I Wish More Games Were Developed Like Silksong

[Kranst]

Knowing that Team Cherry developed Silksong while having the financial stability to create without money or expectations influencing the product, and the time to focus on producing quality work at a proper pace, is nice to read. And the fact that they had to stop themselves from developing more content, not because of pressure or external factors, but because they were enjoying the process too much, is wonderful.

While it is true that Silksong has yet to be experienced, it has been a long time since I have been genuinely excited to purchase a game day one and confident that it will be amazing. The interview and the healthy development cycle speak volumes. Regardless of whether Silksong is below, within, or exceeds my expectations, this is what I would love to see the gaming industry transition towards: People creating out of passion.

What reason makes you all most excited to play Silksong? Will you buy it day one?

[argyllfox]

I totally agree, it would especially be amazing to see something like this in the AAA sphere, where quality often suffers from choking deadlines; but given the nature of corporations I'm not confident that will ever happen. I was so incredibly happy to learn that they were having so much fun making it, and it makes me all the more excited for the game; I love consuming things that I know were made with love. I will be getting it day one. It releases on the first day of the new school year, genuinely considering skipping so I can play it all day

[Gameplayer134]

Not every game studio has the benefit of making a game that sold 15 million copies and making one of the most popular franchises.

[Kranst]

Originally posted by Gameplayer134:

Not every game studio has the benefit of making a game that sold 15 million copies and making one of the most popular franchises.

That is a great point. But what I find most interesting is that the majority of studios that do have the advantage of financial backing and popularity are often not the ones to make well-produced and high-quality games, at least in my experience. I would argue that there have been more noteworthy independent success stories than massive AAA productions.

Also, something of note is that Team Cherry would need to sell four copies of Hollow Knight compared to the average AAA game.

Supergiant Games, Team Cherry, ConcernedApe, and Toby Fox are some great examples of not having much when developing their first title, but still made something successful, even at a disadvantage. I believe the reasons for their continued success stem not from financial profits but from having good standards, healthy working conditions, and a passion to create. I agree that having the resources to fund your project is crucial, but I also notice that greed and mismanaged money are major factors for many games being unsuccessful.

[Kranst]

Originally posted by argyllfox:

I totally agree, it would especially be amazing to see something like this in the AAA sphere, where quality often suffers from choking deadlines; but given the nature of corporations I'm not confident that will ever happen. I was so incredibly happy to learn that they were having so much fun making it, and it makes me all the more excited for the game; I love consuming things that I know were made with love. I will be getting it day one. It releases on the first day of the new school year, genuinely considering skipping so I can play it all day

Love the sentiment.

...

I am not saying you should skip the first day of the new school year, but...

[Kitten Shady]

That I have a credit of trust in this developer, which I don't have in those who are doing something for the first time - at least some confidence that the game will be good. Because in other cases always something not good with indies - the demo and trailers are better than final game, or the game is okey, but with very many shortcomings with varying degrees of awfulness. Give me a game without unpleasant surprises already! XD

[Soren]

Originally posted by Gameplayer134:

Not every game studio has the benefit of making a game that sold 15 million copies and making one of the most popular franchises.

Maybe not. But for a lot of big game companies, a majority of the profits aren't used to fund future development or create safety nets. It's given to investors and a vicious cycle is perpetuated where games need to be as predatory as possible to keep feeding their pockets, and studios will be axed if they can't keep up with the destructive demand.

Honestly, some of the best games on the market were created by studios who didn't have investors trying to actively make the product worse to line their own pockets. Baldur's Gate 3 for example.

[DJ Rocket X]

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by Gameplayer134:

Not every game studio has the benefit of making a game that sold 15 million copies and making one of the most popular franchises.

Maybe not. But for a lot of big game companies, a majority of the profits aren't used to fund future development or create safety nets. It's given to investors and a vicious cycle is perpetuated where games need to be as predatory as possible to keep feeding their pockets, and studios will be axed if they can't keep up with the destructive demand.

Honestly, some of the best games on the market were created by studios who didn't have investors trying to actively make the product worse to line their own pockets. Baldur's Gate 3 for example.

Very true, pretty much nailed it.

