How to Look at Resources vs Risk [Game Startups]

A startup developer contacted me today with some follow-up questions from my post about why Facebook is over. He wanted to know what I thought would be his best strategy for development and publishing given that he has a small team. I asked his permission to print his mail and my response (anonymously) here to discuss the importance of looking at risk in the right way, and he kindly consented.

 

The Message

The developer, let’s call him John, sent me this:

Our game studio right now has X staff (redacted, but it’s less than 10, mostly web-focused). We are looking for a less risky game concept that would fit our resources. Here are some of our concerns --

1. You mentioned in your blog that Facebook platform may not be a good choice for game developers. I partly agree with your point. I think Facebook still serves an important role in terms of user acquisition model (feeds, request..etc). What other platforms offer such features? Building my own web platform will be too ambitious at this moment.

2. My first thought is to use the game mechanics from the most game popular title on Facebook. Users will easily acquaint to the game play immediately. We would change the UI/theme with a "marketing story" as you mentioned in your blog.

And this was my response:

Hi John,

With such a small team you'll struggle to copy any of the successful games on Facebook to a sufficient standard that people won't immediately forget about them. So I wouldn't do that. I also wouldn't recommend mobile because your development team sounds very web-focused and will take time to transition across.

In those circumstances, the only option you really have is the open web and the chance to make something unusual that people will share and talk about. Don't be too frightened by the word 'platform' as though it means something huge and technical though. At it's simplest it's just a website that hosts your game, and you can plug in Facebook Connect or Twitter Connect as ways to attract virality.

Mainly though, and I can't stress this enough, the choice of deciding to make a less risky game is actually the most risky option. Play it safe and you won't attract any fans (because fans are more easily attracted to the risky, not the boring).

Thanks John.

 

Risk Is Your Ally

It’s incredibly important to look at risk in the right way. Many developers decide, when starting out, that they will play it safe first, get a small game developed and then springboard their way into more original fare. Only it doesn’t work out that way. What happens is that their initial game fails, they struggle, take on license work or some other coping measure, and then fizzle out.

Regardless of which platform you are working within, your first and most important job is to make a game that will resonate with the audience on that platform, and that means it has to be sexy enough (as they understand it) to pay attention. By refusing to be risky you end up making something meek that players forget, don’t tweet about and don’t notice.

That applies as much to the Facebook market as the indie scene. Startups are sexy only because they push boundaries, and players only pay attention to the ones that are doing something strange. If you lack the resources of a bigger company to do more traditional things well, you simply have to take chances and be a bit crazy.

The counter-argument, and the one that gets developers spooked, is salary burn. You have investors, friends and family or savings that you have put into this venture. You don’t want to fail. It’s all well and good to dream, but there are bills to pay!

So?

The playing public does not care how afraid you are, or whether you have a stepping stone strategy, or what your financial situation is. Your investment story is meaningless to them. They want to have fun, and that means doing strange and interesting things compared to that which they already know. They want to be surprised and excited, and your best strategy for success is to go and make that. You get to do the thing that larger companies don't: You get to change the world if you're bold enough. That's how you win.

Play it safe and you won’t be able to compete. You will get few fans. They will only play half-heartedly and they certainly won’t enthuse about your game to their friends. Your marketing story will not form (Sidebar: a lot of people misinterpret this marketing story idea, as John has above. You don’t just add a marketing story later to a product, it needs to be inherent in what it is.)

There’s no more depressing way to spend all your time and energy than by developing a game that you know is weak sauce. While being risky certainly implies the chance of failure, at least you fail in the knowledge that you had a passion. And it may give you the courage to try again.

So suck up your fears and go change the world. No other strategy works.

 

(Today’s image is courtesy of The Fayj)

Comments

[Johnson Harald]

Very timely couple of posts here, Tadhg. I was going to comment on "Facebook is Over" but this is even better. Here goes...

First, I am relatively new to gaming, run a 2-person indie game-publishing shop (farm out all programming), and am not even close to being in the league that most of you apparently are; more like 19th-Tier! But I have a plan for building and extending my brand across multiple platforms, and I'm hard at work on it.

One of my latest experiments is with my new Facebook App game/contest ("Alphabetography Photo Challenge") that is growing 500% GOG (game-over-game). It's a unique seasonal game (4 games annually), and I've recently started my third "Summer" game. If you're interested, I'll put the FB link at bottom.

Other than the 'don't start a new game on Facebook' thoughts with which I disagree, I agree with a lot of this commentary. Especially when Tadhg says: "...your first and most important job is to make a game that will resonate with the audience..." and "They want to have fun, and means doing strange and interesting things compared to that which they already know..."

For me, that means: understanding very well who my audience is and what they are already used to seeing/doing/knowing, and then "getting a bit crazy" and offering them something different. In my case, the audience is photo enthusiasts, and I'm offering via the Alphabetography Photo Challenge on Facebook something with which they are familiar (photo contests) but adding concepts and game mechanisms that they have never seen. I believe that I have created a game (I call it a "Challenge") that is unique in the world (and if you can find contrary evidence, please tell me) but that is, at the same time, firmly based on existing and proven concepts. I've just taken the risk (financial and otherwise) to step out more and take a few more chances. I'm servicing my niche (photography) in a unique way and on a platform (Facebook) that brings to bear all the social hooks and power that I think only Facebook can offer me at this early stage. And while this is not Cityville, the response and engagement is gratifying to see.

So like Tadhg suggests, I'm changing the world in my small way. I'm not monetized with Alphabetography yet, but that's another story for another time ;-)

H

P.S. If you're interested, here's the link:
http://apps.facebook.com/alphabetography
(you need a FB account and click on "Allow" permissions to see it)
Submit some photos... you might win a prize! :)

[Laura Bularca]

Hi Tadhg,

I have a problem with your articles: I don't know which one I like best. So far, my vote went to "Minecraft and the question of luck", but this one is better and more inspiring for me.

I currently have a passion project that I am working on together with some friends. We're going through the exact same problem you are describing and I am trying to convince them that we must complete our game because of our love and passion, not because we want to earn cash. Ultimately, it is the passion that we all share that holds the best chances of success, but I personally quantify this success as my ability to feel proud of what we did, that we told the world what we wanted to tell and that my soul is satisfied with that.

It's a hard vision to promote, though, especially when almost everything in our life is governed by money and when everybody in our team is a grown-up with families to feed and a gazzilion of problems on our heads. I think people like us need as many examples as possible, to go ahead hoping and knowing that, if you provide something of value, people will pay you for it. Minecraft, WoG, Braid, Limbo - now there are many examples that can help us, but compared to the number of indie games that are launched, I think the percentage of success is low.

So I think we may need more help from you: how can we learn to acknowledge and handle the idea that we can fail, that, in truth, there is no such thing as safe risk? I am thinking that somehow, we simply need to develop our first game for some reasons other than commercial success. I honestly don't think about money and success at all, but perhaps my attitude is a bit too idealistic and not recommended. What can I do?

I am pretty sure you have more advice, and way better one than I can ever find. I hope you'll find the time to answer me, perhaps even through another article.

[Tadhg]

Hi Laura,

Thanks for the fantastic praise. I think it's a lesson only really learned by doing. I know several successful indie developers who have pushed through the pain, and really it just comes down to resilience and dedication.

If you want something to read for your team, I suggest picking up a copy of 'The Dip' by Seth Godin, which talks about both learning to fail fast but also learning how to stay in when all around seems desperate.