GameHouse sells for $35M
by Brad Shapcott · in General Discussion · 01/27/2004 (12:01 pm) · 23 replies
About the author
#2
01/27/2004 (12:02 pm)
$$$ is great. However, my (brief) excursion into puzzle game creation bored me to tears. $35M is indeed shocking.
#3
Most Indie developers fail to look at WHO they are competing with. The consumer doesn't care if the game was created by Indies, a publisher, or monkeys with pink asses.
So in the grand scheme of things, if you are creating an FPS (pick a subject, any subject) your game had better offer something BETTER and DIFFERENT than the competitor. Your competitor is Call of Duty. Your competitor is Halo 2. Your competitor is Half-Life 2. Your competitor is Doom 3.
Does this scare you yet? It fucking BETTER, or you aren't going to survive, and your otherwise excellent work is going the way of the Dodo.
So whats the alternative? Simple. Develop something that the competitor CANNOT. Puzzle games are a prime example. And they DEFINATELY don't have to be boring. In fact, I went to Yahoo.com and played a game called "Inspector Parker", which is vaguely similar to the boardgame "Clue". That was the best hour I have spent in a long time, and I am no fan of Puzzle Games. Unfortunately the demo ran out, I can't play it anymore, and I don't necessarily want to buy it RIGHT NOW. So it will get wiped from my machine, and I'll probably forget about it.
Another excellent game that I would consider a "Puzzle Game" is Bettys Beer Bar. At first I assumed it was another "Tapper" clone. But this game is so much more. This game has an entire career-based storyline where Betty tries to gather enough tips by working different bars, so that she can open her own bar.
The graphics are strictly 2D, and effects are minimal. But everything is seamless and very professionally executed. Who is his competitor? Hell, I dunno and I don't really care because Bettys Beer Bar is compelling, challenging and most of all FUN.
I've played alot of games in the last month. I am a 3D/Graphics whore. I am an action/FPS whore to boot. Yet these Inspector Parker and Bettys Beer Bar are among the very few that I have deemed worthy of my time lately.
However, again, my Bettys Beer Bar demo time is just about up. Maybe I'll buy it, maybe I won't... thats the risk the developer takes with a timed demo.
Whoever is reading this, I guarantee that I have either looked at, or played your game. It simply doesn't hold a candle to Bettys Beer Bar. So you can keep throwing all the 3D and lighting effects into your games. But until it holds the simple concept of gameplay and fun, it won't be worth a shit.
01/27/2004 (12:52 pm)
I am going to probably start writing articles about some of these subjects.Most Indie developers fail to look at WHO they are competing with. The consumer doesn't care if the game was created by Indies, a publisher, or monkeys with pink asses.
So in the grand scheme of things, if you are creating an FPS (pick a subject, any subject) your game had better offer something BETTER and DIFFERENT than the competitor. Your competitor is Call of Duty. Your competitor is Halo 2. Your competitor is Half-Life 2. Your competitor is Doom 3.
Does this scare you yet? It fucking BETTER, or you aren't going to survive, and your otherwise excellent work is going the way of the Dodo.
So whats the alternative? Simple. Develop something that the competitor CANNOT. Puzzle games are a prime example. And they DEFINATELY don't have to be boring. In fact, I went to Yahoo.com and played a game called "Inspector Parker", which is vaguely similar to the boardgame "Clue". That was the best hour I have spent in a long time, and I am no fan of Puzzle Games. Unfortunately the demo ran out, I can't play it anymore, and I don't necessarily want to buy it RIGHT NOW. So it will get wiped from my machine, and I'll probably forget about it.
Another excellent game that I would consider a "Puzzle Game" is Bettys Beer Bar. At first I assumed it was another "Tapper" clone. But this game is so much more. This game has an entire career-based storyline where Betty tries to gather enough tips by working different bars, so that she can open her own bar.
