Editorial Vogel: Single-player RPGs are scarce, should sell for more

[Shota Shernokavich]

Come on. FO1, and 2 are both better than G5 as RPG's.

Character-creation, character-progress throughout FO2 and 1 completely trump GF5. You can't even choose much beyond your 'class' and then you are basically just dumped into the game. Every time you level you spend your poins on some mundane skills, same thing throughout the entire game. Especially if you are playing a fighter.

Combat sucks in all of these games. I'm not even going to discuss that.

Choices are abundant in FO1, 2, and GF5, but it is presented better in the FO's. In FO's each quest you have has multiple solutions, even sidequests. In GF5 side-quests are very 1-sided, and you get a few choices in terms of the main story-line.

In Non-RPG aspects, FO's once again completely fuck GF5, no question. Better artstyle, better presentation, better story, better plot.

GF5 is a good game, but a game you play AFTER playing the great oldies.

 

[Thrasher]

Daggerfall. Although bloom-lovers may quake, they may be pacified by the booby factor.

Restating the obvious here, but yes, this is the the issue, once the mainstream games have been done, one may have to turn to more expensive options. The older games can be more pricey used than the latest Vogel game!

 

[nomask7]

Come on. FO1, and 2 are both better than G5 as RPG's.

Character-creation, character-progress throughout FO2 and 1 completely trump GF5. You can't even choose much beyond your 'class' and then you are basically just dumped into the game. Every time you level you spend your poins on some mundane skills, same thing throughout the entire game. Especially if you are playing a fighter.

Combat sucks in all of these games. I'm not even going to discuss that.

Choices are abundant in FO1, 2, and GF5, but it is presented better in the FO's. In FO's each quest you have has multiple solutions, even sidequests. In GF5 side-quests are very 1-sided, and you get a few choices in terms of the main story-line.

In Non-RPG aspects, FO's once again completely fuck GF5, no question. Better artstyle, better presentation, better story, better plot.

GF5 is a good game, but a game you play AFTER playing the great oldies.

Of course, I completely disagree. But if those are the conclusions you've drawn using your own powers of thought, I can't really help you.

 

[Thrasher]

I think the combat is better in the Spiderweb games than FOs because you can actually control your whole party rather than the inane AI of the FOs.

I hated the FO/2 setting so just about anything beats their setting in my eyes.

 

[nomask7]

I personally will never buy a Vogel game, because like you, I also think there's just better stuff for better price (alot of good turn-based games are freeware), and I don't think I will ever feel any incentive to buy those games - their first 10 levels are more than enough.

Er, didn't you mention GF5 is the only Vogel game you've tried? That would make sense, since its demo is the first one that contains only the first ten areas.

Also, someone needs to point out that the first ten areas in GF5 are very linear and empty of freedom and choices compared to the rest of the game. For me, the game started to become REALLY insteresting only after I had visited the commander of Storm Plains, which isn't even visible in the demo map (the world is huge).

 

[Shota Shernokavich]

I'm at the mountain pass that leads to that area right now actually. I haven't had time to play this week, so yea. Will probably do that in the weekend.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I agree with this and said pretty much the same thing previously, but it's important to remember that in this way Vogel is unlike a more typical indie. The audience he's serving was hooked by mainstream products, and now it's uneconomical for the mainstream to bother with those hooked customers. Therefore you can do well to make cottage industry games to satisfy that audience. That's not at what most indies are doing and his pricing theories are mostly inapplicable.

Yeah, advising other indies to ape his pricing scheme is not exactly the best advice, seeing as there are many factors at play that allow him to do what he can including, but not limited to;

-Near absence of "new" substitutes for the styles of game he creates, mainstream or indie.

-Brand power, and a large, dedicated fanbase. He's been around awhile, so he has a little bit of name recognition in certain circles.

-The highly untapped Macintosh market.

-Most of his customers, being "older", can easily pay a higher price, because they probably game less, but are willing to pay for the experiences they enjoy.

