It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionDear GOG, we need to talk about your cred in the indie dev community.(267 posts)(267 posts)
(267 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
15
18
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 23, 2015
avatar
Barry_Woodward:
Barry, I respect you and all the work you do. Please keep it up.

The thing is, I like that GOG games are curated, even if I wonder how they do it (pulling names from a hat?).

At the end of the day it is their store, and they get to choose what they sell. I then choose if I buy it. If GOG do not sell a game I really want then I will look elsewhere for it (even Steam), and buy it where I feel I get the best deal.

While GOG is their store and they can run it however they like, I will say I would rather GOG treat some Indie developers a little better. Some of the reasons for rejection I have read (and I know those with the poorer responses will always be the more vocal,) could easily be handled with a nice - "At the current time we feel your game is not a clear fit for the store, but please remember that at a later date this situation could change and we may be back in contact with you." So as to not make the developer hostile to the store.
Like, The Cat Lady, a game may well find it has a place in the store, just maybe not always today.

I also feel that just because GOG like one game from a developer does not mean that all games from that developer should then get a free pass. I know people here like complete collections - I do too. Yet some games should maybe be left on Steam for a very long time. Like until it is "Retro" to play with shit.
Posted July 23, 2015
avatar
Chacranajxy: I get why GOG struggles to bring some of the bigger publishers on-board, but indie games are the lowest of low-hanging fruit -- these games should be easy to bring over.
avatar
JMich: Let's go over costs for those lowest of lows, shall we?
Assume the contract requires 10 hours to complete. If you've ever had any contracts written up, you'll know that is the bare minimum for it. Even if their lawyer is on retainer, let's assume his cost is $50/hour, which (again) is on the low end of the spectrum. We've gone up to $500 already.
Next, compatibility and performance testing. They have 20 machines on their test lab (at least 20 is the number I recall), so shall we assume 10 hours of testing per machine again, even though that may be barely enough for some games. For the testing, let's say minimum wage, $7/hour. That gives us $1400 for testing, and that testing will take time which could be used to test patches or fixes for other issues instead.

So, a bare minimum of $1900 for a new publisher of one game seems like a good baseline. GOG takes a 30% cut of the sales, so assuming a $9.99 game, they will have to sell ~500 units at full price to break even. How many people would buy a 6-month old indie game at full price, much less a 2+ years old? Most would wait for a sale instead, hoping for a 75% off. So the lowest of the low fruits would have to sell 2000 units to break even.
If you lower the price of the game, you need to sell more units, though you increase the chance of impulse purchases. If the price is higher than $9.99, you do need to sell less units, but impulse purchases are less frequent.

So, if you assume that each wishlist vote is a guaranteed sale (it's not), you see why the "several hundred votes" indie games may be ignored. Getting them here will be a financial loss instead of a financial gain. Go for the "couple of thousand votes" ones instead.

P.S. Feel free to correct my wage estimates, no idea if the $7/hour for testing is correct or not, or if the $50/hour for lawyers is viable either.
I'm a lawyer, and I work in business development in the games industry, so while I don't know what GOG's precise costs are, I get how the process typically works.

Legal fees should be minimal. There's probably a standard agreement in place that requires no actual input from a lawyer, and in the case of big publishers where an addendum of some sort is needed... well, I'm sure GOG retains a lawyer who deals with that stuff on the side as part of their salaried work. In any case, it wouldn't affect indie games.

The testing aspect I 'm less privy to, simply because I have no idea how GOG does things. But really, how many man hours could that take? 10 hours per machine seems overzealous. Even ten hours total, across all test rigs, seems a bit much for most indie games. And the simple fact of the matter is, with indie games, it's not like you're ensuring an old game's compatibility on modern systems. It's the same thing as you'd get on Steam, and if there aren't a bevy of complaints there, it's probably fine. Hell, even with testing processes in place, Worms: World Party Remastered was still foisted on us in all its busted glory.

The point is, the costs probably aren't so extreme that it doesn't make sense to allow more indie games onto the platform. And I doubt the votes system has much sway with indie games, anyway. Was Guild of Dungeoneering really such a hot commodity for... anyone?
Posted July 23, 2015
avatar
Chacranajxy: Legal fees should be minimal. There's probably a standard agreement in place that requires no actual input from a lawyer, and in the case of big publishers where an addendum of some sort is needed... well, I'm sure GOG retains a lawyer who deals with that stuff on the side as part of their salaried work. In any case, it wouldn't affect indie games.
So do they use a single contract for all indies, or do they use different ones? Don't they have a 70/30 one and a 60/40 for advances? How much advance will they give? Will they get any extras with the game when they release it, or will those extras be addons that cost money? If they can't get the extras now, could they be possibly made available at a later point?
Thus why I said 10 hours, and while the lawyer is being paid a salary each month, 10 hours spent there are 10 hours not spent elsewhere.

