Every week, "Reverend" Anthony Burch talks about aspects of game design and gamer culture in his weekly "Rev Rant" video series.
Admittedly, this week's rant turned out a lot more angry and weirdly serious than the other ones I've done -- it's maybe the only video thus far that could accurately be labeled a rant due to its content and not just out of cute alliteration.
It's basically about how we will pay large sums of money for the chance to play bad games, but will almost never pay very small amounts of money to reward good designers who release their wares for free.
The games playing in the background are MoneySeize, Passage, Today I Die, Assassin's Creed, and the trailer for its sequel.
This is the best rant I've ever seen you do. Reverend Anthony, you're on of my favorite Destructoid editors and I love the Rev Rants. Keep them coming, please.
Wow, this one was, uh... pretty bleak. Still feeling the burn from that Rohrer / Crawford thing?
But yeah, I'm with you. I could put up some kind of excuse about how I'm going to an expensive school and I don't have money to support these guys, but then I'll probably turn around and shell out $30 for another fuckin' Zelda DS game or something. It really is our fault.
Why this won't work: 99% of people will not pay for something after the fact because they already got it. Imagine this with film. I would never pay for a movie after seeing because I am poor. It all sounds good in theory, but in practice it just isn't feasible.
I'm sure I'm the minority, but I do this. Even with retail games. I've borrowed games from friends, played them to completion, and bought a copy that sits unopened because I want to support those that made the game I enjoyed so much. Unfortunately, just like most forms of art, people aren't willing to support the artist(s) until it's too late (postmortem usually). It's a cliche, but the starving artist is the norm, and the masses are unwilling to change, even if it's only $5 at a time.
I agree that due to the hype machine that is media/marketing and their ability to create agendas and frame ideas the public wants crap and is willing to pay for it while the good stuff just languishes and doesn't get noticed... WTF??
I must admit that I don't very rarely donate to free games, and I will definitely try to more often.
Still, I very rarely buy retail games either. And yeah, Assassin's Creed sucked.
Nice Rant, Anthony this is one of the best Rev Rants so far I think.
I think part of drives people to only buy mainstream titles is that otherwise they feel uncomfortable that it isn't safe and familiar.
That's not to say that this excuses this line of behavior...I dislike it quite a bit as well.
Publishers only mainly offering the standard fashion to buy games is part of the problem.
However, it is mainly the gamers' fault.
When people don't have to pay for something, when it works by donations...people aren't very generous at all.
Awesome rant is awesome. It's something Sterling's brought up a few times aswell in regards to bullshit DLC. If people were to actually speak with their wallets about these kinds of things then they simply wouldn't be happening. I would hope that part of this Modern Warfare 2 malarky might be kind of a catalyst towards introspection in the industry but I get the feeling people will be paying that much in the UK regardless. Even if that one IS a great game, being told it's so great that you should be paying £10 more is bollocks.
God damn. People are assholes. EVERYONE. This is why nothing that relies on the good will of a small minority will ever work completely.
I'd put up with ads in these games if it prevents people getting completely burned after making actually decent games...Baaah. The kicker is that, even with ads, it won't make much because so few people play them in the first place.
I got a lot more out of Dear Esther and Radiator's games than I did with every Call of Duty combined AND a good chunk of other mainstream games. Quality is a bitch.
Your rant has left me with chills and a slight tear in my eye. Where can I find this beautiful game that the Campbells man made? I will bathe him in $5 right now. Seriously good points made in the video, thanks so much for inspiring me.
I think you were a little harsh on Assassin's Creed, but that was otherwise a spot-on analysis. I think part of the stigma behind donating to freeware game developers comes from the fact that the games themselves are being put out free of charge as a labor of love, and it's hard to bring people around to pay for something AFTER they've already experienced it, rather than before (which is what Grishnack already mentioned; I frickin' hate deliberating on posts). Honestly, if every game only required the option of paying rather than making it mandatory, the gaming industry would be an awful lot less profitable.
Still, I guess it comes down to whether the developer is doing it out of passion or for cash. For example, I don't charge my D&D players to DM for them (which would be smug, considering my quality of DMing), because I enjoy the process. If I was writing adventure books specifically to be published however, you better believe I'd at least want some money in return for it.
