Unity Pulls an Adobe! No more permanent licenses and 4x the price

[Davaris]

The art in this kind of game is not necessary, as the whole genre motivates you to use your imagination.

Not necessary, but necessary if you want to sell outside of a tiny audience which they did. Type "cyberpunk text adventure" in Google and this game is the only thing on the first page.

 

[Viata]

While you are right about "if you want to sell outside of a tiny audience", the second part is invalid since this seems to be the only if so far that cared about marketing. This is not the first one to have art(many old if for dos had too), but to have a kotaku article just because your if has art? Nah, that's telling blogs and sites you are making a if with art. Even so after reading the article where the author says this is a genre that "hasn't had many new entries in the past 30 years".

 

[Davaris]

While you are right about "if you want to sell outside of a tiny audience", the second part is invalid since this seems to be the only if so far that cared about marketing. This is not the first one to have art(many old if for dos had too), but to have a kotaku article just because your if has art? Nah, that's telling blogs and sites you are making a if with art. Even so after reading the article where the author says this is a genre that "hasn't had many new entries in the past 30 years".

If you don't care about marketing, then you are only doing it to please yourself, which is fine. But if you only please yourself, don't be surprised if no one else takes an interest in it.

Marketing really only has a big effect, if you have something people want. Figuring out what people actually want is the first and most difficult step in marketing I would assume.

"hasn't had many new entries in the past 30 years"

I haven't read the article and don't care about the author's opinion TBH. I typed in Google and no other cyberpunk text adventure is mentioned, going back to the 4th page. After that I gave up. Does this mean in 30 years, no one else has bothered to make a cyberpunk text adventure?

 

[Viata]

Nah, you can find some on if database.
My point is not about marketing itself, is about the game being the only one showing up on google has nothing to do with having art. IF has its own niche, every year 20+ IF games are released, so you only heard about this one, without being part of the niche, because the developer cared about marketing to people outside its niche.
Kudos to the dev, though, unlike others IF they used Unity(funny how it's related to the thread ) instead of text adventure parsers. Btw, if you like IF games, or even if you don't, have you watched Get Lamp? P. good documentary about IF.

 

[Davaris]

Nah, you can find some on if database.
My point is not about marketing itself, is about the game being the only one showing up on google has nothing to do with having art. IF has its own niche, every year 20+ IF games are released, so you only heard about this one, without being part of the niche, because the developer cared about marketing to people outside its niche.
Kudos to the dev, though, unlike others IF they used Unity(funny how it's related to the thread ) instead of text adventure parsers. Btw, if you like IF games, or even if you don't, have you watched Get Lamp? P. good documentary about IF.

I never hear about IF. The only author I know of is Emily Short and that was from years ago. Are they big on Steam?

Cypher got attention solely because its art was so good and because no one else bothered to do it at that level before. That is what made it newsworthy AKA interesting. If it didn't have any art, or everyone else in IF was doing the same level of art, we would've never heard of it.

Go into any book store and you see all the novels have pictures on them. All the D&D books have pictures on the outside and inside. The Fighting Fantasy books that were big in the 1980s were full of illustrations. All the Cypher people did was copy the Fighting Fantasy style and update it for computers. Amazing that IF people never figured out what book publishers have always known: Fantasy books with good pictures sell better than ones without.

Kudos to the dev, though, unlike others IF they used Unity(funny how it's related to the thread ) instead of text adventure parsers. Btw, if you like IF games, or even if you don't, have you watched Get Lamp? P. good documentary about IF.

No I haven't seen it. I'll check it out.

 

[Lyric Suite]

They're saying that bad graphics is more detrimental to the game than no graphics. I think to an extreme, this is correct.

It is a pointless argument for what game is not going to have any graphics?

A better solution would be finding a way for a game to look good without having to spend too much money, which is not something that is beyond the capability of an able indie dev. The problem is that indie devs aren't capable, as evidenced by the fact you not only get shit graphics but also shit gameplay, the worst of both worlds basically.

