.
My wishlist is full of games but none of them I buy. They look interesting, but I can't buy them all. More games are added but one or two are either bought or removed yearly.
13:30 Yep, that pretty much answers it. Phasmophobia is $14 and that's your biggest competition right now in this subgenre. You need to stay in that range. Ghost Hunters Corp, which is extremely similar to Ph but in a fully designed town is $20. So there's your range scale-wise if you think you're more developed than Ph, I wouldn't dare price it higher than that.
Yep. I wouldn't say it can't/shouldn't be done but when your competitors are games of such quality and community fanfare you're shooting yourself on the foot. Why would people leave THE game of this subgenre/niche to go play yours- a game that's in early access and costs so much?
This reminds me of Toxikk which was a AAA polish level FPS game which was actually very fun to play but it never reached critical mass of players so that means it gets basically no players at all because everyone who tries it will find empty servers. It has positive reviews but there is no point playing it alone.
@@fabienherry6690 that's why I'm making a strong single-player first and then releasing multi-player. It also means the game never really dies because it won't rely on a player base :D do you have any other tips? I'm always open to hear community feedback c:
@@angelocarantino4803 I haven't played this game, but in reference to the multiplayer aspect, I have played one or two (can't seem to remember the titles) that offered a free version that had one aspect of the multiplayer that would bring in the numbers (fill the lobby, etc.) and that would in theory bring in sales for the full game. I think it's a pretty good idea, especially in light of the newness of this game to the world and the lack of players.
The devs are definitely delusional. They looked at the quality of their game and thought they could charge 42.00 for it. Thats insane. And it's not even finished? Have they ever even looked at what other games are out there? You can buy huge games with lots of polish for 10 to 20 bucks. AAA games go on sale all the time for cheaper than this and they have the advantage of having way more consumer confidence than an unknown indie developer. I really don't know what there is to be confused about. It's pretty straightforward.
$42 is way too much. People might be willing to drop $10 each for some friends to try it together for a night. But you have to get those initial players, and if they'll play it you should give it away for free. Too cheap though, and people will not think you are serious. $8.99 sounds right to me.
It's now $10, but on sale right now for $7, that's a great price point and definitely worth it if you and a few friends are looking for something to play, props to the devs for listening to feedback.
@Carmine At least the devs behind No Mans Sky had unique tech that had a lot of potential from launch that people could see, and the developers have drastically turned the game around over the years, for free, and made the game into so much more than it ever promised to be. Not sure if you're aware of that but No Man's Sky is actually as truly amazing game now.
As soon as I saw the game's page I though "yeah..." I think your assessment is spot on. Price point too high, early access, and multiplayer-only are always going to make it a tough sell. Throw in a relatively poor game presentation on the page - the text and the trailer video aren't really selling what is good about the game or even how it works - and it's going to seal the deal for bad sales. All I see is some fairly generic horror-investigator themed co-op FPS with a fair amount of jank. It's described as 4v1 but I never got a good impression of what the '1' is doing in the game. It's a shame to see that amount of hard work flounder but times are tough for Indie developers.
Nevermind indie - this game would've been a hard sell even for a major studio. Horror is a niche genre, with a core audience that has very specific likes/expectations - story, character, atmosphere, music - and none of that is conveyed by the stuff shown on that Steam page. You want someone to start getting spooked sitting comfortably in their home with the lights on 😨I'm not saying they need to make the next Resident Evil or Left 4 Dead, but they should've looked at how those games are made & sold, and worked out what in their game is similar/different. I mean, I don't play horror (too chicken), but even I know that it's mostly a single-player genre, even if your game has a MP component.
I think the idea they were going for is good, but for an indie dev on a 10k budget its a bit ambitious. Especially when they intend to use assets they bought and not created themselves.
Actually indie developers are humans too, and like humans, they won't admit that they screwed it up if they've gotten lazy or wasted their time while developing and not being efficient. If you've wasted thousands just to get to a point where the game is janky and not complete, and is forced to release in order to recoup the cost... You fked it up. Stop developing games on idealism, start being realistic, it'll help, especially since ideology is what most people seems to stick to these years... Make successful simpler games first to rack up support and fundings to make a dream project possible, popular indie games that has no publishing backings took their time, and the project launched strategically when it needs to be, not when a developer's failure at livelihood dries up. I get it, sometimes life is cruel and unfair and you have someone steal your laptop while you are on break or something (project zomboid), or a power outage corrupted the project or the entire computer and you lost it all and need to remake it... But this is why there is such a thing called 'risk mitigation'.
They seem to have turned things around abit, if you look at steam now, you will see the price is alot lower, and there seems to be rather positive reviews there, as well as a few recent updates. So this thing with the devs reaching out for feedback seems to have been positive overall.
Thanks! We've made many of the changes John suggested and are working the longer term ones still. We're a small team of 2 so iterative improvements is all we can do.
Keep in mind that you guys are learning so much by making a game like this. Even if the game isn't an overwhelming success...hell even if it is a flop, how much money do people pay for such an education in making games, lots of money.@@NonNobisGames
If you read through the dev's full early access notes they make it clear that there is only one playable area, and that the current price is discounted for early access... they planned to charge even more for the full game. Personally even though I enjoy this type of game there is no way I would drop that kind of money on an early access with only one playable area. An important video - thanks for making it!
I do not know how to put it, and not sound like a complete douchebag. But having worked 4 years in a team, with some external contributors on top, and having just one playable area, sounds like a low effort to me. And maybe that one area is very large and detailed, and I am wrong, but still.
@@BlackStarForge in my opinion, it would be different if the area was like hitmans stages, where you could be in 1 place playing for an hour or more because of the different ways you can accomplish your goal of that area. You didn't come off like a douche at all, it's honest and concise.
@@BlackStarForge Appreciate the feedback, it is only one area because it's been made multiple times. We had tried to make a procedurally generated level at first but there are limitations we learned about the engine that would not make this possible. (For instance, streamed levels force static lights to dynamic which can tank your frames). Also, 4 years on a team isn't fulltime 2080 hours per person per year with all members. It's 1 hr here there during the week, or 2-3 on a weekend. Friends leaving / joining the project over time. So total hours is a lot less as it did suck up any and all free time we were able to provide.
@@NonNobisGames Hi, I read later somewhere, you were mostly just two guys, which combined with making it as side project makes sense, and that procedural setback accounts for the rest of missing estimate I had. And after reading reddit post, and discussion here, and steam reviews, I think you got more than appropriate share of harsh responses. And I genuinely think you did well enough to deserve some reasonable revenue and appreciation for your game, wish it will catch second breath. At the same time, while I cannot even imagine how heart breaking it must have been, I would recommend to move on and not sift through 2 week old YT responses. :) Be well.
Well, I'm a videogame developer myself, working for a AAA company. Main points: - The final quality is quite decent but after 4 years of development the game should have been released much more polished (animations, UI, fonts, trailers...). The only excuse I can think about is that they just started developing games and they had too many problems re-doing things so they could not focus on details. - If you are an indie team with no background or reputation dont try to develop a multiplayer game... You dont have any playerbase or community to support you. Start by making a solid single player horror game, and then, if it goes well, develop the multiplayer. - Uninformed and delusional devs. A hundred members on Discord and two hundred whishlists is nothing, it is like friends and family, if you think you had a good community to launch the game you don't know about the current indie market status. I've been in indie games discord servers with 5k members and seen only 10% conversion rate.. Also, marketing is not buying ads, nowadays your marketing must be Twitter and Twitch, trying to engage with any streamer you can get. I'm sorry for them but the main critique could be: "A mediocre game that does not innovate in any way. The graphics have good quality and the controls respond correctly but there is no incentive to invest more hours in it. There is no community to support the multiplayer mode and it is still on early access" - 5/10.
So... sounds to me like you're saying it's just as unfinished/unpolished as Cyberpunk 2077, every WoW x-pack, and everything EA puts out these days, except they are trying to break even o Steam instead of trying to hype it up to the world and the world's grandma... Sounds like these guys got the AAA style down, then, except for the hyping. Not bad for an indie team with just some friends and family.
no single player, high entry price, lighting in game doesn't give the tense fear factor and they seem afraid to push limits, something the animations are a bit stiff too, hope they dont give up and keep polishing the game
that all can be ignored. if the price was lower and without early accsess. look at Phasmophobia it has most of these janky stuff but it still did great
@@Arrkail yeah, but one of the catches here is that you can't look at game A and apply it to game B and assume it will work. There are so many things that go into why a game is successful that are completely outside of the game itself - i.e. what's popular at the time (outside of games even). What these guys don't realise is that this experience is no different for AAA games. Only 1 in 5 there are successful. Obviously the ratio is worse in indie games, but it doesn't matter how much effort you put, marketing guarantees nothing, and quality isn't even the deciding factor. Luck is the biggest factor. All you can do is push the balance in your favour as much as possible.
@@Arrkail phasmo is good streamer content, and even though I don't have much interest in it myself, it's a coop game, with interesting voice recognition mechanics.
Great analysis. The game is definitely too expensive. I think another factor to consider is the time of the wishlists. The game was 4 years in development. If someone wishlisted the game 2 years ago and then see that it's only in early access, they probably won't trust it.
Ah that's a point we didn't consider, we didn't have it on Steam until March 2021 for Demo so the wishlists aren't multiple years old at least. Also, the game is now $10 which seems to be a lot more fair.
The main issue is that they spent 4 years on a project without practicing first by going through smaller production cycles. And the reddit OP sounds like he has a case of Dunning-Kruger. The game has no hint of quality, from the presentation to the content. In a world with AAA/indie darlings/Netflix/RUclips/taking a nap, if you're in the wrong portion of the 80/20 quality split, you're done for. Still, investing 4 years to fail is brutal. I hope they take it for what it is, a learning experience.
I agree. As easy as it is to see a lot of flaws in our own work it can also become really easy to ignore those flaws, or being able to admit that you have no idea what you're doing. I have a game idea but I really want to do some small stuff first, as excited as I am to get into my dream game. I think game jams are honestly a cool way to get inspired into making games or even just prototypes that prove you can make a certain game mechanic. Theres a ton of gamejams that last longer then your average 2 day one two so you can always pick something that fits your time needs. Hell you can even create your own personal "jams" to give yourself an excuse to practice. It still takes a shit ton of effort though, so i can kind of see why a lot of indies kind of ignore making small games, since short games have a bad rep of being "worse" then games you can pump 100 hours into
@@jigsawalwayswins8636 Losing money sucks but life goes on. Losing 4 years of your life..., well life went on and you can't get it back. But I don't think they lost 4 years, I think they spent 4 years learning a harsh lesson they will never forget.
Folks need to ask questions and learn stuff *before* spending a ton of money and roping in their friends. I mean, you wouldn't buy a used car for $10K without doing any homework on what's out there, dealer reputation, checking your savings/credit, etc. I feel like people undervalue creative endeavors, business/entrepreneurship, and the value of their own labor, all under the banner of "I wanna make games". I mean they think $10K was their break-even, based on assets & contractors, which means they aren't figuring in the cost of labor/time-spent. That's not how business works.
to me my wishlist is just a compilation of games i wanna grab when they're on discount ... only buy games at full price when im totally hyped and kinda know that i'll like it ... stuff like elden ring for example
Dang, I've been wish listing games wrong for years. I Wishlist games I want to buy and then do so when they come out. This experience showed just how abnormal we are though.
That's how I use the wishlist as well. Games I actually want to buy, I'll just buy. Games on my wishlist are to remind me games that looked interesting enough to buy when discounted enough.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that the price plus the fact it's early access is why people were put off. Everything else was honestly fine for me. Even the apparent potential asset flip feel it gave didn't bother me per say.
Never heard of it. But it's if it's early access I'd have kept away from it anyway. Smart shoppers do not buy early access games. Too much potential for bugs or to end up wasting money on a game that never gets finished. Buying early access was a risky proposition to begin with, and too many times have people been burned buying early-access games to warrant the risk.
Personally, I’m not going to spend more than $30 on a game unless it’s something I’m really looking forward to. Certainly not an indie game. The truth is, there are too many $20 indies that are just better experiences.
My wife works as a Marketing Manager for an indie game publisher. From what I've learned from her experiences and just my own opinion, I'd say there are 2 factors here. First is probably the same as you point out. Price. Way too high. In a market where players generally want everything for free, pricing above AAA competitors is not a good idea. The other is just the fact that MOST indie games fail. Lots that look better and are less niche than this have failed. Nothing about the game really stands out and it is already in a genre/style that is super niche. That might sound harsh but demand has to be there and then you have to meet the demands, otherwise you fail. The demand is small for something like this and what exists is generally more appealing than what exists here. At least in my opinion.
@@myc_tv The only people really in a position to attempt that are the biggest AAA companies, and they do so by collecting masses of user data relating to how they play and analysing it. Any time you play a game and it asks you if you want to connect to X service to share data that will "improve the game experience" or whatever, that's what they're doing. Most online games don't even ask. And needless to say, even the companies doing that usually get it wrong. So an indie dev has no chance. imo the only way indie games can succeed is either by bringing something unique to the table (the whole game doesn't need to be unique, just enough to make it stand out) or follow an existing trend and just... do it better. That latter point is the reason why the selling point of so many indie games is "like that game you played 20 years ago, but better." With the development technology available today indie devs can easily compete with successful AAA retro games on a technical level, so if that's what they aim for then they "only" need to focus on the more creative aspects.
@@myc_tv why try to bank on trends as a small fish? you don't have the resources for research and development. by the time your game is ready the trend maybe dead. take a timeless niche, copy a proven formula, add your own unique style and flavor, add layers of effective gamification to build addiction, monetize, continually improve. don't try to reinvent the wheel. look what the guy who runs this channel did: made a platform game. basic AF but fun and timeless. his unique twist was the viking theme. don't overanalyze.
