Support NeoGAF

[Jocchan]

That's another thing about Garage Developers; 80% of the time they can't stop thinking about how hip they're so the extent of their vision is going back 20 years and making a game with retro sprites and chiptunes. Look at how RETRO I am.

That game looks cool, though. Interesting idea

But like I said, if a game like that comes and demonstrates its quality and vision, a publisher will pick up on it. It's just... if I was Nintendo, I'm not going to sit there trolling websites for a concept 1 out of a million that turns out to be legitimately good. If a Garage Developer has that talent, they will demonstrate it over time.

There's a much more important reason why many garage developers go for a retro style: to keep a game manageable with their resources. One or two people working in their spare time are more likely to finish an 8 bit styled project than by going 3D or employing a modern engine.
So, it's not much about being hip, as much as a necessity.

 

[subversus]

You're ignoring development costs and royalties....

yeah, development costs. One or two guys - 4000-8000$/month.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

I like how nonchalantly you toss that one in. Have a dedicated studio space. You know, just go rent an office in a corporate park somewhere. God, it's only like $5,000 a month.

Maybe if you want your office in downtown Manhattan or San Francisco. My window lined 400 sq ft studio in Williamsburg is a whopping $450/month. I'm sure a good amount of garage devs could find a business address cheaper in their local areas.

 

[Alexios]

There's a much more important reason why many garage developers go for a retro style: to keep a game manageable with their resources. One or two people working in their spare time are more likely to finish an 8 bit styled project than by going 3D or employing a modern engine.
So, it's not much about being hip, as much as a necessity.

He doesn't have to like it just because they couldn't add a good pixel artist to their team so they went for the abstract look like so many others. At least I think he didn't mean 8-16-bit style 2D graphics which are their own art and can be awesome and not necesarily less work than normal drawn art. If he did, I disagree.

 

[rezuth]

Its funny how everyone acts like Nintendo is doing this to stop "shovelware" when its obviously only about the fact they don't want their own games to look overpriced.

 

[Amir0x]

There's a much more important reason why many garage developers go for a retro style: to keep a game manageable with their resources. One or two people working in their spare time are more likely to finish an 8 bit styled project than by going 3D or employing a modern engine.
So, it's not much about being hip, as much as a necessity.

You don't need a crazy budget to make a game not have chiptunes and an 8 bit sprite style.

I LOVE 2D graphics, but it is no surprise to me this is how Garage Developers operate most of the time. It's just not up to the standards set by the development community at large.

 

[Alexios]

Its funny how everyone acts like Nintendo is doing this to stop "shovelware" when its obviously only about the fact they don't want their own games to look overpriced.

It's funny how people ignore this is just about the barrier to entry, not so much the final price, since the lowest price on their own online stores is not far from Apple's, since it's just $5. Also it's funny how people ignore every other point made by others to claim what you claim. By people I mean you.

 

[Jocchan]

He doesn't have to like it just because they couldn't add a good pixel artist to their team so they went for the abstract look like so many others. At least I think he didn't mean 8-16-bit style 2D graphics which are their own art and can be awesome.

I was talking in general. Going all the way with a retro style is a good way to keep costs (in terms of both time and manpower) down while keeping the overal feel consistent. I was pointing out that it's not (just) a "look at how hip I am" thing.

You don't need a crazy budget to make a game not have chiptunes and an 8 bit sprite style.

I LOVE 2D graphics, but it is no surprise to me this is how Garage Developers operate most of the time. It's just not up to the standards set by the development community at large.

Oh, I know. But going for something more ambitious is a huge risk. The percentage of successful projects completed in a reasonable time span grows thinner the more ambitious you get.

 

[Momo]

Not necessarily. If they have a fully developed game that demonstrates its quality and shops it around, it will demonstrate that to someone even like Nintendo. I just mean Garage Developers have the demonstrate more up front then anyone else, because they're...Garage Developers.

Fair enough that garage devs have to prove more since they come out from the cold, but your scenario would never happen since garage devs cant simply complete a game then shop it around for a nintendo system since they first have to buy into a 3DS devkit etc. For example on PC or iOS/Android they can pick up what they need for what $100?, work on the game when they can, complete it then shop it around.

