Knowingly limit the amount of consumers
Is it allright to make a whole lot less players able to play a game if it means you can make a little bit better?
In the end, I suppose it comes down to commercial thinking where the dollar signs are what matters. But I don't want to discuss that part all too much, instead I want to focus on the developers "feelings".
For example, I have an idea for a great (of course) strategy game that would be absolutely fantastic using the Project Natal for the 360. However, it could also be adapted to be played using a "normal" controller, but it wouldn't be at the same amazing greatness level, but in return every 360 and PS3-owner could play it. The people who are getting Project Natal will probably be very limited.
Now, I don't have any way to develop games for Natal. Nor do I have a way of doing 360/PS3-games on a personal level, so it's all a hypothetical problem. But I'm not sure what I'd prefer doing.
Of course, I want to make the best games possible! But at the same time, I want as many people as possible to play them. It's like making a painting. Is there any point in doing the best painting of your entire life if nobody will ever see it?
From a selling stand point, I suppose there should go alot of research into this. Maybe more people would buy it even if it's for the Natal because:
- It's a better game.
- It doesn't have as much competition amonst the Natal games.
- New Natal owners will want to buy Natal games.
Either way, the bussiness side of it is boring.
I guess it differs from person to person and it would be fun to know which one people overall prefer doing. I for one, I'm not 100% sure, but I think I'd prefer making the Natal-version and actually make the better game.
What would you chose? An excellent product or an almost as great product but which is used by many more people?
A greater Natal game or a game played by the masses?
Employers and Affiliates
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Follow me online
Tweets
- @jonasvafan Inte mycket.
- @jonasvafan Det tror inte jag.
- Three hours at the Beauty Studio. Don't I feel posh. :D New hairstyle! But... Not really. #lifeinpoland
- @poisonpinkfluff Cheddar, wrapped with beef, wrapped with bacon. :D Surrounded by cucumber of course, because I have to think of the figure.
- Highlight of my day! #pcf #lunchatwork #thebeast http://t.co/mxDWwAqf
Fresh out of the oven
- PCF Blog!
- Game Over
- The “Designing Producer”
- PowerPoint Games
- Bulletstorm Videos
- The Humble Indie Bundle
- Are we allowed to skew the trailers?
- The acceptance of Video Games
- Teh importance of spelling
- Cleaning Game?
- When Epic met PCF
- I’m gonna be an Epic Game Designer
- Looks the same, plays different
- Spectator Game?
- Play while installing
Categories
- Causerie (138)
- Game specific (30)
- Misc. (53)
- projects (27)
- web (29)
Latest comments
- Fantastic Video Games For Everybody | Maxnds | Max NDS on Lovable Character Design?
- billy on How I start writing a GDD
- HCG Levels in Early Pregnancy on In what ways can we NOT apprehend games?
- HCG Levels in Early Pregnancy on Feedback when killing
- HCG Levels in Early Pregnancy on The Humble Indie Bundle
Tags
Archives
- November 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (7)
- April 2010 (10)
- March 2010 (13)
- February 2010 (10)
- January 2010 (11)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (12)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (16)
- August 2009 (12)
- July 2009 (14)
- June 2009 (16)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (16)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (11)
- December 2008 (19)
- November 2008 (14)
- October 2008 (8)
October 22nd, 2009 - 14:36
My read is this:
Developers want to make the best game there is.
Publishers want to make the most money (which means selling more games, or selling less but at a higher price point).
Gamers want to play the best game there is, but are limited by their wallets.
When I approach game design, accessibility is a huge factor for me, but I don’t usually work with platforms (I do mostly “hardware” games, like boardgames or what have you). So for me, the trade-off (or struggle) is not being limited by peripherals or even space; I have to balance depth of play with complexity.
But, I guess to answer your question directly, it depends on how much of the spirit of the game is lost in translation. If it still feels like the same (great) game, then go for a broad audience. If the enjoyment of the game is compromised, then limiting your audience is the only real choice, I think.
October 22nd, 2009 - 22:17
@Mike C
Yeah, but where do you draw the line? Gut feeling? I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with that, I’m just curious.
October 23rd, 2009 - 16:09
Its a very interesting question, but one I ultimately think others will most often make for you.
If not, make the best game possible first, sell it for a while, and then port it to the masses! =)
October 23rd, 2009 - 18:09
I would say that gut feeling is where I draw the line. Because games, by their nature, are about about response. The aim of a game is to create a positive experience (which may be through amusement, solving puzzles, competition, etc.), so gauging your (and others’) experiences in play is the indicator of success or failure.
I suppose you could invent objective benchmarks, but when you had the idea for your game, there was an essential “hook” – the idea that sparked the whole concept. If that “hook” requires, for instance, a natal-styled platform then it’s natal or a sub-standard imitation. If, on the other hand, you had a great idea and thought “wow… natal could work well for this,” then perhaps there is more room for compromise.
The question I’m trying to get you to ask is, “How much of the Spirit (and yes, that is a gut-driven attribute) of my game is tied to this interface or platform?”
To put it differently, You can play Go online, but it pales in comparison to holding the pieces in your hand and slapping them down on the board. You can’t play Twister online because the physicality of the game is inseparable from the game itself.