Agreed. I've not done the figures but I suspect that for every successful indie game, there are over 2000 failed ones. The days of the bedroom coder or even the small team are gone and the exceptions to that are very few and far between. What they built was competing with professional companies with money and a large number of developers, artists, etc. behind them. Not a chance. There's nothing wrong with aiming for the stars but realise that you're not flying the USS Enterprise.
I'm a huge believer in demos. I recommend all devs release a demo to get feedback from the community. Maybe it's worth playing, but early access and the high price point makes it too much of a risk.
Watching the steam page of this game, it all reminds me of a phenomenon I've noticed. I call the phenomenon "I would NOT play this even if it was free.". Epic games store gives out free games every week. And being cheep as I am, I've been claiming these games from day one. 😁But out of almost 400 games I've claimed, I've only played 3 of them. And there were quiet a few games that I didn't want to claim at all. They looked so bad that I knew I would never play them, even if developers payed me like $20 a day to play that game, I would refuse. And by the way, I do play games almost every day. It's just that we are now days spoiled for choice so much, that a mediocre game just isn't worth my time anymore. I only want excellent gaming experience.
I recommend that these developers try a little experiment. Give this game out for free for a little bit. Perhaps a week, maybe even a month. Let's see if players rush to play it. My prediction is, even if this was free, it would fail to attract players. A game like this just isn't enough anymore.
That phenomenon is also known as "I'm not the target audience" & tbh that's a little up to you because plenty of those free Epic titles are actually amazing games
exactly, time is valuable, devs must entice the consumer, not the other way around. Sad, but true. The only way some may play a game that has nothing special to offer is that they feel sympathy towards the dev.
The moment I go to a Steam page, see a typo and the "Early Access" tag, I immediately think - low quality game someone rushed out in a month using store-bought assets. Coupled with no single-player it screams "empty lobby in 2 weeks". But usually, if the screenshots are enticing enough, I would at least try and search for it on RUclips to find some gameplay videos. And yet, when I search for it, all I can find are 2 gameplay trailers! Where are the recorded streams from testing the game? Where can I see what the actual gameplay looks like or whether or not I need 4 friends or is it an open lobby type of deal? There's nothing, so the Steam tab gets closed and I move on.
The hars truth from my side is that I saw 3 things that immidiatly made me think "dead game". In order, that big Early Access badge, it's a gigantic red flag and as soon as I see it on any game my eyes dart over to the overview of reviews and in this case there was no alleviating factors there. The second thing was that its a indie studio making a multiplayer only game, multiplayer games need active players and indie games rarely have that even if they are really solid. The third aspect was the price, just looking at the number I could see those 2000 wishlisters going "-thats the sum that goes in the toilet if this ends up being dead."
Here’s a link to a game I’m making, by the way. Hugely backed by Lost Relic’s tutorials and words of wisdom. ruclips.net/video/qZrdrtOLmYE/видео.html Follow along and subscribe. xD
@@toufiqmusah6480 easy release is fine depending on what the game delivers on and the price. The price for this is the main factor here. Visage was totally worth the 20 I put down early access I would have even paid the 30 dollar full price after early access.
@@toufiqmusah6480 More like devs need to understand the risk proposition involved with Early Access as a customer. You're asking people to risk time and money on a promise that may never be fulfilled. Even the multi-million dollar studios with established reputations sometimes screw up, and indies have a much, much higher fail-rate. So as soon as you ask for money, you'd better provide a basically-complete, fun experience, that just has a little tuning required. And not all genres - or dev teams - are really suited for Early Access. If you blow through the handful of people who were ever going to be interested in those early months, then basically by the time your game launches "for real", it's gonna be DOA.
@@toufiqmusah6480 To me personally the only way I'll show interest in an early access game is some unique selling point like a mechanic or story, and even then I would expect to pay at least half the normal price. Plenty of early access games never feel finished and no one really wants to have half an experience.
Man, I definitely agree with the price being the greatest reason for the flop. The developers had just got so high hopes to think that consumers would buy this kind of game for the price they set. Sometimes we also need to evaluate our games properly specially when it comes to taking other people's money.
I think agile development can really help with bad feature creep. This means building the small vertical slice that is playable, iterating, and having people actually play each iteration. It's hard to accept that all your ideas aren't perfect and achievable, but if you do the risk goes way down.
In my experience showing my game projects to my friends and family is absolutely 100% useless. Even if you tell them to be harsh, cruel and tell you if it's not fun, etc. they might make some very light suggestions but won't make any real criticisms. Oddly, showing your game to randos in public can have the opposite effect. If you show it off to a community of nasty people, they might just say it sucks and offer no input, crushing your spirit in the process. Getting good input from honest people is REALLY hard.
@@bonehelm This is it for sure, the people who have bought the game and joined our Discord are probably the most valuable. Followed by people on social media who are active in the game dev community like John here. I'm glad we got the feedback we needed to improve things both already done in the short term, and working now on the longer more difficult things.
Laymen, even gamers can't give inputs. You should ask people working in the industry, ask game dev communities. It's their job, so giving harsh and honest feedback is second nature to them. It's not such a big deal within the industry space. Thsi is true for all arts actually. The consumer might detect something is off, but they cannot specify what - that requires actual expertise.
You guys have a discord. Let's start a game Dev server
3 года назад+226
Giving it to them straight: Delusional devs. I'm completely with you on the 'asset flip' uncanny valley point. Waaaaay too expensive. Conan Exiles was 20usd in Early Access?!
Conan Exiles seems like it's been around forever. They had a huge license and money to burn just waiting for it to hit the big time and I remember in its prerelease days they seemed to have a few people producing an email newsletter fulltime. I never took the plunge but it was interesting to see how that game developed.
When a team starts a new project, they need to reach their target audience as soon as possible with early demos - released as soon as possible. Be honest with yourself and modest when setting the price of the game. Look at the prices of successful competing products and what they offer in terms of content, game mechanics and visuals.
Marketing is your go-to-market game plan. Advertising is just one component. As a game marketer and publisher, I find it's something many indie devs often neglect, partly due to lack of resources but mostly due to lack of awareness. It's what turns a passion project into a viable business. This includes pre-development analysis of your target audience and their expectations, unmet needs in the market, price points or monetization systems that make sense, channels and markets to choose, competitor analysis so your game can stand out within its genre/category, small focus group prototype tests for preliminary feedback, even tactical collabs and partnerships to help spread the word before launch etc. It's far easier to reduce risk by asking all these questions ahead of time rather than find out after putting years and tens of thousands into a project. It does not necessarily have to include an advertising budget. (I've launched million-user games with zero advertising dollars; it just takes a heck of a lot of community building and time.) Advertising is merely an amplifier. Meaning if it's a great game, loads more people will play it. If it's not what the market wants, you'll just get loads more complaints, bad reviews, and returns.
Something that immediately stands out to me is they mentioned it was their first game. Not just first release. I personally had owned a steam app ID for three years, and made multiple games, before I finally claimed that app ID for a title to release. I say this because I want to emphasize the fact that I took the time to get comfortable with my engine, workflow, and concept process. I have had multiple conversations with my 5 man freelance team now, regarding our price point. There's been plenty of conversation focusing on whether to release for 15, or 20, USD. As much as I would love to say "50 bucks is fair," and at times Believe it (plenty of long late nights, working 16 hours at a time), I understand that I simply cannot give a triple A level of polish and attention to it. I cannot justify a 50 dollar pricetag, regardless of how much I personally feel it would warrant it. Multiplayer is especially difficult, even more so as a first game. Tackling smaller projects with less reliance on complicated tech allows you to build up to that level much better, and be better prepared and equipped for development at that level in the future. I simply do not trust a first time dev making a multiplayer game. I know, first-hand, the hardship and struggle involved. Reading descriptions for a game is like stepping into the doorway of that game, and feels like our first opportunity to get a representation of the game dev's attention to detail. A bad copy is a reflection of what I would imagine the game to feel like, and that's not great when the copy is bad. Early Access is terrifying. I could throw my money at a game, and then the game gets completely abandoned. Even the games that have survived the EA test of time (in my personal experience, mind you) were, at times, very unenjoyable (I'm looking at you, RUST). Littered with bugs, and a fallback excuse of being EA, forces a certain amount of distrust in the EA tag. While I've considered EA on my own game a few times, I've decided against it. It's too unknown, too many variables, and I wouldn't like to give a sense of uneasiness to my purchasing parties. Steam is a pain to work with. My first attempt to get my store page was shot down because my logo wasn't transparent. This followed a convoluted process of messaging back and forth as different eyes took part in our approval process. It's not a pleasant experience to work through, and I'd add... Even less if you're a dev, and not a marketer. I speak a lot from my own experiences, as mentioned above, because they're what I base my comment on. I feel like a lot went wrong here, and I hope that the devs are taking steps to correct some of the red flags. It's not easy to make a game, even harder to finish one. I applaud them for getting this far, and hope they do find success in the future.
I'm in so much shock that someone could be in shock that their game launch failed. I would be so surprised if mine succeeded. I envy people who can actually think of themselves as winners before even proving it
And it didn't even fail, what happened is the market changed to mimic what the corporations are doing, selling flops to start then improving them later.
@@astrahcat1212 This is ironically sadly true. They would have made more money in early access/greenlight from selling their dream to dreamers, who would also have been more likely not to have wanted a refund due to mental sunk cost attached to the purchase.
@@lazyox Its not delusion lol. The dude in the original post straight up said that he was "Pretty confident" they'd break even. Where the hell is the delusion in that especially given the rest of the story?
9:35 I bet they included this image to convey that feeling that the monsters are sneaky hunters (notice the ghoul in the back) and the investigators need to be careful. This is almost unnoticeable though at a first glance (because of the color contrast, framing etc) and you don't really get a second one. I feel like they generally fell in this trap with all their screenshots and trailers; they had something in mind that they wanted to convey that's not really obvious to people unfamiliar with the game. Instead what stands out unfortunately are as you said the lackluster graphics and some wonky gameplay.
Tbh when you're advertising to people, you really just have to assume your potential customer is an idiot, and as such you need to be very specific and direct with how you advertise. Nothing is ever just "self evident;" you NEED to be direct with marketing.
Going after such a niche genre was a pretty big blunder, imo. Regardless of how passionate you may be about asymmetrical multiplayer games, trying to sell a _"4v1, supernatural-horror, multiplayer-exclusive game"_ in a market where _Dead by Daylight_ exists is a pretty big risk. DBD has its own share of flaws, for sure, but it also has bucket-loads of horror franchise tie-ins -- something that you, as an indie dev, simply aren't going to keep up with. Short of winning the lottery or getting picked-up by a big-name developer, you're inevitably going to break into the market looking like "the inferior version of [X]". The game really needs something big and unique to set it apart, especially for that steep of a price.
nothing wrong with the niche. the problem is the multiplayer requirement, price, and the game looks clunky and unpolished AF.. it already looks 15 years dated for some reason.
@@chrishayes5755 Just looking the pictures and video it looks assetflippy, now add the 32 euro price, good luck anybody ever consider buying this. For like 10, peoples might consider it can be fun and cheap enough where you don't regret that much if it can't.
That price point was a SHOCK. I would likely never spend that much on an early access game from unknown devs. The nail in the coffin that truly sealed this games fate was also no single player. So if I'm not even gonna fork up that cash, how am I gonna convince the 3 other friends that I don't have to also do that. All things considered, these decision are crazy.
Game visuals are crucial for an indie game to get attention. It has to be easy to read (ideally just from the glance), stand out in some way, and show some effort being put into it. This might be harsh, but I think Dirge suffers from not matching any of these. Also I would say, that if your game is not appealing on the surface, but has solid gameplay, you should not focus so much on the launch. But actively build up player base, and let the word spread (which btw should have been done before launch itself intensely in this case). I am relatively new to game dev, but a long time gamer, I have seen these principles realized many times in past. EDIT: And the price is ridiculously high for early access.
@@SkeleTonHammer I am absolutely certain that if Phasmopobia did not get randomly picked up by RUclipsrs and Twitch, it would end up as obscure horror game. These cases are very very rare, and cannot and should not be taken as an inspiration to be followed.
I recently attended a conference talk by one of the biggest game dev company execs in Germany. Essentially what he said is, that making a small - mid budget Indie game in the current market conditions is one of the worst possible business plans. And that's coming from someone who did it for many years successfully, so naturally he would have some survivorship bias. Something that makes me more hopeful about our project is, that I focused on making the money first for a bigger budget, outside of game dev. THEN started my company for a big RPG project. Before that I just made small low budget games for practice, with no real intention for profit. I feel like this strategy is kind of business development 101, but quite often indie devs look at me in surprise when I tell them about it.
Keep at it. Here’s a link to a game I’m making, by the way. Hugely backed by Lost Relic’s tutorials and words of wisdom. ruclips.net/video/qZrdrtOLmYE/видео.html Follow along and subscribe. xD
My tip to devs would be: start marketing your game in the early development process. You need to build your audience first. Also, it allows to gather feedback from players while doing so.
The game does indeed look like a lot of other games in my eyes at least, which isn't neccessarily a problem. But the problem here is indeed with the price. For this price I could get 2 or 3 games that are similar to this one. Next to that the game is still in early access, and a lot of people are trying to stay away from early access games since there's the problem of some early access games never leaving early access. Early access also often gets seen as an excuse for the bugs that are in the game, that's why we often never see some of these games leave early access. Next to that, the Steam page could definitely need some work. The sentence in the short description is nearly impossible to read and halfway through reading that sentence, you bet that the majority would already close the page. Next to that, like you said, in some of the gifs it's impossible to tell what is going on, or if there is even anything going on at all. The wishlist conversion rate is just beyond insanely low, most of these probably didn't expect this price and next to that the early access. I truly hope they can update some of the critique you have given them here, because 4 years is a very long time and it's obviously dissapointing to see results like these. Props to them for releasing a game on Steam and best of luck to them on improving their product.
