I was going to put this in the GiP thread but I didn't want to clog it with something only tangentially related to the actual game itself.
So here is my dilemma:
This chapter of McCarthy will be *far* longer than the previous one and it will contain a great deal more dialogue since the game will attempt to be quite non-linear with different choices/paths available to the player.
I can call in enough favours to get voice acting on a short game but i'm not sure if I could get VAs to work for free on a project this size (some characters might have in excess of 500 lines). Not to mention the fact that the quality of the voice actors that i know now is much higher than the quality of VAs I had back then. Now, I don't mind making mccarthy for free but I also don't really want to be out of pocket either. I also can't gurantee that my artists would be too pleased with the concept of VAs getting paid and them not.
So
hypothetically how would you, the player, prefer I dealt with this problem.
1) Scratch voice acting altogether and stay 100% freeware.
2) Go commercial and increase the quality of the release. If I did go commercial I would provide more animations, more content and a higher quality product simply because I could justify asking my artists to go that extra mile. (for the record all my artists are already the hardest working people I have ever worked with.. except maybe 304 but i think he has some kind of brain disorder or is cybernetically enhanced)
3) Provide the voice pack as part of a 'special' edition which costs money but provide the non-voice edition for free. (I imagine the artists might have a perfectly justified problem with this option.)
If I'm honest I would rather *not* go commercial for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I did say in the GiP of the first game that I would keep the McCarthy Chronicles a free series supported by donations and secondly the pressure to deliver is much higher and "you get what you pay for" is no longer a glib joke you can fire at detractors.
Bottom line: Is high quality voice acting and more incidental content worth 5-10 quid to you?
Spoiler
I also promise no shitty writing.. or rather as good as i can do... but nothing over the top i swear!
Dude, go commercial and rock this world.
Personally, my opinion is definitely GO COMMERCIAL. Granted, it raises expectations, it's a lot more work, it will spread a lot less, and frankly, like my franchise, it most likely won't make you any real money. BUT it will allow you to do more interesting things AND it will all in all be better for the AGS community as it will help putting the stamp on AGS as a solid tool for making real commercial projects, not just some goofy toy for kid programmers.
I truly respect everyone who is bold enough to charge money for their indie projects, it's a very ballsy thing to do and it encourages entrepreneurship in others, including me.
Also, managing the commercial part of the project will most likely be a very good thing to have under your belt, for future ventures.
Commercial. First part was great.
It's a difficult decision. Charging money won't be enough to pay off the expenses I fear. You'd have to devote a great number of time into PR and marketing, and it might be really tough to market a game in b&w and low res that is also a sequel.
However, you could try financing the game via Kickstarter (or a similar service) before deciding to go commercial. Or you could do both. It has worked well for some people.
Thanks guys, the input is very helpful.
Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 03/02/2011 13:11:13
It's a difficult decision. Charging money won't be enough to pay off the expenses I fear.
I wouldnt really expect to pay off all my expenses but rather just to lose less money than if it were free.
Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 03/02/2011 13:11:13
it might be really tough to market a game in b&w and low res that is also a sequel.
That might be true.
Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 03/02/2011 13:11:13
However, you could try financing the game via Kickstarter (or a similar service) before deciding to go commercial. Or you could do both. It has worked well for some people.
If I did decide to go commercial I might take a similar approach to VinceTwelve by offering pre-order perks. I know it helped him with Resonance but Resonance is a far more highly awaited project than McCarthy.
Option 3 is the my choice, but if that doesn't work out I'd prefer free. Voice acting can be nice, but it can also increase the file size quite a bit. If you went commercial you could possibly release the game on CD though that would most likely add to the production costs. At the very least commercial games should have a minimum resolution of 640X400, with 800X600 the standard and maybe all the way up to 1280X960.
Quote from: mkennedy on Thu 03/02/2011 14:32:26
At the very least commercial games should have a minimum resolution of 640X400, with 800X600 the standard and maybe all the way up to 1280X960.
What about the blackwell series?
Selling adventure games seems like a fickle thing, and I honestly don't think that McCarthy could pull it off.
I really wish I had reasonable arguments beyond personal taste to fortify my position here but I don't, it's just based on my experience playing the first game, that if I did buy it I'd like my money back. That's not saying it's a bad game it just did well by being free, and while I know this is about the future McCarthy, its still be relevant since part one will be selling part 2 to a large degree.
I felt compelled to give my somewhat negative disposition, seems to be allot of irreverent positivity towards this so far. Take it with a grain of salt though, I can't even comprehend why the blackwell series sells at all.
On reflection I think you are probably right. People are unlikely to want to buy a McCarthy game.
However I still want to deliver a high quality experience so I will combine options 1 and 2 and maybe make a bit of a loss.