All in all, I don't think this post really did anything but meander; if it made zero sense, apologies.
The market is showing now that if your game is GOOD enough, it will be rewarded. Cave Story's WiiWare and PSP release is proof of that. For the most part though, you are absolutely right, and it's sad ;-(
Here's a thought: Indie devs should charge for their games. What do you think Anthony?
If you look at what has happened to the iphone app store, there's a race to the bottom of the pricing scale thanks to the huge supply vs demand. Now, very few people even consider purchasing a game that is more than $1 or free, because that's the value that has been assigned to it -- and has been agreed upon by all the peer developers since they price similarly.
Do you think that if Braid had been free and not $15, would more people or fewer people have played it? I'm really not sure, and (NERD ALERT!) if you graphed hypothetical players vs price, it would probably be a bell curve with a sweet spot that moves depending on the content of the game.
Unlike others i'm not here to take your words and hold them to the heavens as they are obviously the words of a higher being...I listen, I think, I try out the 'games' you praise and I will come back with my opinion.
Here is MY opinion on Passage: Games are not made to make you cry/feel sad. If a game does that through the by-product of an emotional story driven narrative then fair enough. But Passage seemed designed for the sole purpose to make the 'player' (if they can be called that, more like watcher) feel sad. Games, as Jim Sterling would agree, should be first and foremost... FUN... and that was certaintly not.
I'm am not a smart man, I often feel belittled and lessened by those smarter than me, so I ask you to take my words with a pinch of salt, I know what I mean but that may not translate so well in my words..
Greed. If there's a collection of it, no one will pay for the quality. If it's free, most won't think of donations as necessary.
Maybe it's fear of what can happen to that money. It's not like I can donate a few to a particular developer and EXPECT them to do what I would like with their resources and talent.
I guess this is where Gabe Newell suggestion makes alot more sense where we can actually reward the good from the shit. But as long as there are companies like Activision and EA they won't let something like this happen. It's unfortunate, but a company like Valve should take charge and experiment with this to expand the options.
It could work actually because it doesn't have to have 100% of the population involved. People actually interested in gaming aren't all fuckfaces that take everything for free. Lots of them are, but enough aren't to be able to get creative with how a game is funded.
I don't play indie games so I don't feel like I'm part of the problem or the solution either way but I am the kind of person willing to donate after the fact. I've paid for DVDs after downloading the movie and I've bought games after playing them through emulation.
The hell are you talking about, Assassin's Creed was Freakin' Amazing. THAT'S why I paid for it. We don't pay for free games because they are FREE. It's not free if we're expected to pay for it at all. I'm not going to pay for a game with crap graphics that takes an hour to beat, no matter how good that hour is, if I'm not told to pay for it. I pay for $60 dollar games because people put effort into them, month's or maybe even year's worth of effort into, that someone sunk millions of dollars into to see it to completion. I would pay diddly for a game someone made in their free time, while they are bored, over the course of a month even if it's hailed as the greatest game ever. They didn't put a lot of time or money into it, I don't see why I should either. I didn't say I wanted them to make the game. Neither did anyone else. They made the game of their own free will, using no money, and I will not pay for the fruit of someone's boredom. If the game had a budget of 50 Billion dollars, and people say it's good, and most importantly, I'M ASKED TO PAY FOR IT, then yes, I may pay to own it. If someone put the game together with no money out of their pocket, in their free time, and say I can play free of charge, then I'm going to play with no money out of my pocket, in my free time, free of charge.
@Magnalon: I have to agree about Cave Story being the jam, but part of it has to do with marketing and the niche it fits in. In addition to its unique elements, Cave Story had a lot of mainstream appeal with how intense the action got at times, while games like (for lack of a better example) Dwarf Fortress will probably never see a retail release seeing as it flies over most gamers' heads. But, as Blueberry Garden has proved, there may be a market for the abstract side of games, so my point may be entirely rebuked.
For some reason, in many arenas, most people are unable to make the distinction between cost and value. For them, the more something costs, then the better it must be!
I was a massage therapist for 2 years -- when I started out (indie therapist), I offered to do massages pro-bono, to get my name out there, and hopefully make a buck or two off tips. I got almost no takers.