Simply cannot happen on a Nintendo console.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Farnham is just the weirdest poster. He was a Nintendo fanboy but just had a fucking mental breakdown or something and now spends all his time screaming about how it's all over and Nintendo is doomed and they might as well kill themselves.

 

[rezuth]

It's funny how people ignore this is just about the barrier to entry, not so much the final price, since the lowest price on their own online stores is not far from Apple's, since it's just $5. Also it's funny how people ignore every other point made by others to claim what you claim. By people I mean you.

What are you talking about a "barrier to entry"? All Nintendo have to do is supply a SDK and let people use their own 3DS to develop for it. Nintendo would never allow a game that could rival their own to be selling for a dollar.

 

[Mithos]

But alot of titles (especially AAA HD titles) are worthy of the price tag.

Not forever and ever.

 

[Alexios]

What are you talking about a "barrier to entry"

This thread? What indies need to do to be able to develop for Nintendo platforms? What are YOU talking about if not this? WiiWare games can be $5 that's hardly a big difference from $1 and is a huge difference from $50 and Nintendo allows this and don't feel it threatens their own titles so for you to claim that just a couple dollars or so lower changes this and their fear is all the reason they don't do this is absurd. Simple enough. This is about the barrier to entry for indies to get on Nintendo platforms. They could have a lesser barrier of entry but still only allow a $5 minimum price if that was all the problem. Clearly, it isn't.

 

[AceBandage]

What are you talking about a "barrier to entry"? All Nintendo have to do is supply a SDK and let people use their own 3DS to develop for it. Nintendo would never allow a game that could rival their own to be selling for a dollar.

What game that could sell for a dollar would ever match a majority of their games?

 

[shaowebb]

I get the feeling Nintendo's attitude to developers will once again become their weakness

This. With 3d hitting phones I'm expecting a lot of companies to start devoting more time and money to these markets than 3ds at some point. Especially since nintendo demands an upfront payment on carts of over a million plus before dime damn one is earned by developers.

Nintendo is good but the rub developers wrong in a lot of ways that can hurt them. Especially in handhelds.

 

[-PXG-]

yeah, development costs. One or two guys - 4000-8000$/month.

And Royalities?

Apple takes their cut, whatever it is. Also, let's use this as an example

A team creates a game with UDK that they intend to sell. After six months of development, they release the game through digital distribution and they earn $60,000 in the first calendar quarter after release. Their use of UDK during development requires no fee. Upon release they would pay US $99 for a Royalty Bearing license. After earning $60,000, they would be required to pay Epic $2,500 ($0 on the first $50,000 in revenue, and $2,500 on the next $10,000 in revenue). On subsequent revenue, they are required to pay the 25% royalty.

 

[erpg]

And Royalities?

That's what we were getting at when you first asked about 10 million copies. 30% cut. 7 million.

 

[PoliceCop]

What game that could sell for a dollar would ever match a majority of their games?

It's not about the majority of their games. It's about Steel Divers.

 

[AceBandage]

It's not about the majority of their games. It's about Steel Divers.

Look, just because you have a hardon for hating this game doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[PoliceCop]

At 40$, the game is an insult to consumer sensibilities. If you don't see how that's relevant to this discussion, I'm sure you'll be able to convince yourself the game is a great value and a shining example of that old Nintendo quality.

 

[freddy]

At 40$, the game is an insult to consumer sensibilities. If you don't see how that's relevant to this discussion, I'm sure you'll be able to convince yourself the game is a great value and a shining example of that old Nintendo quality.

So once you reached the end of the game you found no replay value?

 

[PoliceCop]

No. There was little value in the first place.

 

[freddy]

No. There was little value in the first place.

You have played the whole game right?

 

[Draft]

Nintendo treating developers like shit is nothing new.

What is new (but also kind of old) is a development system that allows small teams to create and sell software without publishers, retail presence or anything else that game makers required for the last 20 years.

Nintendo is pulling old guard here. They are rejecting this new development system. Their stance is that the Nintendo ecosystem is better served by the established methods of the NES->Wii era. Development by professionals. Big teams, big money, standardized premium pricing, limited retail access.

