I'm kind of interested in this less talked-about area of the RPG Maker subculture. Those of you who have been around longer than others might be able to offer some insight on these questions about RPG Maker economics. I don't expect all these questions to be answered since there's no extensively documented data, but give it your best take or just discuss what you'd think.

How many downloads do you think the average, COMPLETE RM game gets?
How long can a RPG Maker game stay relevant? Does it have a "shelf life" for it's popularity?
Does anyone ever feel the need to advertise beyond the RPG Maker community? Beyond the indie game-playing community?

Also, in terms of game development, should developers feel obligated to content to their game other than bugfixes. In the modern world of DLC and stuff like that, is it fair to expect the same from game making amateurs? And back to the economics of it, do you think the whole practice of giving such updates or patches is necessary to keep people interested in the game or "remain on the shelf."

Your thoughts and opinions on this subject are appreciated.

Unlike with consoles, RM games always stay on the same level of graphics, though the amateur developers who work with the engine may find ways to make their games look beautiful on every new foray.

However, console games get outdated easily because anymore, the game industry only focuses on graphics and flashy effects. That's why I only bought a wii, because even though it's gimmicky, it's not just a graphic upgrade. It brought something fun and fresh to the table, and as an actual gamer, not a graphics obsessed fanboy, game play is everything to me.

In general though, I don't play RM games, though I'm scheduled to play Gaia's "One Night" horror game somewhere after I move, and I'll write a review of it. If it's a good game, it might get me into RM games again.

Hmm, I might be in the same boat as you Klokinator. I'm not sure I actually like playing RM games, although enjoy being wowed by other peoples work and how the push the limits of the engine. I do think you're generalizing a little too much about the console market though.

Exceptions aren't the rule. Little Big Planet and Halo: Reach are fun, sure, but games like them are few and far between. In general, you don't hear Steve Jobs going on about how much FUNNER the new console that they're spitting out will be, just how much more amazing the titanium quad double layered over 9000 graphics card will be.

This is why I still love Nintendo. Gimmicky sure, but they're the only ones trying new stuff. Motion control? They had it first. Touch screen on a handheld? They had that first too. 3D? Naturally.

Playstation usually perfects Nintendo's efforts, but in reality they're just blatantly copying them and adding a verrry slight spin on whatever they're stealing. Just because PS Move is more accurate than Nintendo's Wii, doesn't mean it's better. If it were better we'd be seeing fun games.

I can't answer to many of these, but I can offer some of my opinion on this questions;

Should developers feel obligated to content to their game other than bugfixes?

No, unless the game is a commercial release. If a player gets a game for free, they don't really have any right to demand more content nor bugfixes. The difference though, is that a developer who's working with RM as a hobby should want to make their games the best they could be and therefore bugfixes and updates is common, but it's not their obligation in any way.

Alright, let's not talk about console vs. console here.

I think you're right st3rb0rn that it should be the developer who wants to add the content. But I guess if the developer is getting feedback on the game such as "This part was good," "that part stunk" and "I wish there was more" that could be an external motivator to add or take away from it.

The short end of it, I grew tired of console games after PS2 ran its course. Most of everything today is stuck on flashy effects, online gaming, and very little on story and game play. NES, SNES, PS1, and PS2 were my consoles of choice. With the RM community, I can more or less revisit the games of old, to a degree, and it's about all I care to play these days. That's not to say they're all good, because a lot of these games stink; if I can't stand it after a few minutes of playtime, I'll just delete it off my computer. But with such a growing amount of indie games, some of which are really well developed, I really don't see much need in paying commercial consoles for their own games.

As for "shelf life", that depends. A Blurred Line is still one of the most talked about games today, and it's been around for a few years. Other games die quickly within a few months. It really depends on the quality of the game, and how much effort the developer is putting into the game. As for content, it's up to the developer. I appreciate a guy who attempts to complete his game first before going back to add in additional content more so than the guy who spends all his time updating just one scene and never gets the game finished; however, there are some completed games that could use a facelift and never do.

It's really up to the developer, how much energy they want to invest into their product, and decide whether or not it's even worth it.