Basically his advice boils down to "If you're in the exact same situation as I am, then do as I do!". Brilliant, huh? I doubt some newbie company making an indie RTS, indie FPS, or indie action-RPG, for the PC platform, can really afford not to price their product "competitively". Especially seeing as Vogel's assumption that gamers buy on quality or percieved length of gameplay is kinda off. Fact is, even the gaming mainstream think most hype-speak for "60 hours of epic content!" is bullshit, whether you are an indie or EA; too many companies have burned too many customers with inflated figures.

 

[nomask7]

PS. Good luck solving Fallout quests in multiple ways using a dumb fighter character.

PPS. I'm playing GF5 on hard. I can't say which type of character is the most fun to play with, but hard is a good, quite challenging difficulty level for my jack-of-all-trades-except-magic-except-healing-magic. That's not a very good character build, since my leadership skills are starting to be too low to be of much use, the same for my mechanics skills. The same for my fighting skills. The same for my shaping skills. No, really, I'm doing fine, although the game does seem to have been designed for characters who are a bit more specialized than that. On the other hand, low skill levels are cheap, so it's OK to be a jack-of-all-trades at first. It's also perfectly possible to specialize in more than one what I'd call "independent skill".

 

[Micormic]

I'm at the mountain pass that leads to that area right now actually. I haven't had time to play this week, so yea. Will probably do that in the weekend.

fuck you

 

[nomask7]

PPPS. Hammer & Sickle is a good example of what happens when you make a game that tries to focus on combat tactics and story at the same time. Whereas in Jagged Alliance the player is allowed to command a group of mercenaries already in the first mission, in Hammer & Sickle the story gets in the way of tactical combat, and the first few missions consist of crawling through maps and maybe some Fallout-style one-on-many shooting. Somehow the story never makes up for that. A critical person who begins to play the game for the first time will be forgiven if he, based on his first impression, happens to characterize the game as a piece of shit.

 

[Elwro]

Also, someone needs to point out that the first ten areas in GF5 are very linear and empty of freedom and choices compared to the rest of the game. For me, the game started to become REALLY insteresting only after (...)

This is always suspicious. Why would a dev make a demo out of the worst part of his game? Up to now Vogel managed, I think, to properly present his games to potential buyers. (A big demo was the reason why I bought the first Avernum.) I'll have to try the G5 demo sometime...

 

[Jeff Graw]

Vogel would be making way more money if he charged 8-10 bucks less, if only because his games are so easy to pirate. The "demo" you download is really the full game, and only needs a keygen or some quick hex editing to unlock. The long trial portions of his games give the user ample time to break the almost non-existent copy protection. I've played almost every one of his games, full versions, and I haven't bought a single one. I'm usually broke enough that 30 bucks seems too much to part with when I can get the thing for free. For 20 dollar games I'm usually past that psychological barrier and I buy the thing even if I can get it for free with a bit of hassle. I'm not sure how many others like me there are out there, but I'm guessing it's significant.

For an extreme example, imagine if Vogel was able to ink a deal with Valve to sell every game he's ever made for ten bucks on steam. The man would never have to worry about money again.

 

[Thrasher]

Yeah, well stealing from an indie developer is bad karma.

 

[Mad_Dog]

By the way, really niche indie strategy games are sometimes very expensive.

www.hpssims.com charges $50 bucks for their games. They've been around for a while. I think the price is fair, for the amount of gameplay you get out of it.[/url]

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Spiderweb software (which in practice is mostly just Jeff Vogel) has carved up a niche for itself since the early shareware days when the exile series was released. He/They HAVE NOT gone under after all these years.

I think this fact alone justifies Jeff Vogel's approach, his pricing policies and any theories regarding indie rpg gaming he might have.

I think there's a lot of merit in that argument but by the same token take a look at the games Vogel's been making:

• Geneforge 5: Overthrow
  Avernum 5
  Avernum 4
  Geneforge 4: Rebellion

Note the pattern: They're all sequels. He's not really attracting new players. Vogel's selling to the same audience that have been buying his games for years. If a new indie (say some guy called Vault Dweller) wanted to come along and break into that market, can he really just market a "Geneforge 5 clone" with shitty graphics and expect it to sell?