Which raises the question: how is Nintendo going to convince the public that it's right? The same public that has turned iDevice apps into the new NES. In the 80s news stories were written about Mario, now they're written about Angry Birds. "Garage games" are the software that's straddling demographics, capturing the public eye and causing new talent to rethink the way they're going to enter the industry (I'm guessing on that last one.)

Nintendo's tactic here seems short sighted. They're the cable company, desperately looking for ways to slow down the market penetration of Netflix. The music industry, desperately trying to smother MP3 in the crib.

These strategies never work. An audience can't be strong armed into consuming what the company wants to make. The company needs to adapt to consumer needs, or else face irrelevance.

 

[PoliceCop]

You have played the whole game right?

Yeah. Same with Superman 64.

Nintendo took a canned DS game/tech demo and decided it would make a good showpiece for the launch of their new hardware.

 

[AceBandage]

Nintendo treating developers like shit is nothing new.

What is new (but also kind of old) is a development system that allows small teams to create and sell software without publishers, retail presence or anything else that game makers required for the last 20 years.

Nintendo is pulling old guard here. They are rejecting this new development system. Their stance is that the Nintendo ecosystem is better served by the established methods of the NES->Wii era. Development by professionals. Big teams, big money, standardized premium pricing, limited retail access.

Which raises the question: how is Nintendo going to convince the public that it's right? The same public that has turned iDevice apps into the new NES. In the 80s news stories were written about Mario, now they're written about Angry Birds. "Garage games" are the software that's straddling demographics, capturing the public eye and causing new talent to rethink the way they're going to enter the industry (I'm guessing on that last one.)

Nintendo's tactic here seems short sighted. They're the cable company, desperately looking for ways to slow down the market penetration of Netflix. The music industry, desperately trying to smother MP3 in the crib.

These strategies never work. An audience can't be strong armed into consuming what the company wants to make. The company needs to adapt to consumer needs, or else face irrelevance.

I don't think Nintendo is strong arming anyone here...
They just don't agree with the AppStore method of making and distributing games.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

LAWL. Thinking a large percent of indie games are better than anything. A large number of indie games don't even play without crashing.

Which is exactly why Nintendo isn't going to be doing this method. It stinks because there are some genuine good ideas out there for garage developers but at the same time it's a pain in the ass sifting through hundreds or even thousands of these games and apps to find one worth purchasing. Nintendo also doesn't have the time to quality control hundreds of games submitted. Which is why they will allow indie developers on their service and have helped out a few but won't give it out to just anyone like Apple.

So in some aspects it sucks that Nintendo can't do it but at the same time the other isn't much better. Also given their experience in the video game market and what happened pre-nes, I see exactly why they are trying to avoid the same mistake and is cautioning developers to not move completely over to Iphone/ios development. The game market crashed prior to the nes because there were legions of crappy games, some that were bad and had lots of bugs, there were thousands of clones, and you have to pick your way through the thousands of crappy games and clones to find the few standout games that were excellent. Sounds pretty familiar to the way the current Iphone/iOS market is right now, which is why I understand Nintendo is so cautious about it. I don't think we'll necessarily see a crash but I can see eventually consumers growing tired of the novelty and wasting their dollar or more on buggy crappy games and just give up with the system all together. Or perhaps Apple will monitor and do better quality control or all those developers not making much money will pull out and the ones making standout/popular games will continue making games. I guess we'll just have to see.

 

[Draft]

I don't think Nintendo is strong arming anyone here...
They just don't agree with the AppStore method of making and distributing games.

Well, my point was that consumers obviously do agree with that method...

 

[AceBandage]

Well, my point was that consumers obviously do agree with that method...

Some do, for some games.
But we also live in the generation where games like CoD and NSMB sells tens of millions at full price... so...

 

[Tobor]

Nintendo treating developers like shit is nothing new.

What is new (but also kind of old) is a development system that allows small teams to create and sell software without publishers, retail presence or anything else that game makers required for the last 20 years.

Nintendo is pulling old guard here. They are rejecting this new development system. Their stance is that the Nintendo ecosystem is better served by the established methods of the NES->Wii era. Development by professionals. Big teams, big money, standardized premium pricing, limited retail access.