If I'm looking at it 1. Price too high, bring it down to 15 2. It's a hard sell for a small indie game to be multi-player/horror you have to really nail how the game looks and feels in presentation. Most people (not all) who like indie games tend to go for a single player personal experience not fight enemy here go there repeate. What are you giving the player that can't be found in another game, with a bigger budget but at a similar price point? 3. Early access, many chose not to opt in for these, people normally want a complete game before shelling out the full price. 4. Timing, be careful about when you release it 5. On an indie project it's not a good idea to try for realistic. AAA developers have the team to make it look good a small team doesn't. I feel for these developers, but they were in over their heads with this.
The price as I type this is $15 USD. So, looks like they dropped the price. That's a step in the right direction. But it's early access. Valheim is in early access too, but it's $20 and it looks soooo much better than this game. I think the trailer is pretty bad too. If I were them I'd redo that on the double.
Important to note: Valheim sold 7.9M copies as of August. That's a gross profit of $158 Million dollars. It had a much longer/more expensive production and got insanely lucky too.
We haven't won the streamer lottery (we may have sounded a bit whiney trying to convey this in regards to going viral). So while we're not trying to be cantankerous there is truth in success from going viral having an aspect of randomness to it. I would put Valheim as the exception rather than the rule to Indie devs but yes Iron Gate Studio has done quite well, and deservedly so.
I read the guy spent 10k on the project. No offense and I know for sure money is not everything and there are tons of games made with less money that are awesome, BUT, to me, 10k on a project like this is almost nothing. You probably want to spend double than that just on art and a VFX artist to make the game look appealing. To me the game looks like the free one that people make for prototyping with free or cheap assets.
A writer, sound designer, and a lighting artist are practically minimum requirements for a horror game. Getting that spooky atmosphere *just* right does not come cheap.
The selection of games we have available on Steam and other platforms are staggering. Unless a game really stands out there is no chance I'm gonna pay it any attention at all (free or not).
I think it's really great that you've covered this topic and love the fact that your videos always steer away from the fantasy of making a fortune as a game dev becoming a reality. Everyone thinks with great bias they've just made lightning in a bottle unfortunately and it's such a rare thing when it actually happens. Clearly a lot of effort went into their 4 year dev cycle but that price for early access is very steep indeed. Keep up the great videos! I always look forward to seeing your new content ;-)
100% luck. Take 50 games, all of the same quality, length, price and marketing. Throw them into a pile. invite 1 million people to look at the pile. You'll have 2-3 be successful out of the pile while the rest get picked over and make no money. The market is completely saturated and there's no magic formula that forces anyone to buy your game.
@@TheMeanArena But obviously a game like Dead Cells is superior to many other games. Many indie games are either boring, expensive, and most importantly, generic. They need some spice.
Pricing is definitely one of the hardest aspects in any sales situation, and I do think that is where that went wrong! It's a big challenge to figure out what price is worth your time, and what price is worth their time! And figuring out how hard sales numbers will drop off as the price raises/drops
Early access at that price, and multiplayer only? I’d say that’s why it’s failed. Maybe that price for a pack of 4 would work, or make it free to start with. But even the resident evil coop game failed, and that even had a single player option ( it was a bit before its time tho) To be fair tho, this does look like a game my friends and I might enjoy. What would be cool is to get together a few game dev RUclipsrs, and do a live stream game. I’d tune in.
So from looking at this game in the store, it seems pretty solid now. The reviews while few are very positive, and the devs seem to be very responsive to community feedback. They have even drastically reduced the price to $14.50 AUD, $10.50 USD I think, and it is currently on sale. I'd say it's worth giving it a shot!
To be fair I would assume all studios ask employees, friends and family to leave positive reviews. I worked for a billion dollar mobile games company and they still did that. 😂
Recently I've seen several Early Access releases with well below average conversion, which is to be expected for new developers, not having a favorable track record will make players wait for the full release to buy. However, In my opinion the price and having only online gaming mode were the main causes for the bad launch. I think a game like this should be sold in the range of 10 - 15 bucks, maybe 20 if they gave at least one extra key to send to a friend, that would solve the problem of not having anyone to play with.
I'd buy it if it was co-op vs CPU and $20. I think they actually fixed this because on their site it says 'LAN co-op' and now they dropped the price. This was a good move, shows they listen. The advantage of a smaller game and smaller team is they don't just drop your letters in the bin when you write in, but then it gets big and they can't keep listening.
I use wishlists for "I want to keep an eye on this pre-release game so wishlist it as otherwise I will forget what it's called and it will get lost in the blackhole of Steam", I don't use it as a commitment to buy, I use it as a "look at reviews", and then "buy ONCE THE PRICE COMES DOWN TO THE PRICE POINT I AM WILLING TO PLAY", I have a dozen games still on my wishlists which have been there for months waiting for a sale price I am willing to pay as they were released way too expensive. There are very few games I HAVE to have the moment they are released, I've got so many games waiting to be played in my Steam library that I'm not prepared to play inflated prices.
I really like games with this kind of dark atmosphere, and haunted Victorian mansions are an awesome setting. I bought Witch Hunt a year or two ago and beat it several times to get all the achievements, but I'm still drawn to just playing it and walking around because the environments are so cool. I was reaching for my wallet to buy Dirge just to help these dudes out. But... 40 bucks, no single player... ehhhhh I think I'll have to pass. Thanks for the video!
@@stealthyshiroean They should go even lower, maybe 8$, simply to get some kind of traction. Those kind of games only work with many others online (to find someone to play with). The price can still be increased later. But 8$ is more revenue than 0$ from no sales.
@@stealthyshiroean it remains a gamble. I would buy it, but who else would? I can't even get into a reliable game of BF1 anymore. I'd buy it for sure if there were single player.
@@tizizzails6817 Yeah, definitely. The multiplayer aspect of this game just kills it for me. I only play a multiplayer game after it's been out for a while and has a healthy player base these days. There are just too many flash in the pans on the multiplayer market that many of them aren't worthy time investments, let alone adding a money cost on top of that.
@@vast634 I definitely agree. Personally, I don't think it stands out enough for me to want to try it. So, I'd imagine a lot of other people think the same. Maybe at that cost it would invite people to try it because they wouldn't have really anything to lose. I know that's what I did with Devour and luckily Devour turned out to be a pretty fun game all just for $5.
Survival horror: Good Multiplayer only: Bad 4v1 survival PvP: Horrible. Will never play another 4v1 PvP game. Evolve killed that genre a long time ago. Price: Ridiculous. Conclusion: Severely out of touch devs. The 4v1 genre is as bloated, and laden with failure as MMOs. Bad market to aim for. Multiplayer should never be the main draw but optional. If your game can't be accessible to a single person playing it, you're wasting time.
first red flag imo was a discord with only 100 people. these days, discord is your community and main source of honest feedback. secondly, i agree about the price point. there is nothing wrong with starting low and hiking the price up later, like gunfire reborn did
If you are releasing early access, you can easily justify the price hike for the "completed" game later too. Early access should be low entry price, if not entirely free, seems you're essentially beta testing for the company.
@@orkhepaj Not sure why you disagreed with me. That's literally what I just said. Half done (early access) products should be cheap or even free, and only finished games should be full price. That you can justify charging more for it only when the game is actually finished. I don't mind paying a proper price for a finished game. I disagree with having to pay companies or even indie devs to have the 'privilege' to test their games for them. They should be paying me for that.
@@KotCR Exactly, and you can convert extra sales by alerting people of the coming price hike at full release. People who are on the fence often buy when they know there's a deadline.
Effort in doesn't entitle you to an outcome, especially on creative work. As soon as you get that into your head the sooner you can actually start improving and pushing yourself to make something better. Takes a lot of time and you'll have to reinvent yourself a lot. Work on a higher volume of projects and really push yourself to figure out what makes a game worth playing or not. Theres a very good chance that your innate ability isn't 10% as good as you think it is. You gotta work at it Also trying to have some stuff playable early on and posting it around to see if it garners any attention is a great way to see if you have something people are interested in or not. Can include a discord server link to start building up your community. If you can't get anyone interested in your game at this point, the base idea is most likely just not that interesting to people. I think new devs get way too caught up in their 'hook' or the mechanics they think will make the game great and don't take a step back to see if the most general premise is actually interesting or not. People want something new and interesting. This supersedes almost all other aspects of your game.
After seeing the trailer it seems asset flippy with the animations being stiff and just not seeming quality for high price Although it's my bias, i personally don't like games like this and there a lot of them which are basically the same
Yep, looks exactly like a Unity or Unreal asset flip. The character models have good quality but their animations are really stiff and poorly done - it's a dead giveaway that what we're seeing here is an asset flip.
About 50% of indie games never make more than 4K (source: VG Insights). That's very scary. I agree with your point that the combination of the pricing and the multiplayer aspect might be a big issue in this case. Nevertheless, it's heartbreaking to hear about such a launch. I launched my game 'Decks & Daggers' about a month ago with similar wishlist numbers... I was lucky, but the first week after launch is such a stressful time of extreme joy and severe sadness.
With so many shovelware games, I don't think the stats are of much use. It only proves that Steam's strategy of selling everything for 100 dollars has at least half destroyed the entire indie market. ^^
@@THEspindoctor84 it's just that Steam's policy of recording everything and taking out Greenlight has ensured that many more thousands of releases have appeared. But this has also led to a significant decrease in the sale of satisfying - good indie games because of the visbility. Today you can find many small, quite good indie games that have only 50-100 reviews. Years ago they would have had a thousand. This is due to the supply - demand market principle.
I'll give you my perspective from the art side: Lost Relic is correct your assets look like an asset flip. Doesn't mean you should not use marketplace assets, I am an artist and I use marketplace assets, but you need to know the correct way to use it, to make those marketplace assets unique. My personal advise to indie devs: -Don't do open world. It takes a lot of money, a lot of talent to get it right (even triple A companies don't get it right) -Don't do realistic, like LRG says it takes a lot of effort and money to create a good looking realistic game, people will be forgiving of a stylized game not looking the best, but a realistica game that looks bad will be shot down immediately. I know a lot of devs gonna hate me for this last one: If you are a programmer chances are you are not an artist and you know nothing about color, lighting, camera framing, etc. (it goes the same for us artists not knowing programing) Get your game look at by artists friend, you don't need to hire a triple A artist to have good looks.
In my opinion it is 100% the price point, I'd expect this game to be $10-$15usd. So its double what it should be (imo). Valheim which is easily indie game of the year, launched at $19.99
From an animator's perspective, honestly, it looks kinda janky. Firstly, the animations are very stiff and not very expressive, you should always avoid using symmetrical poses, specially those with the elbows half bent. That one screenshot with the character standing doesn't show a lot of personality either. The jumping and reload looks weird as well because it looks disconnected from the rest of the body. The crosshair is below the gun in screen which gives a weird feel to the gameplay. Also, I would avoid screenshots from cinematic angles because it makes the game look fake, it's best to focus on actual gameplay moments.
So not only price but ANIMATION is important. Even AAA game studios seem to forget, animation is more important than graphical fidelity. You could have something in 240p like Sega Saturn but with amazing animation it'll look way more interesting than a 4k game with janky stiff animations.
It's really hard to see someone put in years of their life and get such a minimal return. You got it spot on with your points, it looks rough and at over 30 USD it would be a hard sell. I've spent years on the games I've made and I'm happy to price them at 10 USD because i know people will be more likely to give it a go.
Yes this was a bitter pill for us to swallow as well. But we've ½ the price of the game, and plan to make use of Steam Sales once Valve allows us out of the pricing blackouts it has us in.
I feel like there is always more to learn from a failure than from a success. I greatly appreciate you making this video and I'm glad the algorithm decided to suggest it to me.
Ya, having a multiplayer function is super nice but multiplayer only basically means it can be dead in the water the second player count goes down. This is regardless of developer.
One article I read is that many devs think you can go into early access and then get another launch when you come out of early access. The stats indicate that for most games, you only get one launch and that's when your game is initially available to purchase. If you go into early access, that's your launch. You don't get another one. Early access is supposed to build up a community and let you iron things out that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do. It's basically a last resort where the alternative is worse. You need to know ahead of time what your gameplan is. I feel devs use early access for the wrong reasons.
For me considering I play a lot of indie games like this, this ticks just about every soft and hard red flag in the book, even if it had been something on my wishlist that I was excited about this would not even be remotely at a state where I would buy it.
$40 for a dead online game on early access is a big nope. Even free-to-play is trying. They should have went f2p with ingame ads and a paid version to remove ads.
Love this channel. My first game is going to flop financially but it won't be a failure. My expectations were to release a commercial game and to learn enough to do a second game. I can't fail on this game. I could always fail on my second game though.
Yeah I'm in the same boat. I honestly am not expecting much of anything from my first game and mostly just using it as an learning tool for all aspects of gamedev including publishing and of course its something to add to my portfolio if I decide to go AAA instead.
Same. I know that what I'm making isn't anything new or revolutionary, and I'm going to sell my game for less than a single dollar because that's just what it's worth. It's just a testing ground for me, like I'm riding a bike with the training wheels on. The real stuff starts further down the line.
@@ThePerceptor555 I'm so glad to hear you say that. Some people act like I'm a nut for making simple game a commercial game, but I really wanted to learn how to do it.
I've entered a similar situation with my game, been working on it on and off since 2014 when UE4 first came out, sort of became more of a side project rather than something intending to be sold because how long I've taken and whats happened in my life in the meantime. Went too ambitious for my first game because Im old school and have high standards, I do everything almost entirely myself including the music, sometimes buying plugins, and put a lot of details into things and tons of mechanics. At some point I spent months designing a sort of ray trace based dynamic ledge climbing system, not to mention the time I've put into procedural animation and tons of other things, even spending tons of time on the options menu to be really advanced. Putting a ton of time into things isn't bad, but Ive realized some time ago I should of started small, just made a simple horror game or something, and its especially hard with ambitious projects when you are depressed and have a lot going on in life to where its hard to project a reasonable release date, just keep procrastinating and dragging ass, which is how something that started with passion for me turned into a side project while I've been working a normal job and now I'm 30 years old. I'm back into it passionately again, but trying not to have my expectations match the time and effort put in and just look at things rationally if it doesn't do well. I have several other ideas for more simplistic games along with big ideas I'd love to do down the road, so if I fail I'll start again and not get discouraged. Don't be discouraged and give up if you've been in a similar boat, its just important to know the market, know your strengths and have realistic expectations and be logical, its very easy to get swept up in the dream.
