It seems that the word 'scratchware' isn't in any of the articles or forums on the DC, so I thought it would be safe if I mentioned this.
I just noticed the Scratchware Manifesto on Home of the Underdogs (http://www.the-underdogs.com) recently. It seems that it was written in the year 2000, but only now have I noticed it.
It should be a good inspiration to you all, and useful to link to every time another "Modern games suck!" thread appears .
BTW, you admins wouldn't happen to mind if I submit a link to it on the Links page, now would ya? I don't see any harm in it.
Edited by the Author.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Well, that was a good, interesting post, which is the only reason it might not "belong" on the forums here.
Well, I read the Manifesto, aside from the middle half or so that pretty much just hails the glory of the revolution and what-not. It was inspiring, to a degree, because they seemed to be talking about more or less what a lot of Click people have been doing for years, with varying degrees of success, which is creating games out of a natural desire rather than some prefabricated marketing scheme.
Of course, I think they're kind of smoking it, too. I mean, they're talking about charging $10-$25 for these homebrew games. I don't know about you, but I think asking $25 for some homebrew game is a little unrealistic. $10 is probably stretching it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't imagine these things selling too well when there are so many games available on the internet for free. Maybe I lack entrepreneurial vision, but I don't see a lot of Clickers retiring on dividends from their Paypal accounts.
The second part of the whole problem with this idea is that new games don't suck that bad. They talk about how console games are worthless and big-time video game publishers suck. There's a reason EA makes a new Tiger Woods game every year: people want it. People pay money for it. Sure, it isn't fostering innovation, but innovative doesn't always mean good, you know? Pokemon Channel might be unique, but I'm still not buying it.
See, people vote with their wallets. Nobody ever gripes about having dropped $50 on a game and it not being innovative enough. Well, maybe magazine editors gripe about that, but they're not dropping $50 on the games they play. The issue is quality. I just bought Roadkill because I felt I needed some good driving/shooting/killing on my Gamecube, and despite the fact that it was an obvious knock-off og GTA and Twisted Metal, I have still enjoyed playing it 10 times more than either Mario Kart: Double Dash or Rogue Leader. And it was $20.
Now, if these people want this scratchware idea to work out, they had better re-think their priceline. If I can spend $20 on a commercial quality, 3D game, with a big budget and a big development team, why on earth would I want to spend up to $25 on some game that three geeks made when they weren't busy filling out their character sheets in the back room of the comic book store? I mean, $10-$25 is hardly inconsequential when you can find good, commercial games for that much.
For it to be "scratchware", I suggest charging maybe $3-$6. Something so small that most people wouldn't even worry about whether or not it would be worth it or not, and it's not such a bad deal for the developer, either, when the cost of production is $0. Even $1 is not so bad if you sell 20 copies. Beats selling zero copies at $20.
But really, it's a hobby. We all have other hobbies we don't try to make money off of, so why feel the need to make money off of this, really? I think it's more important to be able to produce something. Either you put forth a totally new idea for a game, or you address something you hated about another game you've played and make their idea better. Or you just make something for the hell of it because that's what you like to do and you think maybe other people might enjoy it.
Anyway, the fact that this "manifesto" was written in 2000 and we're all not busy taking part in The Revolution should probably serve as an indicator of how well the plan is working out.
Okay, I'm all done proselytizing because I understand that teenagers can not read too much at one time without being given a cookie.
The thing is... people buy stuff because they don't know that the better stuff exists (and at lower prices). You'll actually have to do an active search to find the best games ever made.
Take for example... Avernum(1, 2, and 3). It's one of the best games of its type I've ever seen. But sadly, it's only shareware. A lot of home-brewed games are worth $15, but fortunately most of em are charging only half as much.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Well, I've never heard of Avernum, but I would imagine that anyone who can create the best game of any type should be able to get a publishing deal for their product. That is, if there's a market for that type of game. From the screenshots, Avernum looks like it could appeal to people who played Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, maybe even Diablo. So if this game's better, why wouldn't a publisher want to put it out? Why wouldn't the developers want it published? Are they really making that much money off of whatever people happen to find out they exist?
To a large extent, you're right: people are lazy, and rather than search around the internet for independently-produced games that they might like, they go to Gamestop and buy whatever game they've heard is cool from some review site. Or whatever they saw on TV that looks cool, if they're truly lazy. But that is probably not going to change anytime soon, so if you know that, you're probably a lot better off trying to work through the system, or by offering your games at a price that won't scare people off. If Arcanum 1 was $6, I'd be playing it now. Playing that might make me want to buy the sequels. But knowing that it's $25, I'm not even going to waste time downloading the demo.
The main problem is that free/shareware games don't get nearly the recognition they should have. The best bet is to send in your games to a pc gaming magazine and see if they will throw it on the CD.
defenestrator:
I strongly doubt Avernum would appeal in the least to Diablo players . My point was that it's a very well redone old concept, but so well redone that I've paid the full price for it (and mind you, the full game is more than twice as fun as the demo). It just won't appeal to the masses who can't look past a few dodgy graphics. But you're right, they're overcharging.
Have you seen what some major producers do to the creators? They force the creators to do extra stuff in a limited amount of time and only give them a tiny cut. I know a minor solo game-maker who only gets a 40% cut for his game while the producer keeps the 60%. And all the producers do is just give it a nice cover, nice CDs, nice box, polish up the manual, and mass-produce them all. Something any indie developer could easily do (besides the mass-production and nice CDs).
But from what I've seen, a few do make it big. Like Titans of Steel. ToS was once a freeware game that earned an online name through web-surfing and minor awards. Now, it's a fairly famous game being sold in most local stores.
Shab:
If you make a good enough game, post it on download.com or try to get it on Home of the Underdogs, you could get a very heavy fanatic base in 2 years.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Advertisement
Post Reply
.
Edited by the Author.
. My point was that it's a very well redone old concept, but so well redone that I've paid the full price for it (and mind you, the full game is more than twice as fun as the demo). It just won't appeal to the masses who can't look past a few dodgy graphics. But you're right, they're overcharging.