Which raises the question: how is Nintendo going to convince the public that it's right? The same public that has turned iDevice apps into the new NES. In the 80s news stories were written about Mario, now they're written about Angry Birds. "Garage games" are the software that's straddling demographics, capturing the public eye and causing new talent to rethink the way they're going to enter the industry (I'm guessing on that last one.)

Nintendo's tactic here seems short sighted. They're the cable company, desperately looking for ways to slow down the market penetration of Netflix. The music industry, desperately trying to smother MP3 in the crib.

These strategies never work. An audience can't be strong armed into consuming what the company wants to make. The company needs to adapt to consumer needs, or else face irrelevance.

Perfect post. Exactly what I've been trying to say.

 

[Alexios]

Nintendo treating developers like shit is nothing new.

What is new (but also kind of old) is a development system that allows small teams to create and sell software without publishers, retail presence or anything else that game makers required for the last 20 years.

Nintendo is pulling old guard here. They are rejecting this new development system. Their stance is that the Nintendo ecosystem is better served by the established methods of the NES->Wii era. Development by professionals. Big teams, big money, standardized premium pricing, limited retail access.

Which raises the question: how is Nintendo going to convince the public that it's right? The same public that has turned iDevice apps into the new NES. In the 80s news stories were written about Mario, now they're written about Angry Birds. "Garage games" are the software that's straddling demographics, capturing the public eye and causing new talent to rethink the way they're going to enter the industry (I'm guessing on that last one.)

Nintendo's tactic here seems short sighted. They're the cable company, desperately looking for ways to slow down the market penetration of Netflix. The music industry, desperately trying to smother MP3 in the crib.

These strategies never work. An audience can't be strong armed into consuming what the company wants to make. The company needs to adapt to consumer needs, or else face irrelevance.

Huh? What a joke. Do you see Sony and Microsoft abandoning big budget titles in favor of $1 quickware or what? Did they just close their studios or fragment them into 5-10 man strong teams to make such titles alone? They're just adding that market in addition to their existing business (actually I think only Microsoft is but anyway). They want a piece of the Apple pie just like they wanted a piece of the Nintendo pie with the motion controls. It is however a different pie and Nintendo at this stage don't feel they need it. How that's "treating developers like shit" is beyond me, lol.

Also, it's nothing new. It's been happening for decades whether you bought that stuff back then or not. That certain companies' fanboys like to think it's new just because it's new for their awesome devices doesn't make it so. As for convincing people to buy this or that, it seems you can convince them to pay $1-3 for things they can get for free on newgrounds.com just fine, especially if you get the press to talk about how the public moves on from other platforms in favor of this new phenomenon, lol.

The Apple devices aren't exactly new anymore either, yet didn't do anything to hurt the DS or anything to hurt the 3DS launch. If you really worry for Nintendo, it's apparent you don't have to and can feel free to move on to your new interests.

Nintendo is still primarily a developer. And no, they'll never make a Super Mario Galaxy to sell it for $1. Nobody ever will because it's not possible. If you really think that $1 market will overthrow and diminish the standard market most people on this very forum know and love, then you're not only against Nintendo's business but also against Microsoft's and Sony's main (gaming) busness, and you're thankfully mistaken. Both can co-exist (but they don't have to on every device, Nintendo has no obligation to and can remain profitable and expanding without doing so, your pet peeves and hate aren't going to dictate their business decisions).

And once again, they have indie games service, just with a small, rather than nonexistent as in Apple's case, barrier to entry and with a slightly higher minimum price.

 

[Draft]

Some do, for some games.
But we also live in the generation where games like CoD and NSMB sells tens of millions at full price... so...

Exactly, and I'd argue Nintendo is in a position Apple is not to deliver both types of games on their hardware. Instead, they seem almost hostile to small games.

I find their logic behind that stance suspect, as well. Business plans shouldn't need to be defended. The $50 or $60 game should be able to stand against the $1 shovelware without some referee adjusting the odds in its favor.

And if they can't survive, well that's just free market principles at work, isn't it?

I'll shed no tear if the AAA game business gets a bloody nose. Would you? Would anyone, except the suits at Activision, EA, THQ, etc.? That business model produces some decent games but it also results in a ton of derivative shit, studio's closing, exploitive revenue streams based on DLC, and so on.