[バスターウルフ he/him/I/o]

Originally posted by Kranst:

Originally posted by Gameplayer134:

Not every game studio has the benefit of making a game that sold 15 million copies and making one of the most popular franchises.

That is a great point. But what I find most interesting is that the majority of studios that do have the advantage of financial backing and popularity are often not the ones to make well-produced and high-quality games, at least in my experience. I would argue that there have been more noteworthy independent success stories than massive AAA productions.

Also, something of note is that Team Cherry would need to sell four copies of Hollow Knight compared to the average AAA game.

Supergiant Games, Team Cherry, ConcernedApe, and Toby Fox are some great examples of not having much when developing their first title, but still made something successful, even at a disadvantage. I believe the reasons for their continued success stem not from financial profits but from having good standards, healthy working conditions, and a passion to create. I agree that having the resources to fund your project is crucial, but I also notice that greed and mismanaged money are major factors for many games being unsuccessful.

There is an immense amount of risk involved in making any game. There's no way to know ahead of time that your game will be a hit or a miss. Hollow Knight could have been a miss, it just happened to be really well received by the masses. Even Silksong has the potential to be a miss, but until release that's impossible to predict.

As far as the rare indie devs that make it, there are hundreds of talented indie devs that you haven't even heard of, and are struggling to get their game downloaded even if it's free on itch.io. The most successful indie devs are incredibly rare when compared to the number of devs that are actively putting games out. The ones you listed are extremely successful outliers.

A note about investors, that is also hit or miss. Money doesn't come out of thin air, and yet Fromsoft made Elden Ring with a combination of their past success and from capital they received from all their investors. These generalizations about gaming really need to stop, since each studio is literally on an island separate from each other.

[Kranst]

Originally posted by Kitten Shady:

That I have a credit of trust in this developer, which I don't have in those who are doing something for the first time - at least some confidence that the game will be good. Because in other cases always something not good with indies - the demo and trailers are better than final game, or the game is okey, but with very many shortcomings with varying degrees of awfulness. Give me a game without unpleasant surprises already! XD

Very much agree with your first thought. Team Cherry has proved they knew what they were doing with Hollow Knight, and I am sure Silksong will be made just as well.

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by Gameplayer134:

Not every game studio has the benefit of making a game that sold 15 million copies and making one of the most popular franchises.

Maybe not. But for a lot of big game companies, a majority of the profits aren't used to fund future development or create safety nets. It's given to investors and a vicious cycle is perpetuated where games need to be as predatory as possible to keep feeding their pockets, and studios will be axed if they can't keep up with the destructive demand.

Honestly, some of the best games on the market were created by studios who didn't have investors trying to actively make the product worse to line their own pockets. Baldur's Gate 3 for example.

Nailed it. Could not have worded it better myself.

[Kranst]

Originally posted by Call Sign: Raven:

There is an immense amount of risk involved in making any game. There's no way to know ahead of time that your game will be a hit or a miss. Hollow Knight could have been a miss, it just happened to be really well received by the masses. Even Silksong has the potential to be a miss, but until release that's impossible to predict.

Agreed. There is always a measure of risk when developing and releasing a product.

Originally posted by Call Sign: Raven:

As far as the rare indie devs that make it, there are hundreds of talented indie devs that you haven't even heard of, and are struggling to get their game downloaded even if it's free on itch.io. The most successful indie devs are incredibly rare when compared to the number of devs that are actively putting games out. The ones you listed are extremely successful outliers.

I intentionally mentioned extremely successful examples because they demonstrate that even with their massive success, they have continued to prioritize good standards, healthy working conditions, and a passion to create despite having similar financial successes that many AAA companies have, which more often fail in that regard.

Originally posted by Call Sign: Raven:

A note about investors, that is also hit or miss. Money doesn't come out of thin air, and yet Fromsoft made Elden Ring with a combination of their past success and from capital they received from all their investors. These generalizations about gaming really need to stop, since each studio is literally on an island separate from each other.

I disagree about the generalizations. There will always be variation in development, and this situational complexity is seen in every category out there. However, I have continued to see repeated examples of the AAA industry failing from investment influence, predatory practices and greed, and poor standards far more than the indie scene. Though in general, I agree that exceptions should be considered in all aspects.