In fact, Vogel's doing exactly what Bethesda Softworks are doing. He's found a niche for a particular type of game and is simply repeating that over and over again. Bethesda's niche is the "shitty animations, decidely poor textures (fans have done better) but you can wander around this huge area and play dress up" crowd. They sell their new game at full price then drop the price to pick up more sales later, going through the cycle of releasing expansions and then GOTY editions along the way. High production values and hype allow them to sell millions.

Meanwhile Vogel does the same. He takes the same engine with few improvements, increments the number on the end and churns out another sequel. He sells less because what he's making isn't high-end. I'm actually pretty sure that if he did make a AAA class product with shiney graphics and a decent team, it'd sell decently enough - much like TOEE did - the only problem is funding that level of debt continuously. A note here might be that Troika never made a sequel and died. Meanwhile, the first thing BioWare did after Baldur's Gate was to make Baldur's Gate 2. The first thing Interplay did after Fallout was to make Fallout 2. IceWind Dale? IceWind Dale 2. Neverwinter Nights? KOTOR? Mass Effect? Guess what they all have... Yup, sequels.

In fact, Vogel's taken that strategy further by simply making more sequels. Most professional studios make enough money out of the first two that they want to try something else for a change.

Indie rpg makers wannabes rise up out of the water here and there only to go back down and drown shortly afterwards without releasing shite or after releasing shite whose potential is terminally ruined by crap programming and bugs. He never announced vaporware.

Probably because most indie game developers make something new or unique and then try something different. Vogel's tactic is to "make another sequel". It's essentially the same marketing plan as EA and in fact every other game developer in the business. Got something that sells well? Make more of it and sell it to the same people who bought the last lot. And hey, Sims 2 and expanions are at the top of every best-seller list so that must work. Sims 3 is going to be released within the next year or so.

Vogel is basically taking the tried and true strategy from the mainstream and applying it to the indie world. He's found an audience for a particular type of game, so he keeps making that game for that audience over and over again. That's the real "secret" to his strategy.

I'm sure the guys who made World of Goo would be quite successful if they simply kept releasing sequels for the next 10 years. If Age of Decadence does well, Vault Dweller would probably be best advised to simply begin work on "Age of Decadence 2" and so on.

By the way, really niche indie strategy games are sometimes very expensive.

www.hpssims.com charges $50 bucks for their games. They've been around for a while. I think the price is fair, for the amount of gameplay you get out of it.

This is the point I was making earlier, Vogel's price is irrelevant. He's selling only to the crowd who want to buy his product "at any price", so forget $28 and whatever reasoning he has for that, he may as well charge full price. Basic economics dictate that he'll lose some customers but given what they're buying and the price they're paying, it would probably counter it. And hey, he'd then get to drop the price later and sell it on special to pick up more sales. Just like the big guys.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I personally will never buy a Vogel game, because like you, I also think there's just better stuff for better price (alot of good turn-based games are freeware), and I don't think I will ever feel any incentive to buy those games - their first 10 levels are more than enough.

Er, didn't you mention GF5 is the only Vogel game you've tried? That would make sense, since its demo is the first one that contains only the first ten areas.

Also, someone needs to point out that the first ten areas in GF5 are very linear and empty of freedom and choices compared to the rest of the game. For me, the game started to become REALLY insteresting only after I had visited the commander of Storm Plains, which isn't even visible in the demo map (the world is huge).

I have played Avernum demos before.

I wouldn't buy them for certain.

Geneforge V was something that I would have even strongly considered, but I would first have to saturate my interest in the very good abandonware games that I already have.

The price tag on it is not a problem; it's only two dollars above the mean price of a game in a local store; and I already have the mainstream games I wanted, and I am long done with them.