The graphics are strictly 2D, and effects are minimal. But everything is seamless and very professionally executed. Who is his competitor? Hell, I dunno and I don't really care because Bettys Beer Bar is compelling, challenging and most of all FUN.
I've played alot of games in the last month. I am a 3D/Graphics whore. I am an action/FPS whore to boot. Yet these Inspector Parker and Bettys Beer Bar are among the very few that I have deemed worthy of my time lately.
However, again, my Bettys Beer Bar demo time is just about up. Maybe I'll buy it, maybe I won't... thats the risk the developer takes with a timed demo.
Whoever is reading this, I guarantee that I have either looked at, or played your game. It simply doesn't hold a candle to Bettys Beer Bar. So you can keep throwing all the 3D and lighting effects into your games. But until it holds the simple concept of gameplay and fun, it won't be worth a shit.
#4
The puzzle game market has plenty of competitors. If you love puzzle games and/or want to make some $$$, be prepared for work. It's ridiculous to think making puzzle games is "easy money".
I agree: a game that isn't fun is a pile of shit.
-J
01/27/2004 (1:16 pm)
Quote:Develop something that the competitor CANNOT. Puzzle games are a prime example.
The puzzle game market has plenty of competitors. If you love puzzle games and/or want to make some $$$, be prepared for work. It's ridiculous to think making puzzle games is "easy money".
I agree: a game that isn't fun is a pile of shit.
-J
#5
I have never felt inclined to play "Clue" on my PC. But Inspector Parker was a nice twist on that concept, and was definately "tuned" for PC, rather than trying to stick to the stifling and restrictive gameplay of "Clue". No dice rolling here, thank god.
I have also never felt inclined to play "Tapper" on my PC. However, Bettys Beer Bar takes this much further by allowing you to use BOTH hands to hold objects. So you can pick up a dirty glass in one hand, and serve a full glass with the other. Other "new" concepts are thrown in, like washing the glass before filling it with beer. If patrons get too drunk, you can serve them coffee to sober them up.
So again, the Puzzle market isn't the answer to all your prayers, because you STILL have to have a game that is worthy, different and fun. In the end, I think the "simple" concepts are the ones that give you the best return on your investment.
01/27/2004 (1:35 pm)
Puzzle game market is heavily competitive- but the vast majority of that is complete crap. So its quite easy for games like Inspector Parker and Bettys Beer Bar to really stand out and shine.I have never felt inclined to play "Clue" on my PC. But Inspector Parker was a nice twist on that concept, and was definately "tuned" for PC, rather than trying to stick to the stifling and restrictive gameplay of "Clue". No dice rolling here, thank god.
I have also never felt inclined to play "Tapper" on my PC. However, Bettys Beer Bar takes this much further by allowing you to use BOTH hands to hold objects. So you can pick up a dirty glass in one hand, and serve a full glass with the other. Other "new" concepts are thrown in, like washing the glass before filling it with beer. If patrons get too drunk, you can serve them coffee to sober them up.
So again, the Puzzle market isn't the answer to all your prayers, because you STILL have to have a game that is worthy, different and fun. In the end, I think the "simple" concepts are the ones that give you the best return on your investment.
#6
Amen! So true Randall. It's all about giving your customer an experience that they can't get anywhere else with a reasonable amount of quality to it. It doesn't have to be AAA quality, but it should be competitive with other professionally released titles.
My favorite example is CounterStrike. When it came out there were few, if any, military style shooters that had the same game types, style, and look & feel. The early versions didn't exactly look incredible, but it got better with each release. It was made by 2 guys, and it became huge because it was the only game that offered that type of experience.
01/27/2004 (2:46 pm)
Quote:Most Indie developers fail to look at WHO they are competing with. The consumer doesn't care if the game was created by Indies, a publisher, or monkeys with pink asses.