I think, for the time being at least, McCarthy will stay free. :D
Quote from: Darius Poyer on Thu 03/02/2011 15:37:50
I really wish I had reasonable arguments beyond personal taste to fortify my position here but I don't, it's just based on my experience playing the first game, that if I did buy it I'd like my money back.
Shouldn't it depend on how much you needed to pay? Surely, a great number of freeware AGS games are polished and well-made enough that they could have a price tag attached - even though the reasonable approach would be to have the price more attractive than, say, Machinarium.
IMO the only games that wouldn't deserve to be sold are games that are broken in some way.
My opinion is that it really depends on nothing more than enjoyability.
VVVVVV sold very well despite being low-res and with a tiny amount of graphical content. It was just fun.
Calin, you could always opt for funding options like Kickstarter or Indiegogo. That way you could raise money for voice actors, you could offer donators incentives and then release the game for free. I'm more likely to donate than I am buy, but that's just me.
I have no incentives to offer really and I don't like denying people content just because they didnt have the means to donate to something. It seems mean.
If you ask me as a developer, I say, go commercial, for all the reasons already mentioned.
If you ask me as a gamer, however, my answer will be completely different. As a gamer, I almost never
buy stuff, because I already have too many free games that I want to play, and even for them I don't have
enough time, so if the game will be commercial I would probably not play it.
So option #2 is not an option for me, and I see no difference between options #1 & #3.
I would actually prefer hidden option #4, make the game for free with a 'lower' quality voice pack, made by people who are maybe not professional, but are willing to contribute their voices for free (and there are people like that to be found).
finding people to do 30 lines for free is easy enough. Finding people to do 300 lines for free is more difficult. 300 lines take a lot of effort.
I plan to keep any of my games (yes, they exist even though I've released nothing in 6 years) free for a few simple reasons:
1) if you charge for the project you'll have to offer 'support' of some kind (tech support, complaints, refunds, etc)
2) if you charge you need to report the income (which usually necessitates opening an LLC or similar (not sure how it works outside the states!))
3) if it's free, and you grow bored of the project, you can just walk away from it and, while people will/might complain, there's nothing they can do about it
There are other ways to generate some revenue from the game as opposed to flat-out charging for it.
In-game Advertising is my favorite method. Nothing that interrupts the game-play ... but think of a sign in one background that has an advert for Nike shoes (not practical for an indie game of course, as Nike isn't likely to be interested, but you get the point!) Or maybe the character orders a Coca-Cola (again, Coke wouldn't buy into an indie game but again, just an example). I had the notion at one point to have an area in a game that is repeatedly visited ... and there's big sign in the background that (through a connection to the 'net would pull in and place dynamic ad content on the sign) so there'd be different ads periodically as players played through the game.
Also, the website could have advertisements (paid or Google, etc). Though please, no pop-ups or forced commercials before video(s). Just normal side/top mounted ads are okay.
Donations (which you already have). For some reason, as Mark eluded to, I am more likely to donate than buy ... because I feel I can pick the donation amount based on my own sense of what the game/project is worth to me rather than somebody else dictating that.
Just my thoughts!
Well how about the "pay what you like" system that has been adopted by alot of indies?
That seems like a reasonable compromise. It's like donation except it gives people a little extra nudge in that direction.
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Thu 03/02/2011 16:56:34
finding people to do 30 lines for free is easy enough. Finding people to do 300 lines for free is more difficult. 300 lines take a lot of effort.
Depends, I guess. Aren't there some online communities out there with people who'd love to do some voice acting for free AND have a reasonable equipment to record it? I know that radio dramas aren't as popular in other countries as they are here in Germany. Here, finding some quite decent voice actors would be the least of my problems when making a non-commercial game. I guess there are some of these in England, too. Depending on how professional you want the actors to be, that would be one option.
I agree with Darth that making a commercial game would be more of an effort. At least I wouldn't like to do it. People have much higher expectations of a commercial game, which I honestly couldn't meet.
Yes indeed, there is that massive voice acting community but damned if I can remember what its called. But from what I remember it has thousands of members all of whom seem eager. I tnink its this: http://voiceactingalliance.com/ (Members : 21,358)
Thats like 4 voice actors for every AGS member? :p Domithan has used something similar, perhaps its worth getting his opinion.
Option #5 - Nothing finances worthy causes better than a nude calendar. You can pose every month yourself, or see if you can recruit 11 other prominent AGSers to take one for the team. If you distribute it digitally your costs will be minimal and, pending good taste and creative posing, you may be able to satisfy both your artists and your voice actors (er, financially that is).