 

[Elwro]

By the way, really niche indie strategy games are sometimes very expensive.

www.hpssims.com charges $50 bucks for their games. They've been around for a while. I think the price is fair, for the amount of gameplay you get out of it.[/url]

The most extreme example I know is Steel Panthers: World at War - Generals' Edition. You can get the regular SPWAW for free! And the cost of the Generals' edition (which mostly means you get 4 additional mega campaigns) is... around $70 ($80 for a physical copy)! The price hasn't changed during the recent years, so I doubt anyone feels they're losing money on it.

<font size="1"> I bought the boxed edition in a shop for a fraction of the price </font>

 

[nomask7]

Also, someone needs to point out that the first ten areas in GF5 are very linear and empty of freedom and choices compared to the rest of the game. For me, the game started to become REALLY insteresting only after (...)

This is always suspicious. Why would a dev make a demo out of the worst part of his game?

I can't believe someone writes stuff like that. Seriously, what would you propose he do instead of make a demo of the beginning portion of the game?

PS. I didn't say it was the worst part of the game. A game of that quality is an organic whole. Saying the beginning is the worst part is like saying the left arm is the weakest link of man. It doesn't make all that much sense. What's more, I liked the beginning, since I liked the mystery and the story, but it's the beginning of a story-driven game for love of god, so you can't expect to know everything and be able to make all sorts of choices. And since you can't make choices, you shouldn't expect to have them either.

 

[Elwro]

I can't believe someone writes stuff like that. Seriously, what would you propose he do instead of make a demo of the beginning portion of the game?

I can't believe someone who thinks so highly of himself can so proudly display his lack of memory and/or imagination and/or experience with the hobby. You really think it's the only way to make a demo for an RPG? Don't you remember Daggerfall or Fallout demos? And if you say "these aren't story-driven games and all I'm talking about are story-driven games", well, aren't adventure games the best examples of story-driven titles? So, off the top of my head: Runaway 2: Dream of the Turtle demo, from the middle portion of the game iirc.

Simply put: if the first part of the game is not particularly good, just cutting it off and making a demo out of it is a cop-out. Of course, it must've been a conscious decision of Vogel to take that risk, who am I to argue with - I'll play it and see for myself.

 

[nomask7]

I can't believe someone writes stuff like that. Seriously, what would you propose he do instead of make a demo of the beginning portion of the game?

I can't believe someone who thinks so highly of himself can so proudly display his lack of memory and/or imagination and/or experience with the hobby. You really think it's the only way to make a demo for an RPG? Don't you remember Daggerfall or Fallout demos? And if you say "these aren't story-driven games and all I'm talking about are story-driven games", well, aren't adventure games the best examples of story-driven titles? So, off the top of my head: Runaway 2: Dream of the Turtle demo, from the middle portion of the game iirc.

Simply put: if the first part of the game is not particularly good, just cutting it off and making a demo out of it is a cop-out. Of course, it must've been a conscious decision of Vogel to take that risk, who am I to argue with - I'll play it and see for myself.

I haven't played any of those demos, but I have to wonder why anyone would make a Fallout demo that's not simply the beginning of the game. In GF5 at least, you'd be completely lost (if you've played the previous games, you might not be). It's also a shareware demo, which means that I'd like to continue where the demo ends if I decide to buy the game. If the demo is supposed to showcase the game mechanics, then it could be from any portion of the game, but who the hell wants to get spoilers of that sort in a story driven game (that wants you to believe that it's the player who's driving the story)? It's like watching fifteen minutes from the middle of a film, then watching the whole film. The fifteen minutes are immediately spoiled, and much of the rest of the film may be spoiled as well. But I guess you'd have to have a brain to notice that sort of stuff.

 

[Elwro]

I haven't played any of those demos, but I have to wonder why anyone would make a Fallout demo that's not simply the beginning of the game.

A possible reason is that rats in the first cave + more rats in vault 15 + radscorpions in the cave near Shady Sands (yes, I know, you can use the dynamite) wouldn't make the best of impressions on a potential customer.

In GF5 at least, you'd be completely lost (if you've played the previous games, you might not be).

I'm convinced that with some effort on part of the dev this could be avoided.