I'm 33, finished a 5 1/2 year project with an SDK hoping to use for cranking out more....but I've just now finished it and now I'm completely broke, releasing it in 6 months, got a plan for 6 months of marketing but know for certain I can't depend on it to even make $1000 after all that time seeing as I don't have a publisher. It doesn't help that the economy is the way it is right now (housing wise especially), I'm gonna try to save up and get a mortgage with a friend so I have a space I can work on it, to me it's not a hobby but a way of life.
@@astrahcat1212 Looked at your profile, did you make a game on steam called Astralojia? And I hope it all works out for you, it does need to be a way of life not a hobby in order for a small team or one person to have the skill and work ethic match to the ambitions. Just been going through a lot of personal things in life and crisis of identity to where I havent made the dedication to dive completely into what should be my passions, but Im getting there. Also know how it is to spend that many years on a project.
You can only expect a conversion rate from the wishlist of about 1%. And those stats only count full releases- so the conversion of those vague early access projects is much lower - so 2 sales from 2500 may seem poor but it's actually still within reasonable expectations.
Really interesting video! Postlaunch analysis is always a good setup to learn a lot for us all! Really liked that you went through a lot of details even though there is such a present issue here.
lmao those animations, 10k aint even that much in the grand scope of things across multiple people, sounds & looks like very young or out of touch older folk made this EDIT: Saw a live stream of the game and it should of been out free while in early access, the bugs are just horrid
That typo in the description on Steam is a HUGE deal, when I'm looking at an indie dev's store page for the first time that's one of the most important moments for that dev to show me they have a quality game and subconsciously having a grammatical error that obvious in the summary screams low quality and lack of care in the small details which for me a business programmer makes me think they don't pay attention to the small details which speaks to the quality of the experience. No matter how great the gameplay is they've started the whole relationship with me as a customer with a negative impression before I've even seen any gameplay or screenshots.
Should have been a 5 pack for like 20$. Even then, the appeal of the game would have been niche. There is already a game where you play as licensed horror villains, and that game has limited appeal. Good on them for finishing a game, though.
Yeah kind in a similar boat, I developed a game for like 6-8 months and just released in one Steam for a very small price, and sadly its barely getting any attention at all. With that said, I have kept it in my mind from the start that this was gonna be a new step as a game developer (first game I released with a price tag) and not every step is gonna be a big one, so while I am disappointed be the lack of attention and sales of my game. I am still happy with what I done and I am now preparing my next step. And you never know, games like Among Us didn't became big success til years later, so there is always a possability that might happen with any of my games.
All that work and years or development you guys as a team should have really thoght about the price. I dont even pay 40 aud for triple a games. The most important thing is that you guys finished the game and thats more valuble then money amd you now know your scope and what you can accomplish. Cant wait to see yoir next project also another problem would be it seems to be an online game therefore if not many people are playing it then no ome can play it and more people will leave the game.. anyway amazing job making the game
Awe I'm so so so sorry to hear about this sad story. It hurts so much to work on something so long and to lose so much. I believe they were successful because they finished the game, think about how much they learned about developing a game. I bet the next game they make will be much better
We changed many things thanks to feedback from John and others. Is there some more things we can also change that you have a particular suggestion about?
Very good video, I'd like to see more like this. Excellent closing words too; as a full-time solo game developer, I'm creating out of passion, fully aware that I might not make any money. And if one feels that he's "wasted his time" developing the game he shouldn't have become an indie dev in the first place.
It may just be me, but it looks like they based a lot of their expectations on the conversion rate of wishlist purchases. Appears as though they set the price point in relation to their expected conversion ratio as an attempt to get their capital back from the start, rather than lower price point for easy entry and long term cultivation.
Oh boy. I think you hit the nail on the head man. I feel it for the devs too, I can't even imagine going through this situation. I wonder if they change the price point (at least until it's out of EA) that it could help them. Fingers crossed
What a great and insightful video. Especially for game developers like me who are just getting started on their project it is eye-opening to remain realistic but also to be aware what the things are that drive the sales on Steam.
To me it just sounds like another dev who thought they would get rich quick. That's the glory of being an indie dev we can make "more" by using "less" I feel like this team assumed just because they had a budget of 10k that the game would be great. Your not a AAA dev so theres no reason for a budget like that. You kind of dug your own hole unfortunately
I doubt they were thinking "get rich quick" cause they worked on it for 4 years. If they wanted to get rich quick they would have put even less effort into the assets and would never have made it online multiayer. Online multiplayer is really difficult. It seems to me they made a legitimate attempt but just fell short due to inexperience and the market told them they fell short. Their next game will be way better.
@@bonehelm They overreached, they shouldnt have made MP to begin with. Especially since this is a clone of similar, more popular, games out there that are also cheaper in the genre. Delusional indie devs.
Recently I've seen lots of threads on twitter like "C'mon guys, let's wishlist each other's games!". I've always been hesitant to participate because I feel this would get me some wishlists from people who would never buy the game. So good for the algorithm, not good for my own expectation. I would be curious to know if those devs participated to threads like that.
that idea reminds me of "follow for follow" threads. like sure you get more followers that vaguely like the same thing you do (the thing i saw was for artists), from what i saw some interaction picks up but not as much as you might expect. Though it would be super interesting of that happened to be the case with this game dev
All wishlists are not created equal. It's not just about the number, it's also the quality - wishlists are essentially user-acquisition. It's way, way more effective to get fewer wishlists from people who genuinely want to buy your game than just goosing the numbers in hopes of making Steam-sempai notice you.
Super sucks to launch a game and it's a flop... but man, that steam page design is atrocious. You just can't rush that part, that's THE intro to your game for 95% of people.
The devs really didn’t put their best foot forward. This is a better look at the game imo, ruclips.net/video/Y1zeD9hOTyc/видео.html They used old footage in the steam trailer, why? Idk. The price is also pretty high especially considering it may still go up on full release. I also think the lighting is a bit flat for the type of game they’re making, that’s just how I feel and I don’t even play games like this. The gifs also don’t show anything interesting imo. I don’t think it’s too late for them though.
they shouldnt put tutorial into it, who wants to see that? tutorial is boring and anybody buying an indie multiplayer game knows the default movements already
@@orkhepaj not referring to the tutorial necessarily, but a more up to date showcase of the game. The devs themselves said they used old footage in the trailers which wasn’t really a good idea.
What's the point of teaching wasd as movement? Im pretty sure everybody already know that, Why you can jump and crutch when you are literally inside a building walking. Not well thought game, it feels like devs have no much experience in games
Their two biggest mistakes were the price, and making an Indie game in a genre that is already oversaturated with AAA studio work, when you have a game like Dead by Daylight with the number of fans it has, and you make another game with a similar concept and game style then you need something to set yourself apart to attract customers, unfortunately this doesn't have much in the way of features and gameplay that sets it apart from DBD or any of the other similar games. Single player games are a little more forgiving of this, but multiplayer games are really unforgiving, you need to make a very unique and well designed game to get the multiplayer crowds attention, and unless you have a good amount of people ready to pay and play before you release multiplayers are the hardest games to get off the ground because you will always have the "i bought this multiplayer game but there's nobody to play with" people who won't wait for it to pick, meaning it doesn't pick up. As to wish lists being an important metric, there was an article a while back (i forget where) written by an analyst at valve that basically stated a vast majority of people put games on wish lists because they had an interest in seeing how it develops, but aren't interested in buying until it's been out for a while and is in a sale, so i wouldn't take much note of conversion rates.
These devs: "we didn't neglect marketing" Also these devs: "we spent a thousand dollars on ads" Advertising is not marketing people!!! Nobody cares about your product, they care what your product can do for them.
It's actually possible to make a game completely on your own from your living room without needing any legal or anything like that. I would recommend that as a starting point for any developer. If I was to hire a big team I would make sure I have enough money to completely fail with that project; it's like if you go on a ship to treasure island you have to bring enough for the return journey in case you don't get the treasure.
I really appreciate that you made this video. It helps to learn from others..I definitely agree that price point combined with early access is a hard sell. And to think it may be multiplayer only too, that's a lot of money to play.
10:10 I think the right term here would be that the look does not feel "cohesive", which is the hallmark of asset flip games (and bad lighting is another one)
I checked the Steam page for this game and personally it is one of those games that if a dev sent me a key to play, I likely wouldn't even touch it. It looks like a game made in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the price point is extremely high for what it is that I could never recommend others to get it, and the game itself is so over niche that it won't appeal to most.
What? How does this a game from 1990s? Does this looks like Final Fantasy 1 to you? Or Resident evil 1?Or maybe Red Alert 2? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Even if it doesn’t look nice - at least have a decency to be honest and compare it to the era where a character wasn’t 2d 16 by 16 pixels wide or did not consist of 10 polygons. Geesh
I think the devs that did Crisis VRigade had a really good strategy for a low-budget indie game. They chose a flat shaded deliberate low-poly style and focused entirely on making the game fun and getting the gameplay loop to feel satisfying. Then they only asked for $10. The game was trying to emulate the feel of Time Crisis so it was already tapping into something that people were familiar with. After the success of the first game, they rolled that into a much nicer looking sequel.
Advertising is NOT marketing. The marketing is bad. Bad price point especially for niche multiplayer, TERRIBLE timing to launch an indie, failing to understand the difference between early access and full launch, unclear screenshots, bad selection of clips, wall-of-text in the description, the list goes on and on.
But kudos for making a game (especially a multiplayer game). They clearly did put in lots of work.
What was the price?
Oh wait I just saw
What do you mean by terrible time to launch? Do you mean the season or just generally for all indie games?
@@jeremynunns7496 typically when there's a known holiday coming up there might be a huge sale on steam. It means that your full price game has to compete with a lot of games that go on sale. For example a lot of horror games might go on discount during holloween to try and ride that trend before going full price again.
You might get some traffic thanks to a lot of people shopping on steam BUT it also means there's TONS of competition. The same thing applies to the huge December rush.
I'm sure there's more to it too but that's what i could think of since the game released in October
@@GwyndolinOwO Thanks! That makes sense.
I'd definitely expect a game like this to be under $10. There is a lot of risk buying a game from an unknown dev, an early access game, and a multiplayer-only game. The more risk, the less I am willing to pay.
$5 to $8.
yeah i'd say 20 bucks tops. but generally 10-15 range.
@@skilletpan5674 I agree
This. Multiplayer Games nowadays live from being run by massive devs or from blowing up big time early. Even then (Among Us) they tend to die down sooner or later. Spending that much money on a game whichs site is somewhat poorly managed is just not going to happen.
So a low price to get people into the game when you are confident it's something great is a good way to start getting attention. SPECIALLY with having it in Early Access.
Early Access is basically a huge shield of "this game will be different or will never be finished" on your page. You get around that by having it fairly cheap so the loss if you mess up isn't as big for the buyers.
I dunno about "under $10". I think $15 would've been a fine price point (note: I still wouldn't have bought it because it's just not my kind of game). If I was the developer, I'd've price-matched Phasmophobia even if I felt like it was a much better game, because the demographic for the kind of game it is (paranormal, dark, scary, multiplayer-only, asymmetric competitive multiplayer) is *extremely* narrow.
And Leppits, Among Us had been out for *two years* before it "blew up". And the reason it "blew up" - I heard - is because the developers gave it away to some streamers (no idea if extra arrangements were made, that is, if the developer/publisher paid them to pay it).
Wishlists are often used as reminders of games coming out that you MIGHT want and wish to keep an eye on. Never take them as a reliable metric for sales.
That's exactly what I use them for. Games that seem like they may be interesting or that I'd pick up if they dropped enough in price.
Especially when it's a 5 player game, when it launches you'd then check with friends if they all want to buy it, and if they don't, you won't buy it.
People that make these games where you require friends to all agree to buy it and play are nuts.
I’d say wishlist should probably be called meh maybe later list
@@Lucas-gt8en or a "maybe if it hits a big discount later" list.
My wishlist is full of games but none of them I buy. They look interesting, but I can't buy them all. More games are added but one or two are either bought or removed yearly.
13:30 Yep, that pretty much answers it. Phasmophobia is $14 and that's your biggest competition right now in this subgenre. You need to stay in that range. Ghost Hunters Corp, which is extremely similar to Ph but in a fully designed town is $20. So there's your range scale-wise if you think you're more developed than Ph, I wouldn't dare price it higher than that.
Yep. I wouldn't say it can't/shouldn't be done but when your competitors are games of such quality and community fanfare you're shooting yourself on the foot. Why would people leave THE game of this subgenre/niche to go play yours- a game that's in early access and costs so much?
Also, a super niche multiplayer games means that people who wanted to play online with randoms may have returned it due to the empty lobbies….
you REALLY need a single player even for just the fact that you might keep them around long enough for them to consider not returning it i think
This reminds me of Toxikk which was a AAA polish level FPS game which was actually very fun to play but it never reached critical mass of players so that means it gets basically no players at all because everyone who tries it will find empty servers. It has positive reviews but there is no point playing it alone.
@@casse82 Thats why some Online Multiplayer games in the past would give free downloads to first X amount of players to build a player base.
@@fabienherry6690 that's why I'm making a strong single-player first and then releasing multi-player. It also means the game never really dies because it won't rely on a player base :D do you have any other tips? I'm always open to hear community feedback c:
@@angelocarantino4803 I haven't played this game, but in reference to the multiplayer aspect, I have played one or two (can't seem to remember the titles) that offered a free version that had one aspect of the multiplayer that would bring in the numbers (fill the lobby, etc.) and that would in theory bring in sales for the full game. I think it's a pretty good idea, especially in light of the newness of this game to the world and the lack of players.
