• That Dragon, Cancer suffers poor sales, suspects Let's Plays
    30 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamesn.com/that-dragon-cancer/that-dragon-cancer-suffers-poor-sales-suspects-lets-plays[/url]
Or maybe it's because people aren't really interested in these types of games. Heck why is he even worried about the game selling? I thought it was to honor their son that died from cancer, but all he seems to worry about is the poor sales rather than being happy that it's being spread around the internet, for people to see. If I was honoring someone in my family by making a game, I would make it free, not 15 dollars, which I also consider a bit too much for a game in this type of genre. [editline]27th March 2016[/editline] "Little to no Commentary" That is a good point but once again, it's heavily storybased, I am sure they are more focused on the story than the audience. I mean I wouldn't like seeing a LPer cracking jokes all the time while watching them play a game about a child dying of cancer. [editline]27th March 2016[/editline] Okay so it turns it, it's 2 hours long. At least that is what the creators are saying on the website. I now see why the game is selling so poorly, it's because it's overpriced. 2 hours should not be 15 dollars, if anything, like I said before, it should be free. Five Night's at Freddy's 1 is 5 bucks, you get at least 2 hours of it, but there is enough to come back to so it justifies the price. This is more of a game you place once, and never again. Life is Strange Episode 1, also 5 dollars, around 2 and a half to - 3 and a half hours. But you get replay ability like FNAF1, which again, can easily extend the play time to above 2-3 hours. So unless the story is really good, and I mean really fucking good, or there is some awesome new mechanic not tried before, it's not worth 15 dollars.
[QUOTE=Xonax;50014835]If I was honoring someone in my family by making a game, I would make it free, not 15 dollars, which I also consider a bit too much for a game in this type of genre.[/QUOTE] He also kickstarted it and then put a $15 pricetag on it
your game is 1 long depressing cutscene
Two important pieces of context that I think are going amiss here: 1. It's not a situation of a dev trying to blame bad sales on someone. They know it's an extremely niche title and topic, and unlike other genres the interactivity doesn't add a whole lot to it, which is why much more tempting to watch a Let's Play of than play. At least from what subtext I can read from the dev's letter, this is about them being dazed and split and not really knowing what to make of it (tho in the end retracted their musician's content ID from YouTube's system). They wrote that they know how much Let's Plays can add, but now they're also experiencing some serious downsides first-hand. 2. What they are addressing in general is the issue of revenue sharing in a context where the derivative amount of the Let's Play is very small (which is of course why they're in a legal grey area separate from reviews and parody). What they're talking about in particular are Let's Players that add very little or nothing, plug their own social media/likesharesubscribe, but don't drop a link or plug the actual game or the devs' tipping jar if they got all they wanted out of merely watching it or something. I mean, it does kinda suck that people can make money off someone's game without even really adding anything and the devs get nothing out of it, not even exposure in some cases by the sound of it.
To be fair if people can just experience the game by watching a quick let's play then maybe you need to re-think your development logic. I'm not saying this is a case of "non-game" but as stated it's very very niche so they should have expected poor sales and planned accordingly. If you're making something that can just as easily be watched like a video and expect to make bank off it, you're not gonna cut it in the industry.
Tb made a video about this. [video=youtube;IXNhTpEhj6c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXNhTpEhj6c[/video] TL;DW: is basically what people in this thread have already said, but yeah.
They made a game out of an infant's cancer story? I don't know what to feel about this.
maybe people were kind of against trying to make money off your kid dying of cancer
It's similar to piracy I guess, in the sense that you can't outright say it was a lost sale since there are people who wouldn't buy it but would watch it. Me on the other hand, if I like the look of the game after the first 20ish mins I may buy it like with Firewatch. They weren't expecting to make money from something as niche as a game about a kid with cancer, and it's pretty disingenuous to say LPers are making money from your work.
[QUOTE=Untouch;50015197]maybe people were kind of against trying to make money off your kid dying of cancer[/QUOTE] Oh no, someone drew from personal experiences for an artistic production while simultaneously having to make money to live. They should have put their life on hold to devote effort into making this piece of software and then given it away for free the same way literally all art is.