[バスターウルフ he/him/I/o]

Originally posted by Kranst:

Originally posted by Call Sign: Raven:

There is an immense amount of risk involved in making any game. There's no way to know ahead of time that your game will be a hit or a miss. Hollow Knight could have been a miss, it just happened to be really well received by the masses. Even Silksong has the potential to be a miss, but until release that's impossible to predict.

Agreed. There is always a measure of risk when developing and releasing a product.

Originally posted by Call Sign: Raven:

As far as the rare indie devs that make it, there are hundreds of talented indie devs that you haven't even heard of, and are struggling to get their game downloaded even if it's free on itch.io. The most successful indie devs are incredibly rare when compared to the number of devs that are actively putting games out. The ones you listed are extremely successful outliers.

I intentionally mentioned extremely successful examples because they demonstrate that even with their massive success, they have continued to prioritize good standards, healthy working conditions, and a passion to create despite having similar financial successes that many AAA companies have, which more often fail in that regard.

Originally posted by Call Sign: Raven:

A note about investors, that is also hit or miss. Money doesn't come out of thin air, and yet Fromsoft made Elden Ring with a combination of their past success and from capital they received from all their investors. These generalizations about gaming really need to stop, since each studio is literally on an island separate from each other.

I disagree about the generalizations. There will always be variation in development, and this situational complexity is seen in every category out there. However, I have continued to see repeated examples of the AAA industry failing from investment influence, predatory practices and greed, and poor standards far more than the indie scene. Though in general, I agree that exceptions should be considered in all aspects.

Generalizations are never good. They stem from prejudice, ultimately. They do not serve anybody. The only thing you can do in any reasonable manner is look to individual processes. Fromsoft figured out how to use their investor's money wisely, while Ubisoft squanders it. See? I just taught you how not to generalize. Now, get out there and practice :)

[Kranst]

Originally posted by Call Sign: Raven:

Generalizations are never good. They stem from prejudice, ultimately. They do not serve anybody. The only thing you can do in any reasonable manner is look to individual processes. Fromsoft figured out how to use their investor's money wisely, while Ubisoft squanders it. See? I just taught you how not to generalize. Now, get out there and practice :)

Now I understand why I disagree with this sentiment for certain. I was not suggesting that financial investment can never work, and I am not stating that independent development is always right. It is clear that I was never arguing that my observations are always "correct." Furthermore, I do not believe that ignoring statistics, patterns, or trends, and or avoiding discussions because my choice of words on a Steam thread were not to your standard as being beneficial. I have an opinion, and do not feel the need to clarify the intricacies of this each time I post something.

Yes, I used phrases like "more often" and "far more" to convey my thoughts, but I do not see how being pedantic about text on the internet adds value to this conversation. However, I do thank you for bringing this to my attention so I can avoid conversations like this in the future. They were generalized statements about an unsustainable industry that is rapidly destroying itself in part. You are inferring that I am doing something closer to stereotyping. I am not.

To clarify: I do not like it when a developer or company mismanages finances, incorporates predatory practices, adopts bad standards, and has poor working conditions. Rather, I have respect for a developer or company that properly manages finances, has good practices, employs good standards, and emphasizes healthy working conditions, like Team Cherry.

Originally posted by Call Sign: Raven:

Generalizations are never good.

P.S. The sky is blue.

[Rae]

i agree, and yes, i will buy it day one. it's funny that, had you made this post even a month ago, you'd probably have been flamed like crazy. things have certainly changed around here - and certainly for the better.

[honk.mdl]

lol no, imagine taking 7 years to develop a dlc this small

[GyrAthena]

In 2014 Hornet was a second playable character unlocked via funding - for the WII U

For the Wii ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ U.

Thats how ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥ team cherry are at time management skills.

SILKSONG MISSED THE ENTIRE LIFESPAN OF THE SWITCH!!!! The. Entire. Lifespan.

I wouldn't trust Team Cherry with planning and executing a cup of tea after this abysmal ♥♥♥♥ show!