Option #6 - Have you considered defraying the financial risk with some sort of informal partnership or corporate structure? Everyone invests time and effort, and then reaps a proportionate fraction of the rewards on a contingency basis should the venture prove successful. So, say the game corporation is broken down into a million shares, and every acceptable line of voice acting is worth 10 shares, or every usable sprite is worth 100, etc. (you'll have to break it down exactly according to the amount of work required so that it seems fair). Every quarter for a year after the release date you divide the spoils proportionately, and then you fold the corporation (to cut down on long term hassle), with any remaining profits going to you as the ultimate owner of the franchise (obviously that would have to be made clear in the original agreement with your partners). It depends on your jurisdiction, but setting up this kind of share structure for a private company can be dirt cheap, and anyway you could probably get away with doing it informally (but written contracts are a good idea so there are no misunderstandings). If many people have a vested interest in seeing a commercial McCarthy widely distributed, they might just help with the marketing. Indeed, you could set aside 50K shares for a designated pimp position....
Just throwing ideas out there.
Are you sure you cannot find actors/voice actors just starting out who could do this for their portfolio? I'm pretty sure you could lure some of them, even more so if you tried to promote the game even more than the last one. You could also offer them in game credit and maybe links to their sites or something. My personal un-informed opinion is that you're better off with a freeware game at this point of your career.
Best of luck with your game!
Just so you all know, I am well aquainted with the VAA and VAC and VA.co.uk :p In fact that's where all the other VAs came from.
However, as i said before, amateur VAs are much less likely to invest hundreds of lines for free than they are 30 lines.
Certainly if I want decent voice actors (there are some *terrible* VAs on those sites).
umm ok sorry then!
To be fair, voice acting is very often pretty bad in even the biggest commercial games, so I don't think paying actors is necessarily going to justify the price to you or to us. Not at this point anyway.
Personally I would happily save a few quid to play the game non-voiced. But if you absolutely must have voicing I'd rather give a small donation for the privilage than pay a set price.
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Thu 03/02/2011 18:11:22
Well how about the "pay what you like" system that has been adopted by alot of indies?
That seems like a reasonable compromise. It's like donation except it gives people a little extra nudge in that direction.
This already!
Maybe someday they'll have software that will be able to mimic any voice and say whatever you tell it to. Though I imagine such software may be more expensive than hiring actors...
Quote from: mkennedy on Fri 04/02/2011 08:27:14
Maybe someday they'll have software that will be able to mimic any voice and say whatever you tell it to. Though I imagine such software may be more expensive than hiring actors...
Or even better, maybe some future AGS version will include a "make a McCarthy sequel" button, which will do all the work automatically in a couple of seconds.
I'd say commercial can be justified if you go easy (or remove them) on the werewolves this time around :) But maybe that's just me- anything that has werewolves in it puts me off for some reason....
What I found interesting here, though, is that you consider going commercial without really thinking whether you can find a publisher that will be interested in selling a sequel to a game that isn't that popular outside this community, or any no-budget indie game really. Have you already got publishers willing to do that? I found this was the hardest bit- getting people interested enough to try it.
Another option to consider: maybe McCarthy 1 can be added to the sequel, so all newcomers can play it first before they try chapter 2. That would save some confusion, surely, and "buy 2 for the price of 1" always looks good, too!
You have a few options, as you mentioned.
I for one would buy it. But I'd expect the first game to be a 'prologue' type of thing integrated, or have some kind of special edition with updated graphics, dialogue, etc. to reason the special name.
I don't think there is any reason not to go down this route, as long as you get some support from someone already doing this with ags games, or you can throw it on steam. (perhaps speak to zombie cow or Dave Gilbert)
I'd also strongly encourage going for a higher resolution, but that is personal opinion.
My immediate reaction is that it's not a good idea.
I would have thought that if you decide to make it commercial, you'll have to pay everyone involved in its production a fair wage, whilst if it's freeware you can get many/all to work for free or for a nominal fee. Also, a commercial game might demand a higher level of polish (e.g. higher resolution, more animations, better backgrounds, more music and sound effects, and so on), leading you to invest more into it; and you have to make really sure that it plays without bugs on all systems. All this takes more time and, for a commercial game, more money. And I am not convinced that the revenues would cover the cost increase, so you might come out worse off than if you'd given away the game for free.
There's quite an impressive lineup of commercial AGS games coming up (Gemini Rue and the next Blackwell title in the short run, Resonance and the Journey Down sequel/deluxe version in the longer run), and I think that does mean your game has to raise its game be competitive. Will it measure up to these others in production quality, length/substance, and player appeal, or will it still feel most like a well-made free game? Will you be able to make a good case for why people should pay for it while they can get e.g. Ben Jordan 8 for free?
If script length is the big problem, maybe you could see if you could cut down some of the dialog? (Preferably by trimming down long exchanges rather than reducing the number of exchanges.) Both Dave Gilbert (http://nygamedev.blogspot.com/2010/06/game-talk.html) and Vince Twelve (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=41151.0) have found that this actually improves the script.
