Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

juicybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 280 posts

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#31

Post by magic_hamster »

jeroenhd wrote: post #12

First the Ouya, which turned out to be a total flop, and then the Wii U, which Nintendo marketed so badly many people thought it was an extension for their Wii. This company sure made some unlucky bets! Throughout the article I kept coming back to how generic the name sounds. It conjured pictures if the digital slot machines that are free mobile games, with gameplay loops mostly consisting of waiting or paying money…

> I understand how overworked the lone dev must've been

Not sure that you do, especially when offering "just add multiplayer". Clear sign that you are not a solo game developer.

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#32

Post by onion2k »

keyle wrote: post #25

When the movie "Indie games" came out, this was the prime time to get indie games out. The whole indie market thing was hot. But at a certain point, thanks to the free availability of game engines and their overal quality, the market got flooded with developers living on 5c a week and eating noodles, working on serial games and releasing top quality indie games. It became a game of marketing. And sadly that's where w…

It's a marketeting's game now.

I don't think that's true. Not because I think an indie game can succeed without marketing, but the opposite. I think most indie games would still fail even with incredible marketing. They'd just lose more money because they'd have an additional cost. You can't always advertise your way to success in a completely saturated (or over-saturated) market, especially if your competitors are trying to do the same thing. You can either get lucky or fail.

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#33

Post by ponector »

Incipient wrote: post #19

I'm not sure why exactly but I see so many " Deluxe" titles out there I just assume they're janky cloned 5-minute games with 50c in the discount bin. At least for me, the name is an immediate "no".

There are exceptions, like Transport Tycoon Deluxe

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#34

Post by lastangryman »

There is such a small market for 4 player local co-op indie games, I think you need something really special to grab people's attention.

It was an interesting deconstruction though. The bit about the different trailer variations they needed to create is a great example of the value a good publisher can add. It seems like this team did a lot right though, just not the right game at the right time.

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#35

Post by cyode »

adhvaryu wrote: post #27
bulbosaur123 wrote: post #18

The game looks just bland.

It was 8 years ago and the Indie game scene was not so saturated with games in this style and genre.

Even so, that was the era of Cuphead, the first Overcooked, and other local multiplayer games that had undeniable character about them. Even compared to marquee 2010 _flash games_, this game comes off as lackluster.

(Props to them for their effort and this writeup, of course.)

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#36

Post by zirgs »

dehrmann wrote: post #26
jeroenhd wrote: post #12

First the Ouya, which turned out to be a total flop, and then the Wii U, which Nintendo marketed so badly many people thought it was an extension for their Wii. This company sure made some unlucky bets! Throughout the article I kept coming back to how generic the name sounds. It conjured pictures if the digital slot machines that are free mobile games, with gameplay loops mostly consisting of waiting or paying money…

> Wii U, which Nintendo marketed so badly many people thought it was an extension for their Wii I can't decide if that's better or worse than Xbox. Xbox One isn't the original Xbox? And do I want Series S or X?

Microsoft decided to name their consoles that way, because they didn't want their console to be one number behind the PlayStation.

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#37

Post by fomine3 »

zirgs wrote: post #36
dehrmann wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wii U, which Nintendo marketed so badly many people thought it was an extension for their Wii I can't decide if that's better or worse than Xbox. Xbox One isn't the original Xbox? And do I want Series S or X?

Microsoft decided to name their consoles that way, because they didn't want their console to be one number behind the PlayStation.

They solved it on 360. Its successor should be 361.

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#38

Post by raincole »

keyle wrote: post #25

When the movie "Indie games" came out, this was the prime time to get indie games out. The whole indie market thing was hot. But at a certain point, thanks to the free availability of game engines and their overal quality, the market got flooded with developers living on 5c a week and eating noodles, working on serial games and releasing top quality indie games. It became a game of marketing. And sadly that's where w…

I think you romanticized the past.

> When the movie "Indie games" came out, this was the prime time to get indie games out.

> It's a marketeting's game now. So you probably want a publisher to be in charge of that...

Fact: Jonathan Blow, one of the devs featured in the movie "Indie Games", signed a contract with Microsoft way before Braid (one of the games featured in the movie) came out.

You want a publisher, or just someone else, to be in charge of something, if you're not very good at or interested in something. Big news, I know.

Re: Releasing an indie game on 3 consoles at once and failing financially (2016)

#40

Post by alpaca128 »

zirgs wrote: post #36
dehrmann wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wii U, which Nintendo marketed so badly many people thought it was an extension for their Wii I can't decide if that's better or worse than Xbox. Xbox One isn't the original Xbox? And do I want Series S or X?

Microsoft decided to name their consoles that way, because they didn't want their console to be one number behind the PlayStation.

So instead they chose three numbers behind the PlayStation, and 359 numbers behind its predecessor? Not sure I follow that reasoning. Not to mention they could just jump to the same number as PlayStation used, just like MS also skipped Windows 9.

That said all the jokes at the time likely helped make it clear to everyone that the Xbox One was the new model. And Series S/X is just two letters, nobody seems too confused by that.

Post reply on HN