The devs are definitely delusional. They looked at the quality of their game and thought they could charge 42.00 for it. Thats insane. And it's not even finished? Have they ever even looked at what other games are out there? You can buy huge games with lots of polish for 10 to 20 bucks. AAA games go on sale all the time for cheaper than this and they have the advantage of having way more consumer confidence than an unknown indie developer. I really don't know what there is to be confused about. It's pretty straightforward.
42 dollars is reasonable, if the game is finished and fun. There's shitty ass games going for 70 dollars now
$42 is way too much. People might be willing to drop $10 each for some friends to try it together for a night. But you have to get those initial players, and if they'll play it you should give it away for free. Too cheap though, and people will not think you are serious.
$8.99 sounds right to me.
It's now $10, but on sale right now for $7, that's a great price point and definitely worth it if you and a few friends are looking for something to play, props to the devs for listening to feedback.
@Carmine At least the devs behind No Mans Sky had unique tech that had a lot of potential from launch that people could see, and the developers have drastically turned the game around over the years, for free, and made the game into so much more than it ever promised to be. Not sure if you're aware of that but No Man's Sky is actually as truly amazing game now.
you can get rage these days for $5. doom 1 costs more than it.
As soon as I saw the game's page I though "yeah..."
I think your assessment is spot on. Price point too high, early access, and multiplayer-only are always going to make it a tough sell. Throw in a relatively poor game presentation on the page - the text and the trailer video aren't really selling what is good about the game or even how it works - and it's going to seal the deal for bad sales. All I see is some fairly generic horror-investigator themed co-op FPS with a fair amount of jank. It's described as 4v1 but I never got a good impression of what the '1' is doing in the game.
It's a shame to see that amount of hard work flounder but times are tough for Indie developers.
Nevermind indie - this game would've been a hard sell even for a major studio. Horror is a niche genre, with a core audience that has very specific likes/expectations - story, character, atmosphere, music - and none of that is conveyed by the stuff shown on that Steam page. You want someone to start getting spooked sitting comfortably in their home with the lights on 😨I'm not saying they need to make the next Resident Evil or Left 4 Dead, but they should've looked at how those games are made & sold, and worked out what in their game is similar/different. I mean, I don't play horror (too chicken), but even I know that it's mostly a single-player genre, even if your game has a MP component.
I think the idea they were going for is good, but for an indie dev on a 10k budget its a bit ambitious. Especially when they intend to use assets they bought and not created themselves.
The price was £7 is that too high?
@@BooshyBrows no it was 32$. Whats that, about 26£?
Actually indie developers are humans too, and like humans, they won't admit that they screwed it up if they've gotten lazy or wasted their time while developing and not being efficient.
If you've wasted thousands just to get to a point where the game is janky and not complete, and is forced to release in order to recoup the cost... You fked it up.
Stop developing games on idealism, start being realistic, it'll help, especially since ideology is what most people seems to stick to these years...
Make successful simpler games first to rack up support and fundings to make a dream project possible, popular indie games that has no publishing backings took their time, and the project launched strategically when it needs to be, not when a developer's failure at livelihood dries up.
I get it, sometimes life is cruel and unfair and you have someone steal your laptop while you are on break or something (project zomboid), or a power outage corrupted the project or the entire computer and you lost it all and need to remake it... But this is why there is such a thing called 'risk mitigation'.
They seem to have turned things around abit, if you look at steam now, you will see the price is alot lower, and there seems to be rather positive reviews there, as well as a few recent updates. So this thing with the devs reaching out for feedback seems to have been positive overall.
Thanks! We've made many of the changes John suggested and are working the longer term ones still. We're a small team of 2 so iterative improvements is all we can do.
@@NonNobisGames best of luck to you guys! A two person dev studio already has their work cut out for them! Keep it up!
Hey, you guys just making an attempt let alone all you have done is great.
Keep it up.
Keep in mind that you guys are learning so much by making a game like this. Even if the game isn't an overwhelming success...hell even if it is a flop, how much money do people pay for such an education in making games, lots of money.@@NonNobisGames
If you read through the dev's full early access notes they make it clear that there is only one playable area, and that the current price is discounted for early access... they planned to charge even more for the full game. Personally even though I enjoy this type of game there is no way I would drop that kind of money on an early access with only one playable area.
An important video - thanks for making it!
I do not know how to put it, and not sound like a complete douchebag. But having worked 4 years in a team, with some external contributors on top, and having just one playable area, sounds like a low effort to me. And maybe that one area is very large and detailed, and I am wrong, but still.
@@BlackStarForge in my opinion, it would be different if the area was like hitmans stages, where you could be in 1 place playing for an hour or more because of the different ways you can accomplish your goal of that area.
You didn't come off like a douche at all, it's honest and concise.
@@BlackStarForge Appreciate the feedback, it is only one area because it's been made multiple times. We had tried to make a procedurally generated level at first but there are limitations we learned about the engine that would not make this possible. (For instance, streamed levels force static lights to dynamic which can tank your frames).
Also, 4 years on a team isn't fulltime 2080 hours per person per year with all members. It's 1 hr here there during the week, or 2-3 on a weekend. Friends leaving / joining the project over time. So total hours is a lot less as it did suck up any and all free time we were able to provide.
@@NonNobisGames Hi, I read later somewhere, you were mostly just two guys, which combined with making it as side project makes sense, and that procedural setback accounts for the rest of missing estimate I had. And after reading reddit post, and discussion here, and steam reviews, I think you got more than appropriate share of harsh responses.
And I genuinely think you did well enough to deserve some reasonable revenue and appreciation for your game, wish it will catch second breath. At the same time, while I cannot even imagine how heart breaking it must have been, I would recommend to move on and not sift through 2 week old YT responses. :)
Be well.
Don't care. High price, low content, I skip.
Well, I'm a videogame developer myself, working for a AAA company. Main points:
- The final quality is quite decent but after 4 years of development the game should have been released much more polished (animations, UI, fonts, trailers...). The only excuse I can think about is that they just started developing games and they had too many problems re-doing things so they could not focus on details.
- If you are an indie team with no background or reputation dont try to develop a multiplayer game... You dont have any playerbase or community to support you. Start by making a solid single player horror game, and then, if it goes well, develop the multiplayer.
- Uninformed and delusional devs. A hundred members on Discord and two hundred whishlists is nothing, it is like friends and family, if you think you had a good community to launch the game you don't know about the current indie market status. I've been in indie games discord servers with 5k members and seen only 10% conversion rate.. Also, marketing is not buying ads, nowadays your marketing must be Twitter and Twitch, trying to engage with any streamer you can get.
I'm sorry for them but the main critique could be:
"A mediocre game that does not innovate in any way. The graphics have good quality and the controls respond correctly but there is no incentive to invest more hours in it. There is no community to support the multiplayer mode and it is still on early access" - 5/10.
I think it was a generous final rating :) Im curious about the genre itself. Is horror a dead game genre?
5/10? You are very generous. I give 6/10 to GTAV... :D
So... sounds to me like you're saying it's just as unfinished/unpolished as Cyberpunk 2077, every WoW x-pack, and everything EA puts out these days, except they are trying to break even o Steam instead of trying to hype it up to the world and the world's grandma... Sounds like these guys got the AAA style down, then, except for the hyping. Not bad for an indie team with just some friends and family.
no single player, high entry price, lighting in game doesn't give the tense fear factor and they seem afraid to push limits, something the animations are a bit stiff too, hope they dont give up and keep polishing the game
that all can be ignored. if the price was lower and without early accsess. look at Phasmophobia it has most of these janky stuff but it still did great
@@Arrkail Yeah was thinking of that game too, gameplay and atmosphere can absolutely bypass graphics and amateur quality.
@@Arrkail yeah, but one of the catches here is that you can't look at game A and apply it to game B and assume it will work. There are so many things that go into why a game is successful that are completely outside of the game itself - i.e. what's popular at the time (outside of games even).
What these guys don't realise is that this experience is no different for AAA games. Only 1 in 5 there are successful. Obviously the ratio is worse in indie games, but it doesn't matter how much effort you put, marketing guarantees nothing, and quality isn't even the deciding factor.
Luck is the biggest factor. All you can do is push the balance in your favour as much as possible.
no single player? how to limit your market to 10% of what it could be in one easy step!
@@Arrkail phasmo is good streamer content, and even though I don't have much interest in it myself, it's a coop game, with interesting voice recognition mechanics.
Great analysis. The game is definitely too expensive.
I think another factor to consider is the time of the wishlists. The game was 4 years in development. If someone wishlisted the game 2 years ago and then see that it's only in early access, they probably won't trust it.
Ah that's a point we didn't consider, we didn't have it on Steam until March 2021 for Demo so the wishlists aren't multiple years old at least. Also, the game is now $10 which seems to be a lot more fair.
The main issue is that they spent 4 years on a project without practicing first by going through smaller production cycles. And the reddit OP sounds like he has a case of Dunning-Kruger. The game has no hint of quality, from the presentation to the content. In a world with AAA/indie darlings/Netflix/RUclips/taking a nap, if you're in the wrong portion of the 80/20 quality split, you're done for.
Still, investing 4 years to fail is brutal. I hope they take it for what it is, a learning experience.
Or to spend 10k and assume you would break even on your first sale *facepalm*
I agree. As easy as it is to see a lot of flaws in our own work it can also become really easy to ignore those flaws, or being able to admit that you have no idea what you're doing. I have a game idea but I really want to do some small stuff first, as excited as I am to get into my dream game. I think game jams are honestly a cool way to get inspired into making games or even just prototypes that prove you can make a certain game mechanic. Theres a ton of gamejams that last longer then your average 2 day one two so you can always pick something that fits your time needs. Hell you can even create your own personal "jams" to give yourself an excuse to practice. It still takes a shit ton of effort though, so i can kind of see why a lot of indies kind of ignore making small games, since short games have a bad rep of being "worse" then games you can pump 100 hours into
@@jigsawalwayswins8636 Losing money sucks but life goes on. Losing 4 years of your life..., well life went on and you can't get it back. But I don't think they lost 4 years, I think they spent 4 years learning a harsh lesson they will never forget.
@@GwyndolinOwO Little advice to know if you're ready, as long as game jams take you a shit ton of effort don't engage in a multi-year production.
Folks need to ask questions and learn stuff *before* spending a ton of money and roping in their friends. I mean, you wouldn't buy a used car for $10K without doing any homework on what's out there, dealer reputation, checking your savings/credit, etc. I feel like people undervalue creative endeavors, business/entrepreneurship, and the value of their own labor, all under the banner of "I wanna make games". I mean they think $10K was their break-even, based on assets & contractors, which means they aren't figuring in the cost of labor/time-spent. That's not how business works.
to me my wishlist is just a compilation of games i wanna grab when they're on discount ...
only buy games at full price when im totally hyped and kinda know that i'll like it ... stuff like elden ring for example
Kingdom Come Deliverance was the only game I didn't get on a sale. The hype was well warranted.
@@darken2417 Unlike Cyberpunk 2077
Dang, I've been wish listing games wrong for years. I Wishlist games I want to buy and then do so when they come out. This experience showed just how abnormal we are though.
That's how I use the wishlist as well. Games I actually want to buy, I'll just buy. Games on my wishlist are to remind me games that looked interesting enough to buy when discounted enough.
@@Moskeeto Agreed. I'll leave games on there if the discount isn't low enough or I have too much backlog already.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that the price plus the fact it's early access is why people were put off. Everything else was honestly fine for me. Even the apparent potential asset flip feel it gave didn't bother me per say.
What is the price, though?
@@toufiqmusah6480 CDN$ 17.49, not sure the American price.
@@ArkOfAges it's price $40 u can. Check it on the Reddit post
@@LeviAckerman-xt7dx 40USD for early access?
Never heard of it. But it's if it's early access I'd have kept away from it anyway. Smart shoppers do not buy early access games. Too much potential for bugs or to end up wasting money on a game that never gets finished. Buying early access was a risky proposition to begin with, and too many times have people been burned buying early-access games to warrant the risk.
Personally, I’m not going to spend more than $30 on a game unless it’s something I’m really looking forward to. Certainly not an indie game. The truth is, there are too many $20 indies that are just better experiences.
I dont even buy AAA games for that much. I wait for a few months for a sale. Paying that much for an unfinished indie game is crazy.
I really wonder how they dreamed up that price. Lunacy.
My wife works as a Marketing Manager for an indie game publisher. From what I've learned from her experiences and just my own opinion, I'd say there are 2 factors here. First is probably the same as you point out. Price. Way too high. In a market where players generally want everything for free, pricing above AAA competitors is not a good idea. The other is just the fact that MOST indie games fail. Lots that look better and are less niche than this have failed. Nothing about the game really stands out and it is already in a genre/style that is super niche. That might sound harsh but demand has to be there and then you have to meet the demands, otherwise you fail. The demand is small for something like this and what exists is generally more appealing than what exists here. At least in my opinion.
Marketing x supply & demand 101
@@myc_tv that's the million dollar question
@@myc_tv The only people really in a position to attempt that are the biggest AAA companies, and they do so by collecting masses of user data relating to how they play and analysing it. Any time you play a game and it asks you if you want to connect to X service to share data that will "improve the game experience" or whatever, that's what they're doing. Most online games don't even ask. And needless to say, even the companies doing that usually get it wrong. So an indie dev has no chance.
imo the only way indie games can succeed is either by bringing something unique to the table (the whole game doesn't need to be unique, just enough to make it stand out) or follow an existing trend and just... do it better. That latter point is the reason why the selling point of so many indie games is "like that game you played 20 years ago, but better." With the development technology available today indie devs can easily compete with successful AAA retro games on a technical level, so if that's what they aim for then they "only" need to focus on the more creative aspects.