avatar
Chacranajxy: 10 hours per machine seems overzealous. Even ten hours total, across all test rigs, seems a bit much for most indie games. And the simple fact of the matter is, with indie games, it's not like you're ensuring an old game's compatibility on modern systems.
From personal experience, 10 hours of testing a game is the bare minimum. You are not playing the game to see if it can be finished, you are testing to see if there are problems. Music not playing, controllers not working, specific drivers version causing black screens etc. Yes, you can do that in 2 hours, same way as you can draft and sign a contract in 20 minutes. But it's not advised to do so.

avatar
Chacranajxy: It's the same thing as you'd get on Steam, and if there aren't a bevy of complaints there, it's probably fine.
You are aware that Steam does no testing, right? All compatibility issues are handled and fixed by the publisher/developer, not by Steam. On GOG, all compatibility issues are handled and fixed by GOG, even if they may have to go to the developer for a patch.

avatar
Chacranajxy: Was Guild of Dungeoneering really such a hot commodity for... anyone?
Guild of Dungeoneering was a Day 1 release, not a month 6 one. Day 1 releases sell much better than month 6 or year 2 ones.
Posted July 23, 2015
If signing a new indie publisher or developer will lead to say 30000 sales in the first 2 years, what does it matter if the first game only sells 300 copies?

Rejecting a game can also be a very costly affair, in particular if:

A) That causes the developer/publisher to stop considering GOG for future/other releases.
B) It gives them a bad reputation amongst the community of developers and publishers causing some of them to shy away from releasing their games on GOG.

Would I be surprised if Zenimax had offered to sign on to GOG, but GOG turned them down due to Zenimax wanting Quake and Doom rather than TES titles as launch titles? No, sadly I would not.

Beggars can't be choosers. GOG won't survive, much less grow if they continue rejecting games left, right and center.
Posted July 23, 2015
GOG should ask Valve to pack Dota 2 DRM free and publish it on GOG.
Posted July 23, 2015
avatar
zeroxxx: GOG should ask Valve to pack Dota 2 DRM free and publish it on GOG.
If they did they'd probably put the multiplayer behind Galaxy matchmaking so you'd need a client anyway, seems rather pointless :p
Posted July 23, 2015
I have two things to say on the topic:
1. Talking is good. Doesn't mean everybody should agree, but it's good to acknowledge and discuss issues.
2. I like how some people already decided what GOG should do. :) "You should do this or..." I don't think that's a helpful attitude. :)
Posted July 23, 2015
high rated
avatar
Kristian: Would I be surprised if Zenimax had offered to sign on to GOG, but GOG turned them down due to Zenimax wanting Quake and Doom rather than TES titles as launch titles? No, sadly I would not.

Beggars can't be choosers.
Heh, you wish. Cthulhu Saves The World and LOVE+ are hardly Quake and Doom. Releasing Quake and Doom would be a huge thing for GOG, not a consolation prize.
Post edited July 23, 2015 by Leroux
Posted July 23, 2015
high rated
Good lord, a company arbitrarily deciding what to sell? The horror! Surely they won't last.

Eh. Just because something is available somewhere doesn't mean it has to be available everywhere - but that's just my opinion. I'm willing to assume GOG isn't throwing darts and that they actually have reasons for what they do.
Posted July 23, 2015
low rated
avatar
Kristian: Would I be surprised if Zenimax had offered to sign on to GOG, but GOG turned them down due to Zenimax wanting Quake and Doom rather than TES titles as launch titles? No, sadly I would not.

Beggars can't be choosers.
avatar
Leroux: Heh, you wish. Cthulhu Saves The World and LOVE+ are hardly Quake and Doom. Releasing Quake and Doom would be a huge thing for GOG, not a consolation prize.
First of all, that was a hypothetical scenario. Not a reference to any games in particular. I am just pointing out that sometimes it can be worth it to take strategic losses on individual games and/or developers/publishers. It can very well pay off in the long run.

I agree that Quake and Doom would be HUUGE for GOG. But GOG may not see it that way. They are quite capricious with regards to what games they reject. They have rejected plenty of well received games with a decent amount of wishlist votes + good reviews + decent sales.

I get GOG rejecting scammy games(Say copy and paste jobs from the Unity Asset Store). I get GOG rejecting highly buggy games. I get GOG rejecting games with bad reviews(But they do have Daikatana...). But they go way beyond all that. They act as arbiters of taste. As a sort of snobby elitists, rejecting entire genres for no good reason. Rejecting well respected games on a whim. Arbitrarily rejecting some games for a certain niche, while accepting others. That sort of thing. There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason for some of these rejections.