 

[Davaris]

if you don't, have you watched Get Lamp? P. good documentary about IF.

Just watched it. Good stuff. It explains why it took people outside the IF community, to make an IF game that actually sells.

 

[Viata]

I never hear about IF. The only author I know of is Emily Short and that was from years ago. Are they big on Steam?

No, the kind of IF you find on steam is CYOA. The real IF can be downloaded here: http://ifdb.tads.org/
You'll need this to play them: https://code.google.com/archive/p/garglk/downloads
While some can be played on your browser, others will require to download and use an interpreter to play it. I'd recommend to download and play with the software above, as some IF on browser doesn't save.
As for recommendations: All Alone and Lost Pig are short and a good way to learn how to play IF. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Hobbit, Zork and Adventure(the first IF ever) are famous and a must play. Then for horror you got Theatre and Anchorhead, both uses Lovecraftian universe as inspiration.

. Amazing that IF people never figured out what book publishers have always known: Fantasy books with good pictures sell better than ones without.

Tbh, I don't think they don't know it. The thing is, Cypher is the only recent IF that you have to pay to play. All the rest is free.

 

[Viata]

It explains why it took people outside the IF community, to make an IF game that actually sells.

Because the others are free, probably.

 

[Davaris]

It explains why it took people outside the IF community, to make an IF game that actually sells.

Because the others are free, probably.

The games are free, because no one wants them. The authors do not think about what a potential customer wants, they only think about what they want. It is a very inward looking community. Its all in the doco.

 

[Lurker King]

I’m outright saying that games with the graphics of Wizardry 1-3 should not be made today

Wow...ok then. I guess we completely see things differently.

Look, we all have our personal experiences. That doesn’t change there is something objective about it. We both can agree that FO and FO2 are great games, even if one us can prefer one to the other. Maybe you are right and we all have (or should develop) the capacity to immerse in shitty graphics. I think it as matter of what we want to see in game development. Players have been bombarded by so many bad cRPGs, that the demand for better graphics seems a luxury. However, the bad cRPGs that are out there are not bad because they have good graphics, but because they don’t know, or don’t want to invest, in good mechanics. If the few developers that can deliver good mechanics keep using the same art assets and cheap engines, we are all going to lose opportunities of moving forward. I just want the whole package (good mechanics, good gameplay, good art).

 

[Lurker King]

Mustawd I’m not saying that they can improve gameplay, I’m saying that they are an integral part of gameplay. cRPGs are not just about smashing buttons and killing things, but they aim to provide an immersive experience. Moreover, I’m not only suggesting, I’m outright saying that games with the graphics of Wizardry 1-3 should not be made today, whether you agree with me about the importance of good art or not. If games can have bad graphics because art doesn’t matter, they shouldn’t have graphics at all, it’s a waste of resources.

By that logic, should books be abandoned for audiobooks? You may not this analogy but why not?

Because unlike cRPGs, books are not made with a video format in mind. They don't aim to do the same thing.

 

[Lurker King]

A better solution would be finding a way for a game to look good without having to spend too much money, which is not something that is beyond the capability of an able indie dev. The problem is that indie devs aren't capable, as evidenced by the fact you not only get shit graphics but also shit gameplay, the worst of both worlds basically.

But one of the reasons why most of them look like shit is the common prejudiced idea that indies shouldn’t care about graphics or art.

 

[Lyric Suite]

If that's the common perception, than it is wrong. The idea is that one shouldn't expect l33t graphics from an indie game, or criticize the game for failing to measure up in that department. There is an understanding that one should make a concession to the budgetary limitations and judge the game with a different standard one would use for a full fledged commercial title. This doesn't mean one should pretend bad graphics aren't a detriment (and the developers should still try to make the best with what they have) but the fact indie games are generally sold at a lower price compensates for that so everything evens out at the end.