So in the grand scheme of things, if you are creating an FPS (pick a subject, any subject) your game had better offer something BETTER and DIFFERENT than the competitor. Your competitor is Call of Duty. Your competitor is Halo 2. Your competitor is Half-Life 2. Your competitor is Doom 3
Amen! So true Randall. It's all about giving your customer an experience that they can't get anywhere else with a reasonable amount of quality to it. It doesn't have to be AAA quality, but it should be competitive with other professionally released titles.
My favorite example is CounterStrike. When it came out there were few, if any, military style shooters that had the same game types, style, and look & feel. The early versions didn't exactly look incredible, but it got better with each release. It was made by 2 guys, and it became huge because it was the only game that offered that type of experience.
#7
01/27/2004 (4:07 pm)
Holy Cow! You mean hard work, perseverance, and a decent idea can actually pay off? Sign me up!
#8
If hard work, perseverance and a decent idea was all it took, everyone here would be millionaires... or at the very least, successful. Thats not the case.
01/27/2004 (4:25 pm)
Well no. Actually none of those guarantee a payoff at all. In fact, those are prossibly the LEAST significant things that go into designing a highly successful game. There are many more important factors to consider first.If hard work, perseverance and a decent idea was all it took, everyone here would be millionaires... or at the very least, successful. Thats not the case.
#9
Nothing in this world is guaranteed. Regardless, success is quite subjective wouldn't you say? I have some rather crazy notions on it myself.
The games that I have made, which sold the most, were the least fun to work on. The margin being HUGE. "Midnight Outlaw Illegal Street Racing" being an example of a commercial success (for the publisher) and a creative failure (for me). "I was an Atomic Mutant" in the reverse.
Of course, I agree with most of your ideas found around these parts. Though, I am rooted in hard work as a means to success. Success not being the same as $$$.
-J
01/27/2004 (4:36 pm)
Here is a definition of the word "can" as in "can pay off": "Used to indicate possibility or probability"Nothing in this world is guaranteed. Regardless, success is quite subjective wouldn't you say? I have some rather crazy notions on it myself.
The games that I have made, which sold the most, were the least fun to work on. The margin being HUGE. "Midnight Outlaw Illegal Street Racing" being an example of a commercial success (for the publisher) and a creative failure (for me). "I was an Atomic Mutant" in the reverse.
Of course, I agree with most of your ideas found around these parts. Though, I am rooted in hard work as a means to success. Success not being the same as $$$.
-J
#10
Learn the target Audience.
Learn the market Competition.
Learn the venues to Sell.
01/27/2004 (7:47 pm)
Pick an audience. Learn precisely what is fun for that audience. Enjoy the same or similar games (making games you hate to play is bad - you don't have to LOVE your games, and that can actually be a bad thing too, but you can't HATE the genre you create in). Study your markets, both what's there and how to get your product in front of clients.Learn the target Audience.
Learn the market Competition.
Learn the venues to Sell.
#11
Ever been to indieCon, the only place you can see a crazed (and inebriated ;)) Frenchman forget all the lyrics to a Stevie Ray Vaughn song, or screaming old Zeppelin tunes ?
Not to mention getting to see some Great Old Ones pick up playing live like they hadn't been in the game industry for the past 20 years or so ?
Oh, I almost forget : the Show Off Center, where you can see quite a few hits of the coming year in full "indiecolor" action... :)
01/28/2004 (9:40 am)
We don't have our own Sundance ?Ever been to indieCon, the only place you can see a crazed (and inebriated ;)) Frenchman forget all the lyrics to a Stevie Ray Vaughn song, or screaming old Zeppelin tunes ?
Not to mention getting to see some Great Old Ones pick up playing live like they hadn't been in the game industry for the past 20 years or so ?
Oh, I almost forget : the Show Off Center, where you can see quite a few hits of the coming year in full "indiecolor" action... :)
#12
I don't think thats the goal of MOST indies, but I certainly think its a reasonable goal. IMHO, We should all aim to have IPs, brand names and assets worth millions. I mean whats the alternative... working for ten years as an Indie and have absolutely ZERO assets? Thats not acceptable.