Edit:

" I'm willing to assume GOG isn't throwing darts and that they actually have reasons for what they do."

The evidence doesn't support that hypothesis at all.
Post edited July 23, 2015 by Kristian
Posted July 23, 2015
i would be more happier if gog focused on making itself have unique games that are not on steam instead of carbon copying the tons of indie junk that releases out everyday.
Posted July 23, 2015
avatar
Kristian: First of all, that was a hypothetical scenario. Not a reference to any games in particular. I am just pointing out that sometimes it can be worth it to take strategic losses on individual games and/or developers/publishers. It can very well pay off in the long run.
True. What indie developers do you think cover that criteria, that GOG hasn't signed yet?
Posted July 23, 2015
avatar
Leroux: Heh, you wish. Cthulhu Saves The World and LOVE+ are hardly Quake and Doom. Releasing Quake and Doom would be a huge thing for GOG, not a consolation prize.
avatar
Kristian: First of all, that was a hypothetical scenario. Not a reference to any games in particular. I am just pointing out that sometimes it can be worth it to take strategic losses on individual games and/or developers/publishers. It can very well pay off in the long run.

I agree that Quake and Doom would be HUUGE for GOG. But GOG may not see it that way. They are quite capricious with regards to what games they reject. They have rejected plenty of well received games with a decent amount of wishlist votes + good reviews + decent sales.
I know that it's hypothetical, I think your whole reasoning is. I understand what you're saying in general, I just don't think that's it that plausible when it comes to indie games. Indie developers and publishers usually don't have large backlists or great expectancies concerning future titles that would allow for thinking strategically and making plans for the long run. Besides, if a game already has decent sales elsewhere, that doesn't automatically mean that it will sell well on GOG, too. Chances are most of the people interested in it have already bought it, for example. I don't think the number of "GOG exclusive" customers is that high, especially when there are DRM-free copies available from other sources.

We don't know how much of a risk it is financially for GOG to release a game or not, as we know nothing about the costs. As for the curated approach, I'm not arguing neither for nor against it, but if GOG decided to relax their restrictions, they would also have to change their whole approach to releases in general. If they accept a whole lot more games than they do now, they'd also need to release them quicker, not just 2-4 a week, which would also mean more testing work, more support and therefor a bigger staff. I'm sure that many customers would welcome that, but it might have bigger implication and greater risks for the company than we imagine.
Post edited July 23, 2015 by Leroux
Posted July 23, 2015
avatar
DieRuhe: Good lord, a company arbitrarily deciding what to sell? The horror! Surely they won't last.

Eh. Just because something is available somewhere doesn't mean it has to be available everywhere - but that's just my opinion. I'm willing to assume GOG isn't throwing darts and that they actually have reasons for what they do.
Maybe they use the ingenious Dennis Hope method, shown at minute mark 03:12 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs6rCxU_IHY
Posted July 23, 2015
high rated
avatar
Barry_Woodward: It's not ideal. There is a sense among too many indie devs that GOG rejects games arbitrarily and it may be more trouble than its worth to even bother submitting games here. Now whether or not that's fair or accurate is immaterial. Perception is reality. Just look at the perception people have of GOG in this NeoGAF thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1082992

In the thread, some indie devs chimed in, further strengthening the narrative:

"Our best selling game has something like half a million owners on Steam. We released it on a few other stores (not GOG because they turned us down) and sold only a tiny fraction of that AND it's a pain to keep those versions updated AND it's a pain to actually get paid from those stores (Steam automatically pays us every month; the other places require us to submit official invoices whenever we want to get paid and you have to exceed a certain minimum which is hard to meet since sales are so low). It's just not worth all the extra effort to increase sales by such a tiny amount." - Robert Boyd at Zeboyd Games

"Sure, but you'd have to get accepted by GOG and Humble too. Speaking from experience. GOG rejected LOVE when it went up on Steam, but then again I haven't tried since GOG Universe." - Fred Wood
Sorry, Barry, but I don't view GOG's approach as a bad thing. GOG isn't here to be a dumping ground for people putting out shovelware or another "me too indie pixels and blocks" game. It helps keep some of\ the clones of clones out of the catalog, and keeps us from being drowned in objectively bad games, ala Greenlight. I mean, unless you WANT to be drowned in RPG Maker clones, minecraft clones, bad mobile ports, and artsy fartsy 15 minute games charging 15 dollars a pop? I sure don't. I think they've actually been TOO lenient with some of the stuff that they've allowed through to begin with.

If GOG is rejecting their games, then maybe they need to step THEIR games up. Full stop. Look at Desura, being indie focused didn't stop them from crashing and burning.
Post edited July 23, 2015 by LiquidOxygen80
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
15
18
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionDear GOG, we need to talk about your cred in the indie dev community.(267 posts)(267 posts)
(267 posts)