@@myc_tv why try to bank on trends as a small fish? you don't have the resources for research and development. by the time your game is ready the trend maybe dead. take a timeless niche, copy a proven formula, add your own unique style and flavor, add layers of effective gamification to build addiction, monetize, continually improve. don't try to reinvent the wheel. look what the guy who runs this channel did: made a platform game. basic AF but fun and timeless. his unique twist was the viking theme. don't overanalyze.
Agreed. I've not done the figures but I suspect that for every successful indie game, there are over 2000 failed ones. The days of the bedroom coder or even the small team are gone and the exceptions to that are very few and far between. What they built was competing with professional companies with money and a large number of developers, artists, etc. behind them. Not a chance. There's nothing wrong with aiming for the stars but realise that you're not flying the USS Enterprise.
I'm a huge believer in demos. I recommend all devs release a demo to get feedback from the community. Maybe it's worth playing, but early access and the high price point makes it too much of a risk.
This IS the way. Asking for cash to test a game ( pre release ) is a red flag
Shareware needs a comeback.
Watching the steam page of this game, it all reminds me of a phenomenon I've noticed. I call the phenomenon "I would NOT play this even if it was free.".
Epic games store gives out free games every week. And being cheep as I am, I've been claiming these games from day one. 😁But out of almost 400 games I've claimed, I've only played 3 of them. And there were quiet a few games that I didn't want to claim at all. They looked so bad that I knew I would never play them, even if developers payed me like $20 a day to play that game, I would refuse.
And by the way, I do play games almost every day. It's just that we are now days spoiled for choice so much, that a mediocre game just isn't worth my time anymore. I only want excellent gaming experience.
I recommend that these developers try a little experiment. Give this game out for free for a little bit. Perhaps a week, maybe even a month. Let's see if players rush to play it. My prediction is, even if this was free, it would fail to attract players. A game like this just isn't enough anymore.
That phenomenon is also known as "I'm not the target audience" & tbh that's a little up to you because plenty of those free Epic titles are actually amazing games
dain son, this is brutal, but you are right lol
Did you grab Kingdom Come Deliverance from epic? Now that game is a real gem. Best game of the decade easily.
exactly, time is valuable, devs must entice the consumer, not the other way around. Sad, but true. The only way some may play a game that has nothing special to offer is that they feel sympathy towards the dev.
The moment I go to a Steam page, see a typo and the "Early Access" tag, I immediately think - low quality game someone rushed out in a month using store-bought assets. Coupled with no single-player it screams "empty lobby in 2 weeks".
But usually, if the screenshots are enticing enough, I would at least try and search for it on RUclips to find some gameplay videos. And yet, when I search for it, all I can find are 2 gameplay trailers! Where are the recorded streams from testing the game? Where can I see what the actual gameplay looks like or whether or not I need 4 friends or is it an open lobby type of deal? There's nothing, so the Steam tab gets closed and I move on.
The hars truth from my side is that I saw 3 things that immidiatly made me think "dead game". In order, that big Early Access badge, it's a gigantic red flag and as soon as I see it on any game my eyes dart over to the overview of reviews and in this case there was no alleviating factors there. The second thing was that its a indie studio making a multiplayer only game, multiplayer games need active players and indie games rarely have that even if they are really solid. The third aspect was the price, just looking at the number I could see those 2000 wishlisters going "-thats the sum that goes in the toilet if this ends up being dead."
Everyone keeps hammering on the early access point. Seems like a full release is the way for indie.
Here’s a link to a game I’m making, by the way. Hugely backed by Lost Relic’s tutorials and words of wisdom.
ruclips.net/video/qZrdrtOLmYE/видео.html
Follow along and subscribe. xD
@@toufiqmusah6480 easy release is fine depending on what the game delivers on and the price. The price for this is the main factor here. Visage was totally worth the 20 I put down early access I would have even paid the 30 dollar full price after early access.
@@toufiqmusah6480 More like devs need to understand the risk proposition involved with Early Access as a customer. You're asking people to risk time and money on a promise that may never be fulfilled. Even the multi-million dollar studios with established reputations sometimes screw up, and indies have a much, much higher fail-rate. So as soon as you ask for money, you'd better provide a basically-complete, fun experience, that just has a little tuning required. And not all genres - or dev teams - are really suited for Early Access. If you blow through the handful of people who were ever going to be interested in those early months, then basically by the time your game launches "for real", it's gonna be DOA.
@@toufiqmusah6480 To me personally the only way I'll show interest in an early access game is some unique selling point like a mechanic or story, and even then I would expect to pay at least half the normal price. Plenty of early access games never feel finished and no one really wants to have half an experience.
Man, I definitely agree with the price being the greatest reason for the flop. The developers had just got so high hopes to think that consumers would buy this kind of game for the price they set. Sometimes we also need to evaluate our games properly specially when it comes to taking other people's money.
Don't make your first game too big.
EDIT: damn yep the game is way too expensive as well.
Yep. You are not AAA studio, make it simple.
Too late… I tried to keep it simple… feature creep is real.
Or be ready to fail.
You can always make a contingency plan, or not invest anything you cannot lose (as on stock market).
True. It's hard to handle multiplayer game for indie devs
I think agile development can really help with bad feature creep. This means building the small vertical slice that is playable, iterating, and having people actually play each iteration. It's hard to accept that all your ideas aren't perfect and achievable, but if you do the risk goes way down.
In my experience showing my game projects to my friends and family is absolutely 100% useless. Even if you tell them to be harsh, cruel and tell you if it's not fun, etc. they might make some very light suggestions but won't make any real criticisms.
Oddly, showing your game to randos in public can have the opposite effect. If you show it off to a community of nasty people, they might just say it sucks and offer no input, crushing your spirit in the process.
Getting good input from honest people is REALLY hard.
100% agreed. The fastest way to get honest feedback is to have a bunch of people pay real money for it lol. There's no substitute for steam reviews.
@@bonehelm This is it for sure, the people who have bought the game and joined our Discord are probably the most valuable. Followed by people on social media who are active in the game dev community like John here. I'm glad we got the feedback we needed to improve things both already done in the short term, and working now on the longer more difficult things.
lol .. its the same with music production
Laymen, even gamers can't give inputs. You should ask people working in the industry, ask game dev communities. It's their job, so giving harsh and honest feedback is second nature to them. It's not such a big deal within the industry space. Thsi is true for all arts actually. The consumer might detect something is off, but they cannot specify what - that requires actual expertise.
You guys have a discord. Let's start a game Dev server
Giving it to them straight:
Delusional devs.
I'm completely with you on the 'asset flip' uncanny valley point.
Waaaaay too expensive.
Conan Exiles was 20usd in Early Access?!
Now the game is 15usd
Conan Exiles seems like it's been around forever. They had a huge license and money to burn just waiting for it to hit the big time and I remember in its prerelease days they seemed to have a few people producing an email newsletter fulltime. I never took the plunge but it was interesting to see how that game developed.
I bought Subnautica Below Zero on Epic Games store when it was in early access and on sale. It was 7 euros.
@@luisff7030 6 USD at this moment
The long dark was like 5 bucks in early access. Now it´s like 15 dollars in PC and almost 25 in Xbox.
When a team starts a new project, they need to reach their target audience as soon as possible with early demos - released as soon as possible. Be honest with yourself and modest when setting the price of the game. Look at the prices of successful competing products and what they offer in terms of content, game mechanics and visuals.
Marketing is your go-to-market game plan. Advertising is just one component. As a game marketer and publisher, I find it's something many indie devs often neglect, partly due to lack of resources but mostly due to lack of awareness. It's what turns a passion project into a viable business. This includes pre-development analysis of your target audience and their expectations, unmet needs in the market, price points or monetization systems that make sense, channels and markets to choose, competitor analysis so your game can stand out within its genre/category, small focus group prototype tests for preliminary feedback, even tactical collabs and partnerships to help spread the word before launch etc. It's far easier to reduce risk by asking all these questions ahead of time rather than find out after putting years and tens of thousands into a project.
It does not necessarily have to include an advertising budget. (I've launched million-user games with zero advertising dollars; it just takes a heck of a lot of community building and time.) Advertising is merely an amplifier. Meaning if it's a great game, loads more people will play it. If it's not what the market wants, you'll just get loads more complaints, bad reviews, and returns.
Something that immediately stands out to me is they mentioned it was their first game. Not just first release. I personally had owned a steam app ID for three years, and made multiple games, before I finally claimed that app ID for a title to release. I say this because I want to emphasize the fact that I took the time to get comfortable with my engine, workflow, and concept process.
I have had multiple conversations with my 5 man freelance team now, regarding our price point. There's been plenty of conversation focusing on whether to release for 15, or 20, USD. As much as I would love to say "50 bucks is fair," and at times Believe it (plenty of long late nights, working 16 hours at a time), I understand that I simply cannot give a triple A level of polish and attention to it. I cannot justify a 50 dollar pricetag, regardless of how much I personally feel it would warrant it.
Multiplayer is especially difficult, even more so as a first game. Tackling smaller projects with less reliance on complicated tech allows you to build up to that level much better, and be better prepared and equipped for development at that level in the future. I simply do not trust a first time dev making a multiplayer game. I know, first-hand, the hardship and struggle involved.
Reading descriptions for a game is like stepping into the doorway of that game, and feels like our first opportunity to get a representation of the game dev's attention to detail. A bad copy is a reflection of what I would imagine the game to feel like, and that's not great when the copy is bad.
Early Access is terrifying. I could throw my money at a game, and then the game gets completely abandoned. Even the games that have survived the EA test of time (in my personal experience, mind you) were, at times, very unenjoyable (I'm looking at you, RUST). Littered with bugs, and a fallback excuse of being EA, forces a certain amount of distrust in the EA tag. While I've considered EA on my own game a few times, I've decided against it. It's too unknown, too many variables, and I wouldn't like to give a sense of uneasiness to my purchasing parties.
Steam is a pain to work with. My first attempt to get my store page was shot down because my logo wasn't transparent. This followed a convoluted process of messaging back and forth as different eyes took part in our approval process. It's not a pleasant experience to work through, and I'd add... Even less if you're a dev, and not a marketer.
I speak a lot from my own experiences, as mentioned above, because they're what I base my comment on.
I feel like a lot went wrong here, and I hope that the devs are taking steps to correct some of the red flags. It's not easy to make a game, even harder to finish one. I applaud them for getting this far, and hope they do find success in the future.
I'm in so much shock that someone could be in shock that their game launch failed. I would be so surprised if mine succeeded. I envy people who can actually think of themselves as winners before even proving it
I dont because when you think that way you get this
Delusion & money
And it didn't even fail, what happened is the market changed to mimic what the corporations are doing, selling flops to start then improving them later.
@@astrahcat1212 This is ironically sadly true. They would have made more money in early access/greenlight from selling their dream to dreamers, who would also have been more likely not to have wanted a refund due to mental sunk cost attached to the purchase.
@@lazyox Its not delusion lol. The dude in the original post straight up said that he was "Pretty confident" they'd break even. Where the hell is the delusion in that especially given the rest of the story?
9:35 I bet they included this image to convey that feeling that the monsters are sneaky hunters (notice the ghoul in the back) and the investigators need to be careful.
This is almost unnoticeable though at a first glance (because of the color contrast, framing etc) and you don't really get a second one.
I feel like they generally fell in this trap with all their screenshots and trailers; they had something in mind that they wanted to convey that's not really obvious to people unfamiliar with the game. Instead what stands out unfortunately are as you said the lackluster graphics and some wonky gameplay.
Tbh when you're advertising to people, you really just have to assume your potential customer is an idiot, and as such you need to be very specific and direct with how you advertise. Nothing is ever just "self evident;" you NEED to be direct with marketing.
Going after such a niche genre was a pretty big blunder, imo. Regardless of how passionate you may be about asymmetrical multiplayer games, trying to sell a _"4v1, supernatural-horror, multiplayer-exclusive game"_ in a market where _Dead by Daylight_ exists is a pretty big risk.
DBD has its own share of flaws, for sure, but it also has bucket-loads of horror franchise tie-ins -- something that you, as an indie dev, simply aren't going to keep up with. Short of winning the lottery or getting picked-up by a big-name developer, you're inevitably going to break into the market looking like "the inferior version of [X]".
The game really needs something big and unique to set it apart, especially for that steep of a price.
nothing wrong with the niche. the problem is the multiplayer requirement, price, and the game looks clunky and unpolished AF.. it already looks 15 years dated for some reason.
@@chrishayes5755 Just looking the pictures and video it looks assetflippy, now add the 32 euro price, good luck anybody ever consider buying this.
For like 10, peoples might consider it can be fun and cheap enough where you don't regret that much if it can't.
That price point was a SHOCK. I would likely never spend that much on an early access game from unknown devs. The nail in the coffin that truly sealed this games fate was also no single player. So if I'm not even gonna fork up that cash, how am I gonna convince the 3 other friends that I don't have to also do that. All things considered, these decision are crazy.
Game visuals are crucial for an indie game to get attention. It has to be easy to read (ideally just from the glance), stand out in some way, and show some effort being put into it.
This might be harsh, but I think Dirge suffers from not matching any of these.
Also I would say, that if your game is not appealing on the surface, but has solid gameplay, you should not focus so much on the launch. But actively build up player base, and let the word spread (which btw should have been done before launch itself intensely in this case).
I am relatively new to game dev, but a long time gamer, I have seen these principles realized many times in past.
EDIT: And the price is ridiculously high for early access.
@@SkeleTonHammer I am absolutely certain that if Phasmopobia did not get randomly picked up by RUclipsrs and Twitch, it would end up as obscure horror game. These cases are very very rare, and cannot and should not be taken as an inspiration to be followed.
People who care about you and your feelings will naturally find it hard to be cruel and harsh.
I recently attended a conference talk by one of the biggest game dev company execs in Germany.
Essentially what he said is, that making a small - mid budget Indie game in the current market conditions is one of the worst possible business plans.
And that's coming from someone who did it for many years successfully, so naturally he would have some survivorship bias.