To me, the biggest problem with indie games right now is not only that people have become WAY too forgiving of the shortcomings of those games, most of which go well past the constraints of a small budget, but that somehow we are all morally obliged to praise and esteem the work of indie developers regardless of their quality. Sorry, but i don't want to "support" some shitty game just because it was made by some guy in his basement on a shoestring budget. I can close an eye if the game has cheap graphics or suffers from some kind of technical deficiency or another but i still expect the game to be worth something on some level.

 

[gaussgunner]

Moreover, I’m not only suggesting, I’m outright saying that games with the graphics of Wizardry 1-3 should not be made today, whether you agree with me about the importance of good art or not. If games can have bad graphics because art doesn’t matter, they shouldn’t have graphics at all, it’s a waste of resources.

ASCII graphics or plain text is OK, but Wizardry 1 style isn't?

It's better than spending billions for HD 3D where everything looks like plastic. The Uncanny Valley. I saw an LP of some shit game like that... Watch Dogs

 

[Lurker King]

Btw, if you like IF games, or even if you don't, have you watched Get Lamp? P. good documentary about IF.

The documentary is awesome.

 

[Lurker King]

The real IF can be downloaded here: http://ifdb.tads.org/
You'll need this to play them: https://code.google.com/archive/p/garglk/downloads
While some can be played on your browser, others will require to download and use an interpreter to play it. I'd recommend to download and play with the software above, as some IF on browser doesn't save.
As for recommendations: All Alone and Lost Pig are short and a good way to learn how to play IF. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Hobbit, Zork and Adventure(the first IF ever) are famous and a must play. Then for horror you got Theatre and Anchorhead, both uses Lovecraftian universe as inspiration.

You are ruining my life.

 

[Space Insect]

The Hobbit is a somewhat insane game. You will probably die a lot. Just warning you.

 

[Lurker King]

Grunk not know what that mean.

 

[Karellen]

I’m outright saying that games with the graphics of Wizardry 1-3 should not be made today

Wow...ok then. I guess we completely see things differently.

Look, we all have our personal experiences. That doesn’t change there is something objective about it. We both can agree that FO and FO2 are great games, even if one us can prefer one to the other. Maybe you are right and we all have (or should develop) the capacity to immerse in shitty graphics. I think it as matter of what we want to see in game development. Players have been bombarded by so many bad cRPGs, that the demand for better graphics seems a luxury. However, the bad cRPGs that are out there are not bad because they have good graphics, but because they don’t know, or don’t want to invest, in good mechanics. If the few developers that can deliver good mechanics keep using the same art assets and cheap engines, we are all going to lose opportunities of moving forward. I just want the whole package (good mechanics, good gameplay, good art).

So, I think I'm stating something very obvious here, but what this notion of "just leave the graphics out" is missing is that the purpose of graphics isn't merely to convey mood - they also relate information related to the game state, like the positions of characters on the combat map or something. In most genres, the game mechanics and control schemes are entirely reliant on a particular graphical set-up, and replacing them with text is not a meaningful option.

Of course, that's still not a reason to have bad graphics, but does that actually have anything to do with the engine used? Even with professional developers, let alone indies, the bottleneck is much more likely to be art design rather than engine limitations - a game with shitty Unity graphics would almost certainly still look shit if it was made in something else. Ironically, my objection (insofar as I have one) to defaulting to something like RPGMaker is the exact opposite - it's entirely possible to make a reasonably attractive-looking game in RPGMaker, but scripting new features gets increasingly awkward the further you stray from the default core mechanics, which is why most RPGMaker games don't stray much from the mold. Then again, I happen to like a fair few RPGMaker games, especially the horror adventures, which just goes on to say that it's a perfectly valid tool even for making games that rely on atmosphere so long as the game fits in its constraints. The primary reason why you'd want to use a more "advanced" engine as an indie, though, is if you want to have game mechanics or a control scheme or a particular graphical style or whatever that RPGMaker doesn't support - that's the primary reason why I currently use Godot for my (2D) pet project, not that RPGMaker doesn't look pretty enough.