I really think that all of those questions depend on the developer of the game as well as what the developer wants. Take two examples: Legionwood: Tale of Two Swords and Awesome Game, both found here in the complete games section. The developers both want different things. Legionwood is the most popular thread here at RRR, and it's the most popular for a reason. It was in development for three years and is extremely polished and balanced. I never played Awesome Game, but it caught my eye because I read the developer explain how it was INTENDED to be awful. Legionwood must have had at LEAST 3,000 downloads, considering the views it has gotten on this site alone. I'd be surprised if Awesome Game got 30, but I really doubt if the developer cares. I think he just wanted to make it for himself, which is totally within his right. When it's a hobby, make the game you want to make, not the game you think everyone wants to play. Just don't be upset when no one plays it.

Moving on, I believe that the shelf-life of an RPG Maker game is just the same as every other "professional" game. I remember Haze was a mediocre shooter for the 360 that disappeared almost the second it was released, and today people still play the original Zelda for NES because it's a masterpiece. Good games are games that people will want to play again, no matter what engine they're on. I also know that there's at least ONE very professional RPG VX game called Eternal Eden that's done very well in the casual market and has a sequel scheduled for release tomorrow. The potential for games will only rise as technology advances, but masterpieces can still be made with programs like VX regardless of the seeming "limits" that are placed upon it. Chess is a much better game than most of the shooters that have come out recently, and all you need for that is colored cardboard and some plastic.

And as for patches: cartridge games didn't need patches, so I really don't understand why they're so acceptable now. Bug fixes, especially when a game is online to be tested, is one thing, but I feel like patches and updates that extend gameplay once the product is finished only take away from overall quantity in an attempt to keep focus on the game. Look at Fallout 3. It's one of my favorite games, but the DLC was all pretty mediocre. Just keep in mind that I'm not the most technologically knowledgeable person on the planet, so I may be speaking out of ignorance when it comes to patches in commercial games after release. For all I know, it may be unavoidable.

I disagree on patches. It's one thing if they are just continually expanding on the game just because, without any real reason, however, patches may allow a game more popularity. Case in point:

100 people download a game. 70 people really like the game and give a good review, 30 people hate it and give a bad review. Now, statistically the developer should not feel obligated to create a patch and fix up the issues that the 30 percent hated. Majority rules, right? Not quite, though. Consider that one bad review sometimes has greater impact than 5 good ones, and that one bad review may have caused people to avoid downloading it. If the developer can update his game so that it manages to appease the few without hurting the many, it may be in his best interest to do so if it means additional downloads.

This is very true, and it's not always about pleasing everyone so much as improving what you've got. =]

When it is commercial, you're really putting a lot more effort into pleasing everyone versus simply improving it because you think it should or could be better. Though from a business stand-point, you realise you can't please everyone so you choose to accept that you are ignoring many requests (that which doesn't cost you much to ignore) whilst working on other requests (that which costs you if you ignore it or it continues to be an issue).

I think graphics is really important in video-games, though not as important as the game-play itself. Most console games is very repetitive. You either aim and shoot, button-mash to do awesome moves, or you just run around looking for items on the ground. It gets a bit annoying after a while. I would like a game that can completely immerse me into it. Graphics and Gameplay wise. I would like a game where it has more environmental intelligence.


For example: " Uncharted" events don't happen until you reach a certain point. At the beginning of Uncharted 2, your train derails and it is hang off the cliff. You have to climb up to the next cart. When you do that, the previous cart falls to its doom. This event will only happen when you get to the next cart. The thing is, why can't it be a time limit I must reach before the cart actually falls with you on it. I can stay on that dangling cart for hours doing pull-ups, and I will not fall to my death. Events only happen when I show up at a certain point.

I like open world games, where I have many options to change the story. I can go a different pathway. I can kill my enemy with different means. There was a Tenchu game that never came to the U.S.A, where you are a Ninja and you can change the way you look. You can work for any feudal shogun, or lord and assassinate many others. You have the choice to kill you master, or switch the balance of power. It is so fricking awesome, it should have came out in the US. My problem with Commercial games is that it is to linear. You are doing things because you are told to do them, never really giving you the option. As though you are a slave, and you have to do it because your master said so...