Something that makes me more hopeful about our project is, that I focused on making the money first for a bigger budget, outside of game dev.
THEN started my company for a big RPG project. Before that I just made small low budget games for practice, with no real intention for profit.
I feel like this strategy is kind of business development 101, but quite often indie devs look at me in surprise when I tell them about it.
could you elaborate? its the worst possible decision for who?
@@dfghj241 probably for the developers
Keep at it.
Here’s a link to a game I’m making, by the way. Hugely backed by Lost Relic’s tutorials and words of wisdom.
ruclips.net/video/qZrdrtOLmYE/видео.html
Follow along and subscribe. xD
The competition is fierce. It's not enough to have a good game.
@@toufiqmusah6480 obviously. Vir for what kinda devs? Double a? That doesnt fit most devs
My tip to devs would be: start marketing your game in the early development process. You need to build your audience first. Also, it allows to gather feedback from players while doing so.
As a consumer, I threat my Wishlist as a separation between "Trash vs Something I'll Buy Heavily Discounted"
My wishlist has 600 titles.
Good on them for being so vulnerable and asking for criticism. Thanks for your walkthrough and constructive opinions!
The game does indeed look like a lot of other games in my eyes at least, which isn't neccessarily a problem. But the problem here is indeed with the price. For this price I could get 2 or 3 games that are similar to this one. Next to that the game is still in early access, and a lot of people are trying to stay away from early access games since there's the problem of some early access games never leaving early access. Early access also often gets seen as an excuse for the bugs that are in the game, that's why we often never see some of these games leave early access. Next to that, the Steam page could definitely need some work. The sentence in the short description is nearly impossible to read and halfway through reading that sentence, you bet that the majority would already close the page. Next to that, like you said, in some of the gifs it's impossible to tell what is going on, or if there is even anything going on at all. The wishlist conversion rate is just beyond insanely low, most of these probably didn't expect this price and next to that the early access. I truly hope they can update some of the critique you have given them here, because 4 years is a very long time and it's obviously dissapointing to see results like these. Props to them for releasing a game on Steam and best of luck to them on improving their product.
If I'm looking at it
1. Price too high, bring it down to 15
2. It's a hard sell for a small indie game to be multi-player/horror you have to really nail how the game looks and feels in presentation. Most people (not all) who like indie games tend to go for a single player personal experience not fight enemy here go there repeate. What are you giving the player that can't be found in another game, with a bigger budget but at a similar price point?
3. Early access, many chose not to opt in for these, people normally want a complete game before shelling out the full price.
4. Timing, be careful about when you release it
5. On an indie project it's not a good idea to try for realistic. AAA developers have the team to make it look good a small team doesn't.
I feel for these developers, but they were in over their heads with this.
The price as I type this is $15 USD. So, looks like they dropped the price. That's a step in the right direction. But it's early access. Valheim is in early access too, but it's $20 and it looks soooo much better than this game. I think the trailer is pretty bad too. If I were them I'd redo that on the double.
Important to note: Valheim sold 7.9M copies as of August. That's a gross profit of $158 Million dollars. It had a much longer/more expensive production and got insanely lucky too.
We haven't won the streamer lottery (we may have sounded a bit whiney trying to convey this in regards to going viral). So while we're not trying to be cantankerous there is truth in success from going viral having an aspect of randomness to it.
I would put Valheim as the exception rather than the rule to Indie devs but yes Iron Gate Studio
has done quite well, and deservedly so.
6:08 I never got any mail from Steam, that a game on my Wishlist is available
I read the guy spent 10k on the project. No offense and I know for sure money is not everything and there are tons of games made with less money that are awesome, BUT, to me, 10k on a project like this is almost nothing. You probably want to spend double than that just on art and a VFX artist to make the game look appealing.
To me the game looks like the free one that people make for prototyping with free or cheap assets.
A writer, sound designer, and a lighting artist are practically minimum requirements for a horror game. Getting that spooky atmosphere *just* right does not come cheap.
10k is nothing. You would need more than that for software and assets.
The selection of games we have available on Steam and other platforms are staggering. Unless a game really stands out there is no chance I'm gonna pay it any attention at all (free or not).
I think it's really great that you've covered this topic and love the fact that your videos always steer away from the fantasy of making a fortune as a game dev becoming a reality.
Everyone thinks with great bias they've just made lightning in a bottle unfortunately and it's such a rare thing when it actually happens.
Clearly a lot of effort went into their 4 year dev cycle but that price for early access is very steep indeed.
Keep up the great videos!
I always look forward to seeing your new content ;-)
100% luck. Take 50 games, all of the same quality, length, price and marketing. Throw them into a pile. invite 1 million people to look at the pile. You'll have 2-3 be successful out of the pile while the rest get picked over and make no money. The market is completely saturated and there's no magic formula that forces anyone to buy your game.
@@TheMeanArena But obviously a game like Dead Cells is superior to many other games. Many indie games are either boring, expensive, and most importantly, generic. They need some spice.
Pricing is definitely one of the hardest aspects in any sales situation, and I do think that is where that went wrong! It's a big challenge to figure out what price is worth your time, and what price is worth their time! And figuring out how hard sales numbers will drop off as the price raises/drops
Early access at that price, and multiplayer only? I’d say that’s why it’s failed. Maybe that price for a pack of 4 would work, or make it free to start with. But even the resident evil coop game failed, and that even had a single player option ( it was a bit before its time tho)
To be fair tho, this does look like a game my friends and I might enjoy.
What would be cool is to get together a few game dev RUclipsrs, and do a live stream game. I’d tune in.
5euro max /player imho
So from looking at this game in the store, it seems pretty solid now. The reviews while few are very positive, and the devs seem to be very responsive to community feedback. They have even drastically reduced the price to $14.50 AUD, $10.50 USD I think, and it is currently on sale. I'd say it's worth giving it a shot!
Feels like they actually paid bots for positive reviews or made accounts and bought the game with it. They feel too generated.
@@Hamstergeval even this comment by OP feels like it is from a dev 😂
To be fair I would assume all studios ask employees, friends and family to leave positive reviews. I worked for a billion dollar mobile games company and they still did that. 😂
@@RealPeoplePerson and those would definitely look robotic as the family/friend struggles to compliment the game.
Recently I've seen several Early Access releases with well below average conversion, which is to be expected for new developers, not having a favorable track record will make players wait for the full release to buy.
However, In my opinion the price and having only online gaming mode were the main causes for the bad launch. I think a game like this should be sold in the range of 10 - 15 bucks, maybe 20 if they gave at least one extra key to send to a friend, that would solve the problem of not having anyone to play with.
I'd buy it if it was co-op vs CPU and $20. I think they actually fixed this because on their site it says 'LAN co-op' and now they dropped the price. This was a good move, shows they listen. The advantage of a smaller game and smaller team is they don't just drop your letters in the bin when you write in, but then it gets big and they can't keep listening.
I use wishlists for "I want to keep an eye on this pre-release game so wishlist it as otherwise I will forget what it's called and it will get lost in the blackhole of Steam", I don't use it as a commitment to buy, I use it as a "look at reviews", and then "buy ONCE THE PRICE COMES DOWN TO THE PRICE POINT I AM WILLING TO PLAY", I have a dozen games still on my wishlists which have been there for months waiting for a sale price I am willing to pay as they were released way too expensive. There are very few games I HAVE to have the moment they are released, I've got so many games waiting to be played in my Steam library that I'm not prepared to play inflated prices.
I have a couple titles that I have been on my wishlist for a decade. They aren't bad games there's just always something that edges them out.
I really like games with this kind of dark atmosphere, and haunted Victorian mansions are an awesome setting. I bought Witch Hunt a year or two ago and beat it several times to get all the achievements, but I'm still drawn to just playing it and walking around because the environments are so cool. I was reaching for my wallet to buy Dirge just to help these dudes out. But... 40 bucks, no single player... ehhhhh I think I'll have to pass. Thanks for the video!
They lowered the price down to $15 USD now if you were still interested.
@@stealthyshiroean They should go even lower, maybe 8$, simply to get some kind of traction. Those kind of games only work with many others online (to find someone to play with). The price can still be increased later. But 8$ is more revenue than 0$ from no sales.
@@stealthyshiroean it remains a gamble. I would buy it, but who else would? I can't even get into a reliable game of BF1 anymore. I'd buy it for sure if there were single player.
@@tizizzails6817 Yeah, definitely. The multiplayer aspect of this game just kills it for me. I only play a multiplayer game after it's been out for a while and has a healthy player base these days. There are just too many flash in the pans on the multiplayer market that many of them aren't worthy time investments, let alone adding a money cost on top of that.
@@vast634 I definitely agree. Personally, I don't think it stands out enough for me to want to try it. So, I'd imagine a lot of other people think the same. Maybe at that cost it would invite people to try it because they wouldn't have really anything to lose. I know that's what I did with Devour and luckily Devour turned out to be a pretty fun game all just for $5.
Survival horror: Good
Multiplayer only: Bad
4v1 survival PvP: Horrible. Will never play another 4v1 PvP game. Evolve killed that genre a long time ago.
Price: Ridiculous.
Conclusion: Severely out of touch devs. The 4v1 genre is as bloated, and laden with failure as MMOs. Bad market to aim for. Multiplayer should never be the main draw but optional. If your game can't be accessible to a single person playing it, you're wasting time.
first red flag imo was a discord with only 100 people. these days, discord is your community and main source of honest feedback.
secondly, i agree about the price point. there is nothing wrong with starting low and hiking the price up later, like gunfire reborn did
If you are releasing early access, you can easily justify the price hike for the "completed" game later too. Early access should be low entry price, if not entirely free, seems you're essentially beta testing for the company.
@@KotCR no you cant , for ea i expect even cheaper than released price , it is a half done product at best and who know if it will be finished or not
@@orkhepaj Not sure why you disagreed with me. That's literally what I just said. Half done (early access) products should be cheap or even free, and only finished games should be full price. That you can justify charging more for it only when the game is actually finished. I don't mind paying a proper price for a finished game. I disagree with having to pay companies or even indie devs to have the 'privilege' to test their games for them. They should be paying me for that.
@@KotCR Exactly, and you can convert extra sales by alerting people of the coming price hike at full release. People who are on the fence often buy when they know there's a deadline.
Effort in doesn't entitle you to an outcome, especially on creative work. As soon as you get that into your head the sooner you can actually start improving and pushing yourself to make something better. Takes a lot of time and you'll have to reinvent yourself a lot. Work on a higher volume of projects and really push yourself to figure out what makes a game worth playing or not. Theres a very good chance that your innate ability isn't 10% as good as you think it is. You gotta work at it
Also trying to have some stuff playable early on and posting it around to see if it garners any attention is a great way to see if you have something people are interested in or not. Can include a discord server link to start building up your community. If you can't get anyone interested in your game at this point, the base idea is most likely just not that interesting to people. I think new devs get way too caught up in their 'hook' or the mechanics they think will make the game great and don't take a step back to see if the most general premise is actually interesting or not.
People want something new and interesting. This supersedes almost all other aspects of your game.
After seeing the trailer it seems asset flippy with the animations being stiff and just not seeming quality for high price
Although it's my bias, i personally don't like games like this and there a lot of them which are basically the same
Yep, looks exactly like a Unity or Unreal asset flip.
The character models have good quality but their animations are really stiff and poorly done - it's a dead giveaway that what we're seeing here is an asset flip.
I absolutely love this format where you breakdown developers' failure or success stories! Keep it up!
About 50% of indie games never make more than 4K (source: VG Insights). That's very scary. I agree with your point that the combination of the pricing and the multiplayer aspect might be a big issue in this case. Nevertheless, it's heartbreaking to hear about such a launch. I launched my game 'Decks & Daggers' about a month ago with similar wishlist numbers... I was lucky, but the first week after launch is such a stressful time of extreme joy and severe sadness.
With so many shovelware games, I don't think the stats are of much use. It only proves that Steam's strategy of selling everything for 100 dollars has at least half destroyed the entire indie market. ^^
@@holyavatar2277 Hey, what do you mean exactly? I mean this genuinely without an attitude.
@@THEspindoctor84 it's just that Steam's policy of recording everything and taking out Greenlight has ensured that many more thousands of releases have appeared. But this has also led to a significant decrease in the sale of satisfying - good indie games because of the visbility. Today you can find many small, quite good indie games that have only 50-100 reviews. Years ago they would have had a thousand. This is due to the supply - demand market principle.
I'll give you my perspective from the art side: Lost Relic is correct your assets look like an asset flip. Doesn't mean you should not use marketplace assets, I am an artist and I use marketplace assets, but you need to know the correct way to use it, to make those marketplace assets unique.
My personal advise to indie devs:
-Don't do open world. It takes a lot of money, a lot of talent to get it right (even triple A companies don't get it right)
-Don't do realistic, like LRG says it takes a lot of effort and money to create a good looking realistic game, people will be forgiving of a stylized game not looking the best, but a realistica game that looks bad will be shot down immediately.
I know a lot of devs gonna hate me for this last one: If you are a programmer chances are you are not an artist and you know nothing about color, lighting, camera framing, etc. (it goes the same for us artists not knowing programing) Get your game look at by artists friend, you don't need to hire a triple A artist to have good looks.
In my opinion it is 100% the price point, I'd expect this game to be $10-$15usd. So its double what it should be (imo). Valheim which is easily indie game of the year, launched at $19.99
Always start your first project small and keep expectations small, see how it goes and build on experience would be my advise to them.
From an animator's perspective, honestly, it looks kinda janky.
Firstly, the animations are very stiff and not very expressive, you should always avoid using symmetrical poses, specially those with the elbows half bent. That one screenshot with the character standing doesn't show a lot of personality either. The jumping and reload looks weird as well because it looks disconnected from the rest of the body. The crosshair is below the gun in screen which gives a weird feel to the gameplay.
Also, I would avoid screenshots from cinematic angles because it makes the game look fake, it's best to focus on actual gameplay moments.