 

[Grecco]

What a terrible, biased article blatantly editing a reggie qoute just for inflamatory purposes. This shouldnt be a shock since Wired seems to be on the GO APPLE BOO NINTENDO side for a while now. You stay classy Chris Kohler.

 

[AceBandage]

Exactly, and I'd argue Nintendo is in a position Apple is not to deliver both types of games on their hardware. Instead, they seem almost hostile to small games.

I find their logic behind that stance suspect, as well. Business plans shouldn't need to be defended. The $50 or $60 game should be able to stand against the $1 shovelware without some referee adjusting the odds in its favor.

And if they can't survive, well that's just free market principles at work, isn't it?

I'll shed no tear if the AAA game business gets a bloody nose. Would you? Would anyone, except the suits at Activision, EA, THQ, etc.? That business model produces some decent games but it also results in a ton of derivative shit, studio's closing, exploitive revenue streams based on DLC, and so on.

Nintendo allows for the small cheap games, though.
That's what their Ware service is.
Just not from any Joe Schmo off the street.

 

[andymcc]

Just not from any Joe Schmo off the street.

in theory that's not such a bad idea, but i'm sure there are some Joe Schmo developers that could produce a game that is better than some of the drek that currently festers on the Nintendo Shop Channels.

 

[Mithos]

I find their logic behind that stance suspect, as well. Business plans shouldn't need to be defended. The $50 or $60 game should be able to stand against the $1 shovelware without some referee adjusting the odds in its favor.

Yeah it should, shouldn't it, but it doesn't.

NO ONE of the people that I know who own an iPhone/Android phone, that is not a traditional gamer (aka never owned a console) would pay $40-$60 for a game, when games only cost $1-$10 on the iPhone/Android market and they think I'm an idiot and stupid for doing it, even though the games are like not even playing in the same ballpark.

 

[PoliceCop]

Huh? What a joke. Do you see Sony and Microsoft abandoning big budget titles in favor of $1 quickware or what?

No, I see Nintendo doing this to a lesser extent. There's less of a gap between their new content and what garage devs are putting out so they're looking to put the clamp down.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

What a terrible, biased article blatantly editing a reggie qoute just for inflamatory purposes. This shouldnt be a shock since Wired seems to be on the GO APPLE BOO NINTENDO side for a while now. You stay classy Chris Kohler.

Wired has been really good at this for a bit now. Seems a thread explodes like this weekly with their garbage. Though Chris Kohler did't write this one he seems to head the charge.

 

[Easy_D]

Misinterpretation FTW.
They are supporting indie devs like team meat or 2dboy, but wont supply every 16 year old wanne-be dev with dev-kits and a license to develop. This is nothing new...but i guess someone needed a new story.

If everyone expected nintendo to open the gates, AppStore like - no that wont happen....

TeamMeat = OK

Bob's Game != OK

 

[AceBandage]

in theory that's not such a bad idea, but i'm sure there are some Joe Schmo developers that could produce a game that is better than some of the drek that currently festers on the Nintendo Shop Channels.

Yes, and the ones that can, usually get picked up by publishers and their games are put on multiple systems.
See: World of Goo and Angry Birds

 

[apana]

Perfectly reasonable.

 

[Jin34]

From the original article that this terrible Game|Life article is citing.



Basically, Reggie is not looking to work with the Rebecca Blacks of gaming.

Also, he makes a great point about the value of software.



Think about this next time you see a thread about Homefront dropping another $20 in price. It's a disposable piece of shit that cost $50 million. Think about this next time you wonder why Mario games still cost and are still worst $49.99.

On a side note, Game|Life sure has turned to shit lately. Sad to see articles like this produced which are very misleading. Not to mention appear on the site's front page.

Gotta spin it to fit their iOS killing Nintendo agenda.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Garage developers... real garage developers... have been dead since the 90s. It used to be possible to make a game unilaterally, or with one or two other guys - but to make way in the world today with such scant people resources, you'd either need to be creating something extremely simple and brilliant, or you'd need to convince people of the software's worth amongst a sea of people trying to do the same. Games need word of mouth, advertising, distribution... the only aspect that things like the appstore / android marketplace help with is distribution. I still think you need to do something special in order to make yourself a success, especially at such low prices. I'm a firm believer in low barriers of entry for both consumers and developers, so I view the era of the 'app' positively, but equally I understand Nintendo's current position.