Acquisitions aren't necessarily a bad thing, and they occur for several reasons: 1) to remove that company as a competitor. 2) to merge their assets with existing assets and building their base. 3) to acquire the companies customers, buying info, dbase, financials and email addresses. 4) to acquire the companies IPs and brands 5) to take control of the companies licensing deals or other relationships. 6) to prevent a major product from launching.
It appears RealNetworks can benefit from all of these.
Is this a bad thing for Indies? No, I don't think so. No more than the "Blair Witch Project" was for the Indie Movie scene. It simply brought Indies front and center, and made that small portion of the industry that much stronger. Nowadays, we see many big-name actors playing parts in Indie Movies. Not because of the money (they typically take HUGE paycuts), but because of the freedom and non-cookie-cutter ideas. Its their opportunity to try something different and experiment, without a huge amount of risk.
01/28/2004 (10:23 am)
I haven't bothered reading into the details of the GameHouse sale, but I definately should, soon.Quote:It's good for GameHouse, but I'm wondering if the goal of most indies is to create companies that they can later sell if successful? Is it a good or even reasonable goal?
I don't think thats the goal of MOST indies, but I certainly think its a reasonable goal. IMHO, We should all aim to have IPs, brand names and assets worth millions. I mean whats the alternative... working for ten years as an Indie and have absolutely ZERO assets? Thats not acceptable.
Acquisitions aren't necessarily a bad thing, and they occur for several reasons: 1) to remove that company as a competitor. 2) to merge their assets with existing assets and building their base. 3) to acquire the companies customers, buying info, dbase, financials and email addresses. 4) to acquire the companies IPs and brands 5) to take control of the companies licensing deals or other relationships. 6) to prevent a major product from launching.
It appears RealNetworks can benefit from all of these.
Is this a bad thing for Indies? No, I don't think so. No more than the "Blair Witch Project" was for the Indie Movie scene. It simply brought Indies front and center, and made that small portion of the industry that much stronger. Nowadays, we see many big-name actors playing parts in Indie Movies. Not because of the money (they typically take HUGE paycuts), but because of the freedom and non-cookie-cutter ideas. Its their opportunity to try something different and experiment, without a huge amount of risk.
#13
Drop the barrier to entry, and mainly increase the quantity of lower-quality competition. Drop it enough, and maintain a high incentive for people to play, and you get the flooding of the marketplace... mainly by lower-quality stuff.
So what happens? The guys with the money create artificial barriers to entry, and can pay to advertise them to consumers as a SERVICE that helps filter out the wheat from the chaff.
And of course, a lot of wheat is filtered out anyway.
01/28/2004 (10:30 am)
It's all about "Barriers to Entry." If you have high barriers to entry (like MOST worldwide publishing / distribution has been until recent years), then it means that a lot of great ideas lack the power to make it to market. But it also means that whoever has the power (MONEY) to overcome that barrier has made a significant investment, and is well-motivated to make sure that whatever they send out is of high quality and very marketable. It also means that the competition becomes limited, making it easier to distinguish oneself from them.Drop the barrier to entry, and mainly increase the quantity of lower-quality competition. Drop it enough, and maintain a high incentive for people to play, and you get the flooding of the marketplace... mainly by lower-quality stuff.
So what happens? The guys with the money create artificial barriers to entry, and can pay to advertise them to consumers as a SERVICE that helps filter out the wheat from the chaff.
And of course, a lot of wheat is filtered out anyway.
#14
There is no other way around it, and you can twist and turn it all you like. You don't HAVE to turn that IP into hard cold cash, but the asset is always there. You can exploit your IP all you like, or hinder it (like Calvin and Hobbes). The asset is always there.
We can define success any way we like. However, this particular article and discussion is ABOUT huge dollars. So in this particular thread, success is measured in dollar amounts.