Finally, and this is perhaps just my own opinion, but I think that it is entirely possible that increasing graphical fidelity (especially animation) can be detrimental to a game in some genres. The other day, I was trying out if I could get Realmz to run on my current machine, and having succeeded, I was immediately struck by how effortlessly quick movement and combat in the game was. Small wonder, there's no animation! A lot of modern turn-based games feel pretty damn sluggish in comparison, simply because so much time is spent watching superfluous animations, messing with the camera and so on. At least they look pretty when the graphics aren't glitching! A major thing that I like about (good) indie games, though, is that they don't have to participate in that particular rat race, and can at least theoretically utilise the type of graphics and the degree of animation that works best with the game. Sometimes the way forward is found by going back.

 

[Dawkinsfan69]

How can I increase the prevalence of women in my bed?

 

[Lyric Suite]

Leaving this forum would be a good step.

 

[shihonage]

How can I increase the prevalence of women in my basement?

 

[Alienman]

So what is the consequences for a team like Goldhawk? I think I remember them saying that Xenonauts 2 will be using Unity, for the transition to 3D. I'm guessing they licensed the engine way before all this - so will they have to pay double now, or give some of their income to unity? Not a game developer so I'm not sure how it all works. Just looking at the costs it doesn't seem that much. I mean I remember dev-teams paying millions to be able to use the unreal 3 engine...

 

[Lurker King]

So, I think I'm stating something very obvious here, but what this notion of "just leave the graphics out" is missing is that the purpose of graphics isn't merely to convey mood - they also relate information related to the game state, like the positions of characters on the combat map or something. In most genres, the game mechanics and control schemes are entirely reliant on a particular graphical set-up, and replacing them with text is not a meaningful option.

Well, in pure text games you need to draw your own map, so you would have to keep track of the rest. But you are right, we can’t have it all. A pure text Moba, for instance, wouldn’t be possible.

Of course, that's still not a reason to have bad graphics, but does that actually have anything to do with the engine used? Even with professional developers, let alone indies, the bottleneck is much more likely to be art design rather than engine limitations - a game with shitty Unity graphics would almost certainly still look shit if it was made in something else. Ironically, my objection (insofar as I have one) to defaulting to something like RPGMaker is the exact opposite - it's entirely possible to make a reasonably attractive-looking game in RPGMaker, but scripting new features gets increasingly awkward the further you stray from the default core mechanics, which is why most RPGMaker games don't stray much from the mold. Then again, I happen to like a fair few RPGMaker games, especially the horror adventures, which just goes on to say that it's a perfectly valid tool even for making games that rely on atmosphere so long as the game fits in its constraints. The primary reason why you'd want to use a more "advanced" engine as an indie, though, is if you want to have game mechanics or a control scheme or a particular graphical style or whatever that RPGMaker doesn't support - that's the primary reason why I currently use Godot for my (2D) pet project, not that RPGMaker doesn't look pretty enough.

The few games that I saw with this engine all looked the same. If a developer is using the engine to avoid dealing with art and other stuff, the game will look like a lifeless FF clone for SNES. Otherwise, he can make good stuff, you are right. It’s interesting that you mentioned RPGmaker limitations, since Styg was saying the same thing on Matt Chat.

Finally, and this is perhaps just my own opinion, but I think that it is entirely possible that increasing graphical fidelity (especially animation) can be detrimental to a game in some genres. The other day, I was trying out if I could get Realmz to run on my current machine, and having succeeded, I was immediately struck by how effortlessly quick movement and combat in the game was. Small wonder, there's no animation! A lot of modern turn-based games feel pretty damn sluggish in comparison, simply because so much time is spent watching superfluous animations, messing with the camera and so on. At least they look pretty when the graphics aren't glitching! A major thing that I like about (good) indie games, though, is that they don't have to participate in that particular rat race, and can at least theoretically utilise the type of graphics and the degree of animation that works best with the game. Sometimes the way forward is found by going back.

Blame the animation, not graphical fidelity.