[QUOTE=spekter;50015084]To be fair if people can just experience the game by watching a quick let's play then maybe you need to re-think your development logic. I'm not saying this is a case of "non-game" but as stated it's very very niche so they should have expected poor sales and planned accordingly. If you're making something that can just as easily be watched like a video and expect to make bank off it, you're not gonna cut it in the industry.[/QUOTE] And they are not allowed to attempt to start a discussion to change the industry so games like this might/can exist? Their content was consumed by millions and millions of people(mainly on YouTube) its obviously not pointless, people enjoyed it, people watched it. When lets-playing your game is closer to lets-playing a movie or a book, then a game. Maybe there should be some scenarios where they have some kind of control over it? Just for example maybe they should be able to say "You can only create Lets-Plays the first 50% of the game" for a game like this.
[QUOTE=Cold;50015661]And they are not allowed to attempt to start a discussion to change the industry so games like this might/can exist? Their content was consumed by millions and millions of people(mainly on YouTube) its obviously not pointless, people enjoyed it, people watched it. When lets-playing your game is closer to lets-playing a movie or a book, then a game. Maybe there should be some scenarios where they have some kind of control over it? Just for example maybe they should be able to say "You can only create Lets-Plays the first 50% of the game" for a game like this.[/QUOTE] Hah, no. Let's Plays are almost universally about the Player, not the game. In fact, viewers typically give zero shits about the game, they'd never give it a second glance on Steam, they want to see what their favorite youtuber does. And the devs have zero right to the work once it is in the hands of the consumer, they lose alp controlling interest.
[QUOTE=Untouch;50015197]maybe people were kind of against trying to make money off your kid dying of cancer[/QUOTE] Funnily enough I scrolled across this thread reply at the exact time I was hearing Totalbiscuit say [QUOTE]I certainly do not view it as exploitative by any stretch of the imagination considering how niche a title we're talking about here. This was hardly a cash grab, and it would require an incredibly cynical and frankly deranged mind to believe that, as far as I'm concerned based on the evidence in front of me.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather pay 15$ for a face punch, than to play a game where a baby dies(does it?) of brain tumor. Why would anyone want to experience that ? If it was made in memory of the kid then all the money should have been donated to some child cancer charity. Then you may get my money, but I would still not play that game. On a matter of let's play's... well, there are walking simulators out there that can definitely be fully experienced by watching a video, if the player can keep his mouth shut. I may never buy Journey, because it is on PS3/4, but I may watch a silent play trough. Though, in this example, the problem is actually exclusivity, and not a full play-trough video.
[QUOTE=spekter;50015084]To be fair if people can just experience the game by watching a quick let's play then maybe you need to re-think your development logic. I'm not saying this is a case of "non-game" but as stated it's very very niche so they should have expected poor sales and planned accordingly. If you're making something that can just as easily be watched like a video and expect to make bank off it, you're not gonna cut it in the industry.[/QUOTE] Okay then, maybe it's more of a slightly-interactive movie than a game. Nobody faults filmmakers for trying to keep the entirety of their movie off of Youtube. Sure, maybe the game was too niche and/or too expensive. That's kind of irrelevant to the discussion of whether streaming the entire experience and then not giving a cut or even a link to the developers is fair.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50016100]Hah, no. Let's Plays are almost universally about the Player, not the game. In fact, viewers typically give zero shits about the game, they'd never give it a second glance on Steam, they want to see what their favorite youtuber does. And the devs have zero right to the work once it is in the hands of the consumer, they lose alp controlling interest.[/QUOTE] I disagree. I view Let's Plays to see what a particular game is like, and I would bet many other people do as well.
[QUOTE=geel9;50018402]I disagree. I view Let's Plays to see what a particular game is like, and I would bet many other people do as well.[/QUOTE] And many times, to see the crazy shenanigans you can get yourself into.
If it isn't a good game it's not going to have good sales. Being deep and sad doesn't instantly make it a good game unfortunately.