Was GameHouse an artistic success? I see nothing at their site that blows me away. Was Gamehouse a innovative success? Definately not. Was GameHouse a hotbed of brands, character development and IPs? Not unless you count the LICENSED characters. Was GameHouse a forward-thinker, pushing the forefront of technology? No way.
So what else is left? Financials.
01/28/2004 (12:12 pm)
IP = asset = money.There is no other way around it, and you can twist and turn it all you like. You don't HAVE to turn that IP into hard cold cash, but the asset is always there. You can exploit your IP all you like, or hinder it (like Calvin and Hobbes). The asset is always there.
We can define success any way we like. However, this particular article and discussion is ABOUT huge dollars. So in this particular thread, success is measured in dollar amounts.
Was GameHouse an artistic success? I see nothing at their site that blows me away. Was Gamehouse a innovative success? Definately not. Was GameHouse a hotbed of brands, character development and IPs? Not unless you count the LICENSED characters. Was GameHouse a forward-thinker, pushing the forefront of technology? No way.
So what else is left? Financials.
#15
01/28/2004 (12:25 pm)
Quote:Nowadays, we see many big-name actors playing parts in Indie Movies. Not because of the money (they typically take HUGE paycuts), but because of the freedom and non-cookie-cutter ideas. Its their opportunity to try something different and experiment, without a huge amount of risk.I imagine it's also an intelligent career move, particularly for actors who have started getting typecast by the majors. Again - getting away from the "cookie cutter" thing... if you have been playing action-movie villains for a while, you are going to realize one day that you're starting to get a little old to keep getting that kind of role, and you need to diversify. The indies give you that opportunity.
#16
I think the surprise comes from the fact that they were obviously doing so well, sort of 'under the radar'. Those are pretty impressive numbers for games that collectively probably have the total cumulative creation cost as a single UT2k3 level. It's like 'distributed game design', heh -- lots of little, clever ideas, none of them heavily invested in, some of them more successful than others, all of them giving a certain amount of ROI.
01/28/2004 (12:43 pm)
It's no surprise to anyone that making fun games that are unique is the way to win the indie game.I think the surprise comes from the fact that they were obviously doing so well, sort of 'under the radar'. Those are pretty impressive numbers for games that collectively probably have the total cumulative creation cost as a single UT2k3 level. It's like 'distributed game design', heh -- lots of little, clever ideas, none of them heavily invested in, some of them more successful than others, all of them giving a certain amount of ROI.
#17
So what? Where did this all get me? I am now sitting in the middle of North Dakota, pretty much broke, working my ass off (and spending development dollars on) my own independent studio. Do you think I am worried? You better believe it. Does this drive me, hell yes.
Should I get as excited by the word MILLIONS! I don't think so. Does GameHouse being sold for $35 MILLION mean the same thing to everyone: NO
01/28/2004 (12:49 pm)
I was exactly 3 days from missing my rent payment when my game career took off. I have since made (and blown) nearly a quarter of a million dollars. The retail sales of the titles I either wrote single handedly or use my tech have grossed several million dollars. So what? Where did this all get me? I am now sitting in the middle of North Dakota, pretty much broke, working my ass off (and spending development dollars on) my own independent studio. Do you think I am worried? You better believe it. Does this drive me, hell yes.
Should I get as excited by the word MILLIONS! I don't think so. Does GameHouse being sold for $35 MILLION mean the same thing to everyone: NO
#18
01/28/2004 (1:12 pm)
I didn't dictate what YOU should be discussing. I am sticking to what I am discussing, and why I am talking about dollars.
#19
01/28/2004 (1:16 pm)
Pretty pretty pretty please. This is a great discussion, I would hate to see it turn into a flame war.
Torque Owner Gabor Forrai
They have at their site 190 downloadable game, most of them really simple ones, even simplier what TGE can do in "safemode" :)
Its can be a good example for everyone of us, so lets be the next one for the next 35 millions !