They like to control their own eco system. It allows them to set pricing standards, receive royalties, partner with third parties on marketing, pursue calculated release-schedule strategies, avoid saturation in the market, respond to popular trends, invest in 'necessary' software... They were overly confident and wrong to believe that they could sustain the Nintendo 64 with a small 'dream-team' of developers, and they have moderated their approach since then... but I think they simply feel that fully embracing a low barrier model would result in an increase in shovelware and damage their identity as a premium gaming brand. I think they have already experienced that to some extent on the Nintendo DS.

Anyway, I don't think it was his intention to belittle what people do, but he wanted to make a statement of support of a more-closed system, albeit one that can work with independent companies. He (possibly quite rightly) believes that such a software eco system will be more controllable and profitable for all.

 

[Alexios]

No, I see Nintendo doing this to a lesser extent. There's less of a gap between their new content and what garage devs are putting out so they're looking to put the clamp down.

Yes but that's a fairly idiotic thing to say with obvious motives beyond taking part in this conversation. Whether you like the game or not, it was still made by a team of developers rather than one dude in his basement and thus cost the company a particular amount of money. Don't buy it, and if it doesn't sell, then they won't make more like that. Reducing the price until everyone is willing to buy it, including obvious hateful spiteful trolls, is hardly the way to go, as that would then simply reduce the value of any of their brands and make them in many cases impossible to develop at all. Once again, SMG just couldn't exist at all if all the market allowed was $1 pricing. If that was the case you'd still just hate their games and go for other $1 products anyway. Thankfully, that's not the case, both exist happily, on the same or different platforms, as enough people understand the difference no matter how much certain websites or people present it as the same with a lower price.

 

[Speevy]

Sensationalist/misinterpreted article notwithstanding, I'm sure your average independent turns his nose up at someone like Reggie too.

 

[AceBandage]

Sensationalist/misinterpreted article notwithstanding, I'm sure your average independent turns his nose up at someone like Reggie too.

Well, according to the developer of Angry Birds, console gaming is dying.
Let's see which one comes out on top.
Personally, my money is on the company that has decades of experience and billion in the bank.

 

[soldat7]

Nintendo treating developers like shit is nothing new.

What is new (but also kind of old) is a development system that allows small teams to create and sell software without publishers, retail presence or anything else that game makers required for the last 20 years.

Nintendo is pulling old guard here. They are rejecting this new development system. Their stance is that the Nintendo ecosystem is better served by the established methods of the NES->Wii era. Development by professionals. Big teams, big money, standardized premium pricing, limited retail access.

Which raises the question: how is Nintendo going to convince the public that it's right? The same public that has turned iDevice apps into the new NES. In the 80s news stories were written about Mario, now they're written about Angry Birds. "Garage games" are the software that's straddling demographics, capturing the public eye and causing new talent to rethink the way they're going to enter the industry (I'm guessing on that last one.)

Nintendo's tactic here seems short sighted. They're the cable company, desperately looking for ways to slow down the market penetration of Netflix. The music industry, desperately trying to smother MP3 in the crib.

These strategies never work. An audience can't be strong armed into consuming what the company wants to make. The company needs to adapt to consumer needs, or else face irrelevance.

Well said.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Yep.

Honestly, would you want just anyone to be able to make a game for a platform like iOS? Yeah....have fun sorting through 500 shitty Super Mario clones.

Actually that does sound like fun. There's a sense of adventure going through some crappy games and then discovering a gem. That's pretty much what LBP 2 is online. Most of the user made levels are pretty crap, but it's fun exploring them nonetheless. And when you discover that one gem of a level, it makes it all the better.

Besides, there's reviews for a reason. Just only buy apps with five star reviews and you will only rarely end up with a bad game.

Spider Legend of Bryce Manor is probably the most innovative, immersive, atmospheric platformers I've played in the past decade. And it was a $2.99 iOS app made by a few people in a garage.

 

[Lazy8s]

Unfortunately for Nintendo, the nD is near.

 

[BY2K]

My money is on the company who single-handedly saved the industry.