Then when I started charging $50/hr out of the gates, I tripled my workload in less than a month. The only variable was what I was charging. So, indie devs, charge a little bit ($5 or so) for your games! You might get some sales you weren't expecting!
It's all our fault. I guess you're right with that one. And to make things even worse, I don't think there is any hope for this to change. Let's take a look at the music industry for a second. I don't know if you heard about Trent Reznor's (Nine Inch Nails) and Radiohead attempts to sell you for "as much as you like". Both are major acts and tried to sell music on a donation based model - and failed. Reznor produced another artists record in 2007, advertised it heavily on the web and to his fanbase and gave the option to download it for free, or to donate 5$. "154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record. 28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning: 18.3% chose to pay." I happily paid my 5$ for it and supported every other attempt at this pricing model, but it seems that the public will just grab the free download and will never pay anything, which is a shame. I think it's the same for games. For whatever fucking reason you won't get people to pay for a game they love...and it's not going to change anytime soon. So "hooray!" for more fucking sequels.
I accept donations for Runner, but all proceeds go to Jonathan Holmes, who refused to accept payment throughout the entire year he worked on the sprite art.
I lked assassins creed. It was fun. It has a good enough story that I'm looking forward to the sequel. The production values were very high.
It also cost millions of dollars to make, produce, and market. I'm happy that my $40 went to support the good and hardworking people that were involved with it.
In contrast, I never played that passage game. I never even heard of it. Maybe the reason the guy that made it isn't making good money is that it hasn't been publicized well enough. Maybe instead of doing incoherent rants every week you could instead help solve this problem by doing a piece on the good indie games that the rest of us have missed because no one else talks about them.
If someone who is part of the problem was going to post in this thread they could have not fit the bill better than you. People like you are exactly who this rant is against. Not only because you're a complete ignoramus about what it takes to make even a simple game, but you also gleefully support shitty games because you have no taste whatsoever for quality.
On another note, can't you also fault the devs of free games that expect something in return, if at all? If they make something free, can they honestly expect a 100. donation rate from all the downloads? I would like to think they make it free to test their skill to get a reaction from the people to download it and from there, they can choose whether it's up to par.
If I was to donate for their appreciation, would that money go towards another project or is it just for profit? How would we as donaters exactly know? And how costly would their resources be for their ne xt attempt?
While I completely agree with your entire rant, you almost make it sound like you're trying to rally the troops to donate to the best games, which like I said before, would be impossible for the less than appreciative gamers. Not everyone would want to do it and maybe expect a second or third project.
I think one of the reasons that donations are hard is because there's no easy system in place yet. When you go to a game store, if you see a title you're wanting to get, you can simply slap your money on the counter and boom. Even online, you can save your credit card data for things like iTunes so that you can impulse buy random albums whenever you get the urge. What we need is a way to encourage impulse donations- PayPal boxes are a good start, but not enough people have PayPal accounts yet. We need something where, immediately after you play a game, you can see a little box with a button that says Donate. You can click Donate, and there's your five bucks. Instant gratification, no hassle. Seriously, people can do good, but oftentimes they can be lazy about it, too.
It's kind of the appeal of piracy, I can say for myself in the case of music, download a ton and then go and buy the ones that I think are deserving of the little money that I have...
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
3:00 PM on 07.23.2009
| 
But yeah, I'm with you. I could put up some kind of excuse about how I'm going to an expensive school and I don't have money to support these guys, but then I'll probably turn around and shell out $30 for another fuckin' Zelda DS game or something. It really is our fault.
One day, Bay12, one day you will get that donation.
also...
Still, I very rarely buy retail games either. And yeah, Assassin's Creed sucked.
He spent the first third of his rant trying to disprove the idea that video games have to be the exact same as movies.
I think part of drives people to only buy mainstream titles is that otherwise they feel uncomfortable that it isn't safe and familiar.
That's not to say that this excuses this line of behavior...I dislike it quite a bit as well.
Publishers only mainly offering the standard fashion to buy games is part of the problem.
However, it is mainly the gamers' fault.
When people don't have to pay for something, when it works by donations...people aren't very generous at all.
Something I think I'll have to muse on some more.
I'd put up with ads in these games if it prevents people getting completely burned after making actually decent games...Baaah. The kicker is that, even with ads, it won't make much because so few people play them in the first place.