So not only price but ANIMATION is important. Even AAA game studios seem to forget, animation is more important than graphical fidelity. You could have something in 240p like Sega Saturn but with amazing animation it'll look way more interesting than a 4k game with janky stiff animations.
It's really hard to see someone put in years of their life and get such a minimal return. You got it spot on with your points, it looks rough and at over 30 USD it would be a hard sell. I've spent years on the games I've made and I'm happy to price them at 10 USD because i know people will be more likely to give it a go.
Yes this was a bitter pill for us to swallow as well. But we've ½ the price of the game, and plan to make use of Steam Sales once Valve allows us out of the pricing blackouts it has us in.
I feel like there is always more to learn from a failure than from a success.
I greatly appreciate you making this video and I'm glad the algorithm decided to suggest it to me.
3:11 At this point I knew the game was going to be bad.
Probably a lot of people would be hesitant to buy a multiplayer only game that isn’t from an established developer.
Ya, having a multiplayer function is super nice but multiplayer only basically means it can be dead in the water the second player count goes down.
This is regardless of developer.
One article I read is that many devs think you can go into early access and then get another launch when you come out of early access. The stats indicate that for most games, you only get one launch and that's when your game is initially available to purchase. If you go into early access, that's your launch. You don't get another one. Early access is supposed to build up a community and let you iron things out that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do. It's basically a last resort where the alternative is worse. You need to know ahead of time what your gameplan is. I feel devs use early access for the wrong reasons.
For me considering I play a lot of indie games like this, this ticks just about every soft and hard red flag in the book, even if it had been something on my wishlist that I was excited about this would not even be remotely at a state where I would buy it.
$40 for a dead online game on early access is a big nope. Even free-to-play is trying. They should have went f2p with ingame ads and a paid version to remove ads.
$10* For all but continuely growing player base* Also, no ads ever. No. Not on our beloved PC. Just no. Keep that junk on your phone.
Love this channel. My first game is going to flop financially but it won't be a failure. My expectations were to release a commercial game and to learn enough to do a second game. I can't fail on this game. I could always fail on my second game though.
Yeah I'm in the same boat. I honestly am not expecting much of anything from my first game and mostly just using it as an learning tool for all aspects of gamedev including publishing and of course its something to add to my portfolio if I decide to go AAA instead.
@@no00ob It takes a lot of stress off of learning. I can't wait to finish up my game and start a new game.
Same. I know that what I'm making isn't anything new or revolutionary, and I'm going to sell my game for less than a single dollar because that's just what it's worth. It's just a testing ground for me, like I'm riding a bike with the training wheels on. The real stuff starts further down the line.
@@ThePerceptor555 I'm so glad to hear you say that. Some people act like I'm a nut for making simple game a commercial game, but I really wanted to learn how to do it.
8:05 Not a native speaker here, would be nice of anyone to teach me what the error was here for I'm unable to notice it.
I've entered a similar situation with my game, been working on it on and off since 2014 when UE4 first came out, sort of became more of a side project rather than something intending to be sold because how long I've taken and whats happened in my life in the meantime. Went too ambitious for my first game because Im old school and have high standards, I do everything almost entirely myself including the music, sometimes buying plugins, and put a lot of details into things and tons of mechanics. At some point I spent months designing a sort of ray trace based dynamic ledge climbing system, not to mention the time I've put into procedural animation and tons of other things, even spending tons of time on the options menu to be really advanced. Putting a ton of time into things isn't bad, but Ive realized some time ago I should of started small, just made a simple horror game or something, and its especially hard with ambitious projects when you are depressed and have a lot going on in life to where its hard to project a reasonable release date, just keep procrastinating and dragging ass, which is how something that started with passion for me turned into a side project while I've been working a normal job and now I'm 30 years old.
I'm back into it passionately again, but trying not to have my expectations match the time and effort put in and just look at things rationally if it doesn't do well. I have several other ideas for more simplistic games along with big ideas I'd love to do down the road, so if I fail I'll start again and not get discouraged. Don't be discouraged and give up if you've been in a similar boat, its just important to know the market, know your strengths and have realistic expectations and be logical, its very easy to get swept up in the dream.
I'm 33, finished a 5 1/2 year project with an SDK hoping to use for cranking out more....but I've just now finished it and now I'm completely broke, releasing it in 6 months, got a plan for 6 months of marketing but know for certain I can't depend on it to even make $1000 after all that time seeing as I don't have a publisher.
It doesn't help that the economy is the way it is right now (housing wise especially), I'm gonna try to save up and get a mortgage with a friend so I have a space I can work on it, to me it's not a hobby but a way of life.
@@astrahcat1212 Looked at your profile, did you make a game on steam called Astralojia? And I hope it all works out for you, it does need to be a way of life not a hobby in order for a small team or one person to have the skill and work ethic match to the ambitions. Just been going through a lot of personal things in life and crisis of identity to where I havent made the dedication to dive completely into what should be my passions, but Im getting there. Also know how it is to spend that many years on a project.
You can only expect a conversion rate from the wishlist of about 1%. And those stats only count full releases- so the conversion of those vague early access projects is much lower - so 2 sales from 2500 may seem poor but it's actually still within reasonable expectations.
Really interesting video!
Postlaunch analysis is always a good setup to learn a lot for us all!
Really liked that you went through a lot of details even though there is such a present issue here.
I'm working on my own game and apprecate companies like this reaching out and sharing there experience so we can learn from it.
lmao those animations, 10k aint even that much in the grand scope of things across multiple people, sounds & looks like very young or out of touch older folk made this
EDIT: Saw a live stream of the game and it should of been out free while in early access, the bugs are just horrid
That typo in the description on Steam is a HUGE deal, when I'm looking at an indie dev's store page for the first time that's one of the most important moments for that dev to show me they have a quality game and subconsciously having a grammatical error that obvious in the summary screams low quality and lack of care in the small details which for me a business programmer makes me think they don't pay attention to the small details which speaks to the quality of the experience. No matter how great the gameplay is they've started the whole relationship with me as a customer with a negative impression before I've even seen any gameplay or screenshots.
Should have been a 5 pack for like 20$. Even then, the appeal of the game would have been niche. There is already a game where you play as licensed horror villains, and that game has limited appeal. Good on them for finishing a game, though.
Yeah kind in a similar boat, I developed a game for like 6-8 months and just released in one Steam for a very small price, and sadly its barely getting any attention at all. With that said, I have kept it in my mind from the start that this was gonna be a new step as a game developer (first game I released with a price tag) and not every step is gonna be a big one, so while I am disappointed be the lack of attention and sales of my game. I am still happy with what I done and I am now preparing my next step. And you never know, games like Among Us didn't became big success til years later, so there is always a possability that might happen with any of my games.
All that work and years or development you guys as a team should have really thoght about the price. I dont even pay 40 aud for triple a games. The most important thing is that you guys finished the game and thats more valuble then money amd you now know your scope and what you can accomplish. Cant wait to see yoir next project also another problem would be it seems to be an online game therefore if not many people are playing it then no ome can play it and more people will leave the game.. anyway amazing job making the game
Awe I'm so so so sorry to hear about this sad story. It hurts so much to work on something so long and to lose so much. I believe they were successful because they finished the game, think about how much they learned about developing a game. I bet the next game they make will be much better
Honestly synopsis typo would make me look at it a bit negatively as it may be a asset flip or some monry grab
They don't listen to negative feedback. They believe that there is such a thing as 'negative people' who exist to bash their amazing game. Delusion.
We changed many things thanks to feedback from John and others. Is there some more things we can also change that you have a particular suggestion about?
Very good video, I'd like to see more like this. Excellent closing words too; as a full-time solo game developer, I'm creating out of passion, fully aware that I might not make any money. And if one feels that he's "wasted his time" developing the game he shouldn't have become an indie dev in the first place.
Love these kind of analysis videos. Could you, please, do more analysis of failed launches?
*subbed
It may just be me, but it looks like they based a lot of their expectations on the conversion rate of wishlist purchases. Appears as though they set the price point in relation to their expected conversion ratio as an attempt to get their capital back from the start, rather than lower price point for easy entry and long term cultivation.
The fact that the problem was such an obvious blunder and not just that it's really this hard to sell indie games fills me with optimism
Oh boy. I think you hit the nail on the head man. I feel it for the devs too, I can't even imagine going through this situation.
I wonder if they change the price point (at least until it's out of EA) that it could help them. Fingers crossed
What a great and insightful video. Especially for game developers like me who are just getting started on their project it is eye-opening to remain realistic but also to be aware what the things are that drive the sales on Steam.
To me it just sounds like another dev who thought they would get rich quick.
That's the glory of being an indie dev we can make "more" by using "less"
I feel like this team assumed just because they had a budget of 10k that the game would be great.
Your not a AAA dev so theres no reason for a budget like that. You kind of dug your own hole unfortunately
I doubt they were thinking "get rich quick" cause they worked on it for 4 years. If they wanted to get rich quick they would have put even less effort into the assets and would never have made it online multiayer. Online multiplayer is really difficult. It seems to me they made a legitimate attempt but just fell short due to inexperience and the market told them they fell short. Their next game will be way better.
@@bonehelm I wouldnt spend $10,000 on my first games budget. And then assume to come ahead positive when no one knows your work.
Kind of a fail
@@bonehelm They overreached, they shouldnt have made MP to begin with. Especially since this is a clone of similar, more popular, games out there that are also cheaper in the genre. Delusional indie devs.
How can you calculate the percentage of 2 out of 2300 wrong WITH A CALCULATOR?
Recently I've seen lots of threads on twitter like "C'mon guys, let's wishlist each other's games!". I've always been hesitant to participate because I feel this would get me some wishlists from people who would never buy the game. So good for the algorithm, not good for my own expectation. I would be curious to know if those devs participated to threads like that.
that idea reminds me of "follow for follow" threads. like sure you get more followers that vaguely like the same thing you do (the thing i saw was for artists), from what i saw some interaction picks up but not as much as you might expect. Though it would be super interesting of that happened to be the case with this game dev
All wishlists are not created equal. It's not just about the number, it's also the quality - wishlists are essentially user-acquisition. It's way, way more effective to get fewer wishlists from people who genuinely want to buy your game than just goosing the numbers in hopes of making Steam-sempai notice you.
Super sucks to launch a game and it's a flop... but man, that steam page design is atrocious. You just can't rush that part, that's THE intro to your game for 95% of people.
The devs really didn’t put their best foot forward. This is a better look at the game imo, ruclips.net/video/Y1zeD9hOTyc/видео.html
They used old footage in the steam trailer, why? Idk. The price is also pretty high especially considering it may still go up on full release. I also think the lighting is a bit flat for the type of game they’re making, that’s just how I feel and I don’t even play games like this. The gifs also don’t show anything interesting imo.
I don’t think it’s too late for them though.
they shouldnt put tutorial into it, who wants to see that? tutorial is boring
and anybody buying an indie multiplayer game knows the default movements already
@@orkhepaj not referring to the tutorial necessarily, but a more up to date showcase of the game. The devs themselves said they used old footage in the trailers which wasn’t really a good idea.
What's the point of teaching wasd as movement? Im pretty sure everybody already know that, Why you can jump and crutch when you are literally inside a building walking. Not well thought game, it feels like devs have no much experience in games
Their two biggest mistakes were the price, and making an Indie game in a genre that is already oversaturated with AAA studio work, when you have a game like Dead by Daylight with the number of fans it has, and you make another game with a similar concept and game style then you need something to set yourself apart to attract customers, unfortunately this doesn't have much in the way of features and gameplay that sets it apart from DBD or any of the other similar games. Single player games are a little more forgiving of this, but multiplayer games are really unforgiving, you need to make a very unique and well designed game to get the multiplayer crowds attention, and unless you have a good amount of people ready to pay and play before you release multiplayers are the hardest games to get off the ground because you will always have the "i bought this multiplayer game but there's nobody to play with" people who won't wait for it to pick, meaning it doesn't pick up.
As to wish lists being an important metric, there was an article a while back (i forget where) written by an analyst at valve that basically stated a vast majority of people put games on wish lists because they had an interest in seeing how it develops, but aren't interested in buying until it's been out for a while and is in a sale, so i wouldn't take much note of conversion rates.
These devs: "we didn't neglect marketing"
Also these devs: "we spent a thousand dollars on ads"
Advertising is not marketing people!!! Nobody cares about your product, they care what your product can do for them.
It's actually possible to make a game completely on your own from your living room without needing any legal or anything like that. I would recommend that as a starting point for any developer. If I was to hire a big team I would make sure I have enough money to completely fail with that project; it's like if you go on a ship to treasure island you have to bring enough for the return journey in case you don't get the treasure.
I really appreciate that you made this video. It helps to learn from others..I definitely agree that price point combined with early access is a hard sell. And to think it may be multiplayer only too, that's a lot of money to play.
10:10 I think the right term here would be that the look does not feel "cohesive", which is the hallmark of asset flip games (and bad lighting is another one)
I checked the Steam page for this game and personally it is one of those games that if a dev sent me a key to play, I likely wouldn't even touch it. It looks like a game made in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the price point is extremely high for what it is that I could never recommend others to get it, and the game itself is so over niche that it won't appeal to most.
What? How does this a game from 1990s? Does this looks like Final Fantasy 1 to you? Or Resident evil 1?Or maybe Red Alert 2? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
Even if it doesn’t look nice - at least have a decency to be honest and compare it to the era where a character wasn’t 2d 16 by 16 pixels wide or did not consist of 10 polygons. Geesh
I think the devs that did Crisis VRigade had a really good strategy for a low-budget indie game. They chose a flat shaded deliberate low-poly style and focused entirely on making the game fun and getting the gameplay loop to feel satisfying. Then they only asked for $10. The game was trying to emulate the feel of Time Crisis so it was already tapping into something that people were familiar with.
After the success of the first game, they rolled that into a much nicer looking sequel.