Features

Steam Points could be used to buy games, Downloadable Content and even in-game assets (through micro-transactions).  They open up the option of gift cards rather than buying a specific game for someone.  This would be perfect leading up to Christmas as non-game savvy friends and family could buy gift cards rather than guessing and thinking “Diaper Dash” is something you’d enjoy.

All payment would still go through PayPal keeping the security burden on them.  Keeping payment with PayPal also stops Valve from watering down their focus by becoming a merchant facility.  It will simply give gamers more options with how they buy their games.

Advantages for Valve

• Create new revenue sources – gift cards and micro-transactions
• Encourage micro-transactions within games, increasing revenue
• Bringing more developers and gamers to their platform
• Another differentiator to their competitors (not that they really need one)

Advantages for Developers

• A new revenue source
• Revenue during the life-time of the game rather than only at the point of sale
• Reduce barriers for customers as the initial cost of the game can be lower
• Micro-transactions allow more styles of games to be developed

Advantages for Gamers

• Using a trust company for purchasing points.  Valve isn’t going bust any time soon
• Initial cost of games will be lower, increasing the number of games a player can afford
• More options for how players want to play (pay for convenience)
• Can purchase points at a retailer removing the need for a credit card
• Unifies the currency leading to less confusion for the international market

Advantages for Retailers

• Gives them a simple avenue into online distribution
• Can sell cards in their shops and make a cut of online sales
• Game retailers may resist however it’s similar to “iTunes credit” which most music shops now sell

Conclusion

Whether you love or hate Steam, it’s here to stay.  I see a lot of great opportunity for Valve in the future and Steam Points are a great way to begin their move forward.  Some people I’ve discussed this with are against the idea as they already see Valve as having a monopoly over online distribution.  What do you think?  Would you be happy to start spending Steam Points to buy your games and make micro-transaction?  Should other platforms like Impulse use this system to differentiate themselves?

So, Which Platform!?

The short answer is, it depends.  There’s no silver bullet when it comes to platforms.  Each has its strengths and weaknesses and the choice depends on the game you are creating.  I have a set of questions below, move the sliders to represent your situation and see the recommendation for platforms.  The further to the right the platform, the better it fits with your situation.  If there’s a platform I’m missing you’d like added, please add a comment.

The Platforms

Now that you have your recommended platforms, I’ll give some more info on my thoughts on developer for each platform.

iPhone

The iPhone market is saturated with games and is getting worse every month.  It seems nearly every indie game developer I know is making an iPhone game.  My biggest recommendation is to make something small that stands out.  The sales are very top heavy which means you’ll either make nothing or massive sales.  The biggest issue is that the only real way to get in front of people is to be in the top 50 applications which is extremely difficult due to the market saturation.

The other gotcha is the requirement for both a Mac and learning Objective-C.  There are a number of great engines out there (eg Unity) which I’d recommend using to speed up development.

Console

Unless you have funding, full version console games are almost impossible for an Indie to develop for.  It’s really hard to get your game accepted by a console manufacturer (Microsoft, Sony, etc) and the certification process can be a nightmare.

PC

PC development is the most open and an easy to break into.  There are many distribution methods (Steam, Impulse, self-publishing) to suit your games needs.  Piracy is one of the biggest threats to your game and building a game that takes piracy into account is a good step forward.  Something as simple as requiring users to login to a central server can help reduce piracy.

Web-Based

Web based games are the best place to get started, particularly if you just want to get a game “under your belt”.  It’s a great way of reaching a wide audience quickly, however don’t expect too much in either money or respect.  Web-based games are one of the hardest ways to make money from games (at this stage) and tends to have one of the most immature communities of all platforms.  Lost Garden has a great set of articles that discusses generating real money for web-based (primarily flash) games.

XBox Live Arcade

XBLA games are like a cut-down version of a console release.  It’s much easier to get accepted and get through certification.  There are also less rewards/potential for your game compared to a full version console game.  As the name suggests, XBLA is perfect for smaller “arcade” style games.

Multiple Platforms

One recommendation I would make is to start small.  Look at developing a smaller version (or prototype) of your game on one of the low-end platforms (flash or iPhone) to gauge the response to your game.  If it’s successful, then put the extra time and money into developing a larger version of your game on a higher-end platform.  John Carmack has stated his belief in developing for low-end platforms first.  This helps you focus on the core fun of a game, rather than flashy graphics or other “next-gen” features that don’t necessarily make the game better.