You could also write some excuse into the script to allow you to use different voice actors for the same character, so there's not as much work for each one. Either split the character into two separate ones (maybe a police officer is replaced half-way through the investigation, for example), or have something happen that would change the voice (a flu, being the victim of serious injuries, turning into a monster, suddenly aging decades...)
The proposal you had about a donation button (perhaps associated with some incentive, like a producer credit, an early look at a video of the game or background sketches, etc.) sounds much better, though I wouldn't expect it to
bring in huge sums.
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 04/02/2011 11:25:36
There's quite an impressive lineup of commercial AGS games coming up (Gemini Rue and the next Blackwell title in the short run, Resonance and the Journey Down sequel/deluxe version in the longer run), and I think that does mean your game has to raise its game be competitive. Will it measure up to these others in production quality, length/substance, and player appeal, or will it still feel most like a well-made free game? Will you be able to make a good case for why people should pay for it while they can get e.g. Ben Jordan 8 for free?
I don't think there's any need to make such a case. Revolution was giving Broken Sword DC for free a month ago, and the current prices you can pay during promotions of popular games are ridiculously low. Almost none of lesser indie games can compare in price/quality ratio to those titles, and it's insane to demand from them to feel guilty about it.
Little, modest indies can be competitive only in the sense that some players want to play even shorter, audio-visually inferior indie titles, if they see something special in them. Such people might choose to invest in the creators to see them make more and better titles in the future.
An interesting point you make there, Igor.
We can buy classic games for PC, big budget high profile releases, for something stupid like $1 each nowadays, and their technology is far more advanced still than anything we'd be able to do with AGS, and they might have 15-20 hours of gameplay.
However, I'll still pay $10-$20 for an indie game sometimes, even if I flinch at a $20 price tag on a Playstation 3 game and think "I'll wait until that's cheaper..."
It's kinda hard to judge the value of games, really.
I think that's more a matter of the two things not being directly comparable. The fact that Broken Sword is ca. 15 years old, has an established place in the canon, was made by a pretty big, professional team, and that many people have already played it makes it quite different than a new indie title.
Newness and timeliness are pretty big factors in determining what people see as a fair price. Something that has been available non-stop for a decade and a half, can easily be got second-hand, and presumably made back its budget many years ago won't command the price of a new release. Similarly, the fact that the creator is around, responding to feedback, that public opinion isn't set and reviews haven't yet been written (so there's a point offering your take), and that the response could determine the fate of future games also makes a new game worth investing in.
But I think if you're comparing a free AGS game to a commercial AGS game released around the same time, the situation is much more similar, and you have to be able to show some arguments for why one "deserves" to charge money. Otherwise I doubt it will be particularly successful or popular.
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 04/02/2011 12:39:24
But I think if you're comparing a free AGS game to a commercial AGS game released around the same time, the situation is much more similar, and you have to be able to show some arguments for why one "deserves" to charge money. Otherwise I doubt it will be particularly successful or popular.
If you mean imaginative marketing and positive reviews, then, yeah, they're strongly needed to make an indie game profitable.
However, I don't see indie developers as burdened with responsibility to convincingly explain why they deserve getting money for their game instead of giving it for free, under the threat that people around will start to hate them and view them as sell-outs. That would be crazy.
Only with the caveat that charging for something creates expectations, and failing to live up to expectations always risks creating bad feeling/backlash.
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 04/02/2011 13:23:01
Only with the caveat that charging for something creates expectations, and failing to live up to expectations always risks creating bad feeling/backlash.
Thats what demos and reviews are for.
If a developer made a bad game they get the backlash regardless of whether or not someone paid for it. I'm sure every AGS dev has seen this in action.
Quote from: Ascovel on Fri 04/02/2011 12:56:01
However, I don't see indie developers as burdened with responsibility to convincingly explain why they deserve getting money for their game instead of giving it for free, under the threat that people around will start to hate them and view them as sell-outs. That would be crazy.
Agreed. To sell out you have to make compromises based on perceived revenue which is something indies should never do.. that's kind of part of what makes them indie, keeping creative control separate from revenue.
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 04/02/2011 13:23:01
Only with the caveat that charging for something creates expectations, and failing to live up to expectations always risks creating bad feeling/backlash.
Ok. That I fully agree with. But is it such an unusual risk?
A freeware game can create expectations, bad feelings and backlash just as well. Popularity (however small) can create greater expectations (or envy) than a price tag.
Similarly, saying something distasteful and/or arrogant publicly can potentially ruin the reputation of your games whether you charge for them or not.
In general, everything you create, or say is prone to being taken seriously. It's not only money that can make that happen.