[QUOTE=DiscoBiscut;50018532]If it isn't a good game it's not going to have good sales. Being deep and sad doesn't instantly make it a good game unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Again, tho, that's not at all what the letter itself said. The dev isn't blaming anybody or anything on bad sales, they (from what I gather) were expecting bad sales, since it is a very niche title. What he seems to be kind of confused about is that there are a lot of views on the videos about the game, yet the sales are still pretty bad. And then when the YouTube Content ID-tagging shit started some YouTubers got annoyed that they're losing revenue, which again kind of frustrated them. They're in a place where they don't know what to do. TL:DR the title PCGamesN gave is bad.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50015156]They made a game out of an infant's cancer story? I don't know what to feel about this.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Untouch;50015197]maybe people were kind of against trying to make money off your kid dying of cancer[/QUOTE] If video games are going to evolve as a medium they should delve into similar issues like other forms of media. But since it covers a topic that's both niche and depressing, it wasn't exactly going to have a lot of sales. Maybe if it was closer to $5, it would have sold a lot more. [QUOTE=DiscoBiscut;50018532]If it isn't a good game it's not going to have good sales. Being deep and sad doesn't instantly make it a good game unfortunately.[/QUOTE] This too. People thinking that making something artistically automatically makes it good. "Oh, it has [I]some[/I] depth? Better give it 10 out of 10's!"
[QUOTE=geel9;50018402]I disagree. I view Let's Plays to see what a particular game is like, and I would bet many other people do as well.[/QUOTE]That's great, special circumstance. Never assume you're the majority, you're probably not.
Well maybe if the entirety of your game can be experienced by simply watching it in video form maybe it shouldn't be a game.
I love how indies always chastise 'gamers' for being 'entitled' and then act as if they're 'entitled' to people's money when their game doesn't sell.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;50019288]I love how indies always chastise 'gamers' for being 'entitled' and then act as if they're 'entitled' to people's money when their game doesn't sell.[/QUOTE] Gotta agree with you there, but you should read the article. The devs aren't quite saying that.
[QUOTE=Xonax;50014835] I now see why the game is selling so poorly, it's because it's overpriced. 2 hours should not be 15 dollars, if anything, like I said before, it should be free. Five Night's at Freddy's 1 is 5 bucks, you get at least 2 hours of it, but there is enough to come back to so it justifies the price. This is more of a game you place once, and never again. [/QUOTE] Totally agree with this. An expensive game that offers little game play puts me right off buying it. I brought Garry's Mod for the same price as this game and yet it gave me a lot more game play: [thumb] http://i.imgur.com/2KCke8T.png [/thumb]
[QUOTE=mooman1080;50018935]Well maybe if the entirety of your game can be experienced by simply watching it in video form maybe it shouldn't be a game.[/QUOTE] This applies to like any game ever. The problem is more of it being short (according to one of the above posters anyway). If I can watch an entire game being played in just 2 or 3 short videos it probably isn't worth buying.
[QUOTE=Sharker;50021229]This applies to like any game ever. The problem is more of it being short (according to one of the above posters anyway). If I can watch an entire game being played in just 2 or 3 short videos it probably isn't worth buying.[/QUOTE] No it really doesn't. Video games are supposed to be an interactive medium, watching a video of someone playing devil may cry gives me nothing compared to playing it. While the author has a point, it exclusively applies to games where the story is basically the only thing going for it in which case it's basically a movie
[QUOTE=Lolkork;50021962]There's nothing wrong with charging $15 for a short game. If a game is high quality and polished or is very niche it can be worth that much to the target audience. This game is the latter, so I don't think they would have earned more money if it was cheaper because their audience is small. Their problem is that they made a game that almost nobody wants to play.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, usually that game would have a ton of replay-value though. Sometimes I replay a game just because of the quality.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50018823]That's great, special circumstance. Never assume you're the majority, you're probably not.[/QUOTE] Ah, my apologies. I forgot you're an expert with graphs and figures. I should have respected your professional opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.