I got a lot more out of Dear Esther and Radiator's games than I did with every Call of Duty combined AND a good chunk of other mainstream games. Quality is a bitch.
Still, I guess it comes down to whether the developer is doing it out of passion or for cash. For example, I don't charge my D&D players to DM for them (which would be smug, considering my quality of DMing), because I enjoy the process. If I was writing adventure books specifically to be published however, you better believe I'd at least want some money in return for it.
All in all, I don't think this post really did anything but meander; if it made zero sense, apologies.
The market is showing now that if your game is GOOD enough, it will be rewarded. Cave Story's WiiWare and PSP release is proof of that. For the most part though, you are absolutely right, and it's sad ;-(
Also, Assassin's Creed was great!
If you look at what has happened to the iphone app store, there's a race to the bottom of the pricing scale thanks to the huge supply vs demand. Now, very few people even consider purchasing a game that is more than $1 or free, because that's the value that has been assigned to it -- and has been agreed upon by all the peer developers since they price similarly.
Do you think that if Braid had been free and not $15, would more people or fewer people have played it? I'm really not sure, and (NERD ALERT!) if you graphed hypothetical players vs price, it would probably be a bell curve with a sweet spot that moves depending on the content of the game.
weigh in, 'toiders.
Unlike others i'm not here to take your words and hold them to the heavens as they are obviously the words of a higher being...I listen, I think, I try out the 'games' you praise and I will come back with my opinion.
Here is MY opinion on Passage: Games are not made to make you cry/feel sad. If a game does that through the by-product of an emotional story driven narrative then fair enough. But Passage seemed designed for the sole purpose to make the 'player' (if they can be called that, more like watcher) feel sad. Games, as Jim Sterling would agree, should be first and foremost... FUN... and that was certaintly not.
I'm am not a smart man, I often feel belittled and lessened by those smarter than me, so I ask you to take my words with a pinch of salt, I know what I mean but that may not translate so well in my words..
Maybe it's fear of what can happen to that money. It's not like I can donate a few to a particular developer and EXPECT them to do what I would like with their resources and talent.
I guess this is where Gabe Newell suggestion makes alot more sense where we can actually reward the good from the shit. But as long as there are companies like Activision and EA they won't let something like this happen. It's unfortunate, but a company like Valve should take charge and experiment with this to expand the options.
It was awesome.
It could work actually because it doesn't have to have 100% of the population involved. People actually interested in gaming aren't all fuckfaces that take everything for free. Lots of them are, but enough aren't to be able to get creative with how a game is funded.
I don't play indie games so I don't feel like I'm part of the problem or the solution either way but I am the kind of person willing to donate after the fact. I've paid for DVDs after downloading the movie and I've bought games after playing them through emulation.
I would give it a try.
I was a massage therapist for 2 years -- when I started out (indie therapist), I offered to do massages pro-bono, to get my name out there, and hopefully make a buck or two off tips. I got almost no takers.
Then when I started charging $50/hr out of the gates, I tripled my workload in less than a month. The only variable was what I was charging. So, indie devs, charge a little bit ($5 or so) for your games! You might get some sales you weren't expecting!
I have no hope for humanity.
And yeah, do you accept donations for Runner?
It also cost millions of dollars to make, produce, and market. I'm happy that my $40 went to support the good and hardworking people that were involved with it.
In contrast, I never played that passage game. I never even heard of it. Maybe the reason the guy that made it isn't making good money is that it hasn't been publicized well enough. Maybe instead of doing incoherent rants every week you could instead help solve this problem by doing a piece on the good indie games that the rest of us have missed because no one else talks about them.
You just make too much damn sense sometimes.
If someone who is part of the problem was going to post in this thread they could have not fit the bill better than you. People like you are exactly who this rant is against. Not only because you're a complete ignoramus about what it takes to make even a simple game, but you also gleefully support shitty games because you have no taste whatsoever for quality.
lol?
If I was to donate for their appreciation, would that money go towards another project or is it just for profit? How would we as donaters exactly know? And how costly would their resources be for their ne xt attempt?
While I completely agree with your entire rant, you almost make it sound like you're trying to rally the troops to donate to the best games, which like I said before, would be impossible for the less than appreciative gamers. Not everyone would want to do it and maybe expect a second or third project.