Conclusion

You should now have a better idea of what platform to develop your next game for.  If there’s a platform I haven’t discussed that you ‘d like to hear about, leave a comment and I’ll add it to the list.  The important thing to remember is that no platform is perfect.  They each have their own strengths and weaknesses and it’s critical that you chose the platform that best fits with your game.

Overview

Like movies, many games are now costing tens of millions of dollars to develop.  Gone are the days were a small team (or even one person) could sit in their basement and bring out a hit title.  There are exceptions to this, but even an indie title like Braid costs hundreds of thousands to develop (not counting lost income had its creator “got a real job”).

With big money comes big risk.  When a single entity (usually a publisher) puts millions of dollars down, they expect a lot of money in return.  For this reason the developer often seems to “get screwed” in the relationship, making a seemingly insignificant amount given the popularity of the game.  Unfortunately though, until now, there hasn’t been much choice.  Community funded games offers the chance to take the power out of the publisher’s hands and into gamers.

One point I’d like to make that Gabe didn’t really touch on is the indie scene.  There are some games out there that could be made on a few hundred thousand dollars, or less.  Community funding would work even better in this case as the required investment is far lower.  The only issue is convincing people your indie project is worth their hard earned dollars.

The Good

More sources of funding for creating games.  For indie developers, this may mean there finally IS a source of funding.  With more money will come more games, now we just have to make sure they are good.

More freedom in game design.  Currently, publishers “play it safe” as shown by all the sequels and clones of existing games coming out.  By “spreading the risk” across a lot of gamers, the individual investment drops significantly (from millions to hundreds or thousands of dollars).

Encourages agile development.  It’s in the developer’s best interest to keep their latest playable demo as up-to-date as possible to show off to potential investors.  Developers can get feedback early when they go out for a round of funding.  Ultimately this will encourage small teams focussing on making good games right out of the gate; rather than spending years and hoping to find the fun parts at the end.

How Should It Work?

Gabe didn’t go into great detail about how the investment system would work, so I’ll just throw my thoughts in to give a foundation for discussions.

What is the typical gamer actually getting for their money? I see the gamer getting a % of the game, rather than a % of the company.  They should get direct access to the milestone builds as well as a free copy (or multiple copies) of the game upon release.  All profits from the game should then be distributed to the investors based on their % stake in the game.

When can gamers invest? I would break the investments up into rounds of funding.  The earlier a gamer buys in, the more of a share of the company they should receive.  Going by regular investments in a start-up company, there could be a round of seed funding (the initial investment) followed by a number of further rounds to bring the game to completion.  Here is a simple example:

To simplify, 10% of the company will be sold off at each round, for an increasing price each time.  The reason for this is that the earlier the investment, the higher the risk.

Note: These are the total investments for each phase of the game.  So the $10,000 in Seed might be 100 people each investing $100 each.

- Seed – (10% of company for $10,000)
- Series A – (10% for $40,000)
- Series B – (10% for $100,000)
- Series C – (10% for $250,000)
- Total – 40% of company for $400,000

Should gamers get voting rights? This is best left to the individual studios to decide, however I’d be leaning towards only high-level input on major decisions for the company, rather than any specific decisions relating to day to day running of the company.  There is a risk of watering down the original idea and goals if too much control is relinquished, and if there are a large number of investors (the whole idea of the model) it will be impossible to keep everyone happy.  Here are some examples of decisions that could be put to voting by investors:

- Which platform to run on – yes
- Is the product ready to ship – yes
- Should we allow double jumping – maybe
- What graphic style should we use – maybe
- Should the rocket launcher have 6 or 8 rockets – no
- How much UI should we have – no

Give gamers a feedback loop. Gamers need to be able to play the game early to both initially invest and to keep an eye on their investment (with the possibility of further investment).  Steam is perfect for this.  The game can easily be distributed and control can be kept on who has access.  I envisage a new tab “Funded” which has all the games you are currently funding, their status and a link to the latest playable.

The Bad

Things could go wrong. How well the first few games using this system go will make or break it.  If the studio runs out of money or the game just doesn’t sell, people won’t trust the system.  The best way to get around this is for Valve to make the first game something big like Half-life 3.

Conclusion

As I said, I’m a big fan of community funded games.  Valve is the perfect company to launch community games, both for the respect the community has for it, and with the perfect delivery platform, steam.  What I would like to see is Microsoft look into this model for their Xbox LIVE community Indie Games.