It's also a shareware demo, which means that I'd like to continue where the demo ends if I decide to buy the game.

Whoa! A good point at last! Congratulations.

If the demo is supposed to showcase the game mechanics, then it could be from any portion of the game, but who the hell wants to get spoilers of that sort in a story driven game (that wants you to believe that it's the player who's driving the story)? It's like watching fifteen minutes from the middle of a film, then watching the whole film. The fifteen minutes are immediately spoiled, and much of the rest of the film may be spoiled as well. But I guess you'd have to have a brain to notice that sort of stuff.

No. If you cared to switch your brain on when writing that last bit, you would've easily noticed that such demos can be done properly, without spoilers damaging the whole experience... in fact, you could make it so the player was engrossed into solving a mystery from the middle portion of the game and the demo would end just before the secrets were revealed. This would certainly be better than feeding the player some sub-par bits from the beginning of the game.

 

[obediah]

I can't believe someone who thinks so highly of himself can so proudly display his lack of memory and/or imagination and/or experience with the hobby. You really think it's the only way to make a demo for an RPG?...

You're letting the argument carry you away from the obvious point. Vogel has made about a bazillion shareware games, and knows by know how to make the first part of the game representative of the whole.

I suspect he either got lazy and figured that by part 5 people have figured out if they liked the game or not, or ended up with a story something like a tree - a linear introduction, then a large connected network, so he slapped the check on where the branches started.

 

[nomask7]

I haven't played any of those demos, but I have to wonder why anyone would make a Fallout demo that's not simply the beginning of the game.

A possible reason is that rats in the first cave + more rats in vault 15 + radscorpions in the cave near Shady Sands (yes, I know, you can use the dynamite) wouldn't make the best of impressions on a potential customer.

In GF5 at least, you'd be completely lost (if you've played the previous games, you might not be).

I'm convinced that with some effort on part of the dev this could be avoided.

It's also a shareware demo, which means that I'd like to continue where the demo ends if I decide to buy the game.

Whoa! A good point at last! Congratulations.

If the demo is supposed to showcase the game mechanics, then it could be from any portion of the game, but who the hell wants to get spoilers of that sort in a story driven game (that wants you to believe that it's the player who's driving the story)? It's like watching fifteen minutes from the middle of a film, then watching the whole film. The fifteen minutes are immediately spoiled, and much of the rest of the film may be spoiled as well. But I guess you'd have to have a brain to notice that sort of stuff.

No. If you cared to switch your brain on when writing that last bit, you would've easily noticed that such demos can be done properly, without spoilers damaging the whole experience... in fact, you could make it so the player was engrossed into solving a mystery from the middle portion of the game and the demo would end just before the secrets were revealed. This would certainly be better than feeding the player some sub-par bits from the beginning of the game.

Would I have written that "the fifteen minutes are immediately spoiled" if by 'spoiled' I had been alluding only to the limited manboonian sense of 'spoiler'? No, I would have written "in which case there is a danger of spoilers or plot spoilers". Reread my previous posts every day for the next five months or so, and maybe you'll get it. It's all there.

 

[nomask7]

I can't believe someone who thinks so highly of himself can so proudly display his lack of memory and/or imagination and/or experience with the hobby. You really think it's the only way to make a demo for an RPG?...

You're letting the argument carry you away from the obvious point. Vogel has made about a bazillion shareware games, and knows by know how to make the first part of the game representative of the whole.

I suspect he either got lazy and figured that by part 5 people have figured out if they liked the game or not, or ended up with a story something like a tree - a linear introduction, then a large connected network, so he slapped the check on where the branches started.

The first part of GF5 is a sort of tutorial. Vogel is obviously catering to new audiences, and if the Codex miniworld can be used to draw any conclusions, he's doing OK, since new players is what he's getting.

 

[Elwro]

Would I have written that "the fifteen minutes are immediately spoiled" if by 'spoiled' I had been alluding only to the limited manboonian sense of 'spoiler'? No, I would have written "in which case there is a danger of spoilers or plot spoilers".

Well, that reinforces my point, thanks.