Would you Kindly!

http://youtu.be/afMJmgszv-s

This saying right here speak a lot about video-games in general. Are you just a slave in a video-game or do you have options and choices. Most people are slave, because we are will to obey someone who is a lot more nicer, hence "Would you Kindly. The "Would You Kindly" statement has an extremely deep meaning to it. I can type an entire book on it but I will stop here. We are just slaves to the algorithms of the game. Here is an article I was looking at...

http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/im...osthuman-choice


This is what I look for in games, more options, different possibilities, less linear style games. I know indie games do this as well, but they are classics, and they really don't have the resource to do something that I am looking for in a game. But there is no excuse for a AAA game to be linear and repetitive.

Nice post Jackal26, but it wasn't exactly what I was asking.

As much as I LOVE open world gaming, I think I understand why most commercial games are linear. When you're on a timeline, a linear structure is the best way to make sure the player gets a bang for their buck. Look at Half Life 2. It's so linear you could use it as a ruler, but because the designer had absolute control over the player's path they could guarantee the quality of that path. I love me some Fallout, but in Fallout you never had an epic battle with a helicopter balancing on the girders beneath a suspension bridge, and there was a reason why. Open world structure gives freedom, but you can't spend any time on memorable set pieces because you need to make ten times as many. As much as I want to fight for more freedom in games, the overall experience of the game is more important to me than absolute freedom within that experience.

As for graphics, they really aren't my area of focus when I play a game, but I understand why developers spend so much time and money on them. Graphics sell the game. Whenever anyone goes to a new game at RRR they immediately check the screenshots before reading anything else. And it's not a bad thing, I do it too! It's the first indication that the developer knows what they're doing. It's the only part of the game that can be judged correctly on the box, or in our case, the thread. Story explanations and the explanation of fundamentals can be fun to read, but you never actually know whether or not the story, gameplay, or sound design is any good until you've already started playing. Art and Graphics are the only thing that we, the consumer, can trust to be completely accurate before the purchase. That's why I feel like consoles in particular are always the most concerned with graphical updates. I admit that I wish less focus would be placed on graphics and more on gameplay, but things are generally the way they are for a reason and this is no exception. If we want our games to be played, they need to be shinier than the others. Sad, but true.

(I LOVE Bioshock btw)

Edit: SO sorry! I responded to Jackal without realizing how off topic I was getting. I tried to tie it back in in terms of how games are developed commercially and why some mechanics are more popular than others for that reason. It's still technically related to economics, but I realize now that it isn't what you asked. Sorry again!

That's fine, yours is a post that speaks the truth. I tend to look at the screenshots too before reading the story or looking at the features.

Oh whups, my bad, I read something about graphics and my mind wondered.

I think DLC to add more to the game is fine, but to fix problems isn't fine. That is why they have beta test, and game testers. I don't think video-games need a DLC in order to keep the player playing. Instead they should have re-playability. That is what keeps a game on the shelf. DLC is just the other things you would like to add on your ice-cream. Though it is a bit tough to make a game with high re-playability score. You don't necessarily need to bring DLC into your game, but to have it be memorable. Some people put out games chapter by chapter, but it doesn't mean it will remain on the shelf. So no I do not think you are obligated to have DLC for your game, unless people want more in your game... then you just make a sequel then it is up to you to add it as a DLC or another game.

So the answer to my question is...

It is fine to have it, but you are not obligated to have it. It is the developers choice.

One thing you can to to add shelf life to a RM game is to make it episodic. One of my favorite RM games is called "the way" back in 2002 I played the first three episodes. I completely forgot about it, then about 6 months ago I went back and played 4 thru 6. I would call 9 years a pretty good shelf life.

I'm trying to do the same thing with my game series right now. I was very happy to see that I could do carry over data from one episode to the next.

The other thing is to remember that story (or lack there of) is important. I still pop in an old Final Fantasy game or Lucas Arts adventure every now in then just because I love the stories and dialog. Now, look at legend of Zelda or Mario for NES, no story what so ever, So there is no story to bore you.

Right now I am playing an RPG on the XBOX360 called Breath of death VII. The graphics are terrible, the game play is nothing special, the story is rather corny, but there is something oddly fun about it. And that is the key! Fun!