Lets get straight into it, the L4D2 boycott means the following:

1. The games industry has reached mature adult status
2. Depending what Valve does from here, it may not see itself in the “Big 5″ for much longer
3. It’s not just about the money

The games industry has reached mature adult status

This isn’t the first time gamers have complained about a game.  Truth be told, gamers don’t stop complaining about games.  However, this is the first time a large group of gamers, with an intelligent manifesto have come forward with a mature complaint.  Gone is the tantrum styled foot stamping the games industry is used to.  We’ve moved beyond our simple bitching and into the realm of mature adults, where genuine concerns are raised and a solution put on the table.  The ball is now in Valve’s court…

Depending what Valve does from here, it may not see itself in the “Big 5″ for much longer

Firstly, you may be asking what the “Big 5″ is.  This is the group of major game studios that are highly respected and form the backbone of the games industry as it stands.  I’ve formed this list after many late night discussions with game developers discussing who’s doing it right, and who everyone really wants to work for.  These include:

• Valve (L4D, Half-Life)
• Relic (Homeworld, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, The Outfit)
• Bioware (Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect)
• Blizzard (Starcraft, Warcraft, WOW)
• Bethesda (Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3)

A mature, valid complaint has been handed to Valve.  How they react to this is going to shape both their business into the future, as well as the games industry as a whole.  If Valve treat this as the prepubescent tantrum they are used to, they could see themselves in deep water.

The easiest solution for Valve is to simply ignore the boycott and move on, business as usual.  This is the most likely outcome, however they have a great opportunity to set an example for other big studios.  Surprisingly, it’s been gamers who have stepped up to the mark with this mature response.  It’s important that Valve think long and hard about how they respond to this.

It’s not just about the money

This brings me to the core issue here.  Since games were first made, there has been a gradual movement from making great games, to making games that sell well.  While this was inevitable as game studios moved from backyard, small teams to large corporations with share holders to keep happy.  This has gone on in the background and gamers have more or less accepted it.  The symptoms have been a reduction in game quality, a focus on sequels/safe games and what some call a “watering down” of what games are really about. The boycott has brought this quest for money into the open and is asking one of the worlds greatest game studios a question.  What’s more important, great games, or lots of money?

Pie in the Sky

At the most extreme level, the perfect education program would be one attached to a large development studio.  Imagine if Valve had “Valve Education” where you could do a 1 year course and learn everything they know about game development.  Developers from live teams could take time off to teach for a while, to mix up their lives and to pass on their knowledge to others.  While it would make quite a bit of money, the key thing here is that the top x% of students could be hired straight into Valve.  Think of it as a 1 year probation period, where the employee PAYS to be there.  If there are things you don’t like about game programmers in the world at the moment you have the ability to teach them what you want.  Have a subject devoted solely to software practices, and fail any of the kids that aren’t up to it.

Down to earth

So if you’re not Gabe, then the above paragraph may be a little out of reach for you.  Don’t lose hope though, because there’s room in my dream for a less restrictive model.  The main ingredient for me is to find passionate developer’s who can also teach other programmers.  Seniors and leads out there should be doing it all the time, and we just have to get them together to start teaching students.  With the average length of service in the games industry being 5 years, there’s a great opportunity here.  Firstly, it means that it IS worth training up kids as there are a lot of positions that need to be filled by people that don’t have any real world experience in games.  Secondly, it means that there are a lot of developers burning out and wanting to leave.  Rather than going off and becoming business programmers, why not give them the opportunity to use their precious game dev skills.

What’s needed here is a bunch of truly experienced developers getting together and teaching kids exactly what they need to know to make games.  In 1-3 years, the kids should be able to pump out a handful of little games, and one big collaborative game at the end.  Heck, you could even sell the large game at the end and give the students a discount on their fees based on how well it sells.

Bureaucracy and Money

The biggest issue I see with current game dev courses is the amount of bureaucracy that’s involved in setting up the course.  It’s obviously going to be better to have the course meet requirements for a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent, but try not to let this ruin the course itself.  From what I’ve seen in courses there is a lot of irrelevant material taught.  If this HAS to be taught then do it quickly, and get it out of the road.  The key here is teaching kids how to make games, and make them well.  If the course is set up to make money then there’s a good chance it’s not going to work.  The main focus here needs to be making good game programmers.  Once you start pumping out awesome programmer’s I guarantee you their tuition fees will be the smallest part of your income.  You’ll have people wanting to pay top dollar for your students, people will want to start advertising to your students to use their tech and you could even secure a deal with a certain large video card manufacturer to focus your education on their cards.

Conclusion

There is a massive market for game development education at the moment, a vacuum I see filling very quickly.  I just hope that at least some of the new courses are better than the ones I’ve already heard about.  So there is my dream.  I’m a little too poor and busy right now to set this up, so I’m leaving it for anyone else to try.  Let me know how you do and we can work out the commission I get later.