I don't want to see videos being sold on Steam but since its here, lets discuss!

[Kell]

I came across this movie on netflix and was surpised to see it on steam- something I hope doesn't become a trend. Now that its here lets talk about game development.

What I would like to see from game developers is not making the game you want to make (indie) or games to appease the masses (mainstream). Rather a merger of the two but with much more public input. Basically, I want more developers to say, "Hey, we are thinking of making a game. What do you want? Send us ideas of how you would make this game." Instead, we get announcements like "We are making this game, here some info on it. I hope you're happy with it". There is way more to it than I over simplify here but this is the basic problem.

[marquis·de·slob]

Sorry Kell, but Valve is thinking out of the box these days, just have a look at Big Picture!

http://store.steampowered.com/bigpicture/

And remember, Now you're typing with Daisywheel!

[Kell]

DOH!

[{Scottlin De La Rocha™}]

Yeah trends suck (cod clones). So far I think Rockstar games and a few other companies though have it down when it comes to what you are talking about. But if movies haven't changed to that system then it will be a long time before games do.

[uwap]

Kell, I'm totally support your points you made there.
But it's not just that. On a sight of a developer I must say either there are too many suggestions or there are to less. If you project doesn't earn enough attention it doesn't make sense to let the community design a game with you because there is no community. If your project earns enough attention the community is too big. Everyone wants to lead the game in another direction. That would be too much for one developer.

If there is not much attention I'm sure you'll get more attention if you announce the whole game play at once than just announcing everything you're working on immediately.

[Kell]

What I was thinking was somewhat of a voting system. A developer could review some of the community suggestions and select some of the more realistic ideas to be put to a vote. A gamer democracy if you will. For example, I dont know if you play World of Warcraft but they made some rather unpopular changes with their new expansion release. I believe some of these changes would have absolutely been repealed if put to a vote. Admittedly, my fraustration is mainly directed at major developers because in many cases we cannot express our disapproval until after the fact; regardless, developers still need to draw attention to potential projects in either case.
Here is a real world example of a shareholder system, http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1810822448/furcadia-the-second-dreaming

[uwap]

Oh I see. That's a real good idea.
Developers should definitively do this.

[Kai]

Your lucky valve isn't going ms style, There taking it slow and not forceing users into anything
unlike ms whos taking the ♥♥♥♥ IT LETS JUST DO IT ALL NOW AND FORCE EVERYONE TO USE IT MAHAHAHA route

[Brune]

An issue with asking the public with what they want in a video game is problematic. A lot of people will want other things, sometimes the exact opposite. Even if you have a target market group, say FPS fans with ages between 16-21. You still get a lot of issues with exact opposite wants. Even if you ignore those opposite wants you still have the mass amount of unique wants per user. It means that people could want more than you can bring. In the end wants/features = time + money and the time + money equation means you need a bussiness with paid employees. Which means you have to build mainstream (wanted by the most people) features to gain as much revenue to keep alive. This can be a harsh cycle.

[Aiomon]

Why would you not want to see movies being sold on Steam?

[marquis·de·slob]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Aiomon:

Why would you not want to see movies being sold on Steam?

I’m certainly not the OP, but I’ll take a shot at answering that question.

Game developers that we love, like musicians and other figures/agencies in the arts, provide something more than simple entertainment, we actually incorporate their work into part of whom and what we are as individuals.

We take a highly personal form of ownership. It’s not something that’s right or wrong, it just is.

When a developer goes in a direction that we find alien, we can’t help but feel betrayed. It’s not the fault of the developer; they simply move on to survive. But it can challenge consumers’ emotional investment. . .and as a divorcee, I’ll state that emotional investment and expectation trumps logic, ethics and finance.

I love Valve for Half-Life 2 but I don’t care for co-op, multiplayer or MMO’s, and Valve’s increasingly diversified work over the last few years leaves something of a sour taste in my mouth.

Just the way it is –for me, anyway.

[uwap]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย TheFishy:

An issue with asking the public with what they want in a video game is problematic. A lot of people will want other things, sometimes the exact opposite. Even if you have a target market group, say FPS fans with ages between 16-21. You still get a lot of issues with exact opposite wants. Even if you ignore those opposite wants you still have the mass amount of unique wants per user. It means that people could want more than you can bring. In the end wants/features = time + money and the time + money equation means you need a bussiness with paid employees. Which means you have to build mainstream (wanted by the most people) features to gain as much revenue to keep alive. This can be a harsh cycle.

But if you would even ignore the unique suggestions you would have some good base concepts describing to lead the game in a certain direction. You can't satisfy everyone but the most.

[Hakon]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kell:

What I was thinking was somewhat of a voting system. A developer could review some of the community suggestions and select some of the more realistic ideas to be put to a vote. A gamer democracy if you will. For example, I dont know if you play World of Warcraft but they made some rather unpopular changes with their new expansion release. I believe some of these changes would have absolutely been repealed if put to a vote. Admittedly, my fraustration is mainly directed at major developers because in many cases we cannot express our disapproval until after the fact; regardless, developers still need to draw attention to potential projects in either case.
Here is a real world example of a shareholder system, http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1810822448/furcadia-the-second-dreaming

Uh Greenlight?

[Kell]

That was just one example I used. Unlike Greenlight, a few of the developers using Kickstarter actually allow investors to be a part of the design.

[Hakon]

Yep.

[Ebo]

Here's the problem, most of the time people don't really know what they really want.

You might think, OH, I want Dark Souls to be easier but then it wouldn't be Dark Souls and you'd drop the controller a few hours later and never look back.

Sometime developers really DO know better. Obviously there are other ways out there. When you are making a primary online game, you kind of need feedback from your community. There are games out there built with a lot of input from players.

At the end of the day if you think you have a great idea for a game, why not learn the skills to turn said idea into a prototype, become the next Edmund McMillen (yes Tommy, you too) or Phil Fish or Jonathan Blow.

So basically if you have an idea and you know it's good, do something about it.