How to get the most money from a sponsorship?

QuadraGames

  • Posts: 101
I laughed my ass off when I read the Tax Man thing XD

MiscEtc

  • *
  • Posts: 162
Perhaps I don't have the full picture here, but:

I agree with Irock. I believe that games should be designed with a train of thought focused on "how can I make a fun, engaging, interesting, or moving, etc, experience for my players", not, "how can I make the most money while doing the least amount of work".

People do need to eat and make a living, yes, but that doesn't mean one should treat his potential customers as nothing but sacks of cash.

If one wants to make good, enjoyable games, being a game developer is a cool thing to do. If you just want to make money, become a business-person instead.

That's my condenced opinion on the matter anyway.

HidetoKoudanshi

  • Posts: 112
Why can't we do both? Honestly, why is it wrong to want to make quality, enjoyable games that also make money? Let's leave all the Flappy business behind.

Tell me why it's wrong to try to make engaging, enjoyable games that also make its creator money? Licenses to make and upload games to app stores of various kinds are expensive. The idea that every game creator can easily make tons of free games that show lots of heart, effort, and thought put into them, and not make more than a pittance, if anything on them, is almost impossible. I believe the current market world states we should make money commensurate to the time and effort spent on whatever it was we're selling. Are you telling me creators don't deserve to be paid commensurately for their efforts, that wanting to make enough to pay the bills or get out of a crappy cycle of awful jobs means they are money hungry?

I know I said I'd bow out but I just can't believe that artists are supposed to create beautiful works of art and just give them away. This isn't the time of Leonardo Da Vinci. Nobody wants to be my patron and just pay me to code beautiful, life-changing, altruistic gaming masterworks of art for them. Until that day comes, I'm going to have to ask for money for my game creating efforts.

I'm sorry I don't have a well-paying job like Irock does so I can afford to give my work away. I'm not asking anyone pity me, either. I'm just saying that I have as much right to expect compensation for my efforts as a tax collector, a McDonald's employee, an IT professional, a landscaper, or like me, a security guard. I will not feel shame for wanting to be compensated for my time and effort. I do not force gamers to buy my game or pay for my IAPs. They can vote with their wallets. When my game is complete and submitted, that's exactly what they'll do, and I won't feel the least bit mad if people choose to pass over my game in favour of another one, whether due to quality or price. I will applaud them for being responsible adults who decide for themselves what they are willing to spend their own hard-earned cash on. I will be that much more humbled if they think my game is an acceptable risk to take with their money.

I'd love to see a list of games and how much their creator made on them. I'll bet you it is not as much of a cash-grab as people are implying here. I'll bet it's not even enough to pay rent, or to pay rent more than once or twice. Anyone in this convo willing to tell how much one of their games netted them so we can put this "cash cow" business to rest?
If I ever commission you for code work, please know that I understand how commissioning works. You must get paid first before you will code anything for me. Only once you are paid the agreed-upon price, will you begin coding for me. I respect artists and coders. You deserve to be paid for your hard efforts.

MiscEtc

  • *
  • Posts: 162
Calm down Hideto. No one's telling you to live the life of an impoverished artist. If you you make good games, you should be able to get good money from them. That's just fair.  Your last comment actually does not disagree with what I said- at all. 

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

What I disagree with is intentionally making bad games, and making money off of them.  Making games that aren't designed to make players have fun, but to put them in a skinner box, and milk them for cash, or making a clone to cash in on the success of another game. Players should give you money because you created a good game that they enjoyed, not because you used weaknesses of human psychology to trick them. (And microtransactions are a perfectly benign method of making money, though they've been used pretty deviously in the past(primarilly by big companies))

I also believe there is a difference between taking inspiration from something and making something new, or different, or better, and blattantly ripping something off.

And just to make sure this is clear, I am not claiming you did any of these things. I am not here to upset you. I am not attacking you. I don't know you. As far as I know you are a normal individual that got in a heated debate.  I'm just giving my thoughts.

Personally, I hope to one day be able to make a living as a game developer, and perhaps start my own small studio.  I Obviously intend to make money off of the games I make to provide a living for myself, and to fund future projects. There are however, certain lines I'm not willing to cross, which may vary from individual to individual. 
I want to earn my money from making good games. They don't have to be masterpieces, they just have to be something I can be proud to have my name attached to.



When it comes to making games, I feel a general rule of thumb is, if I wouldn't want to play it, I don't want to make it.

Blob

  • *
  • Posts: 722
I was hesitant to post here but while this thread is in circulation I guess it's a good enough time to join the discussion.

The straw man of 'you're saying making bad products for money is greedy therefor you're saying trying to make money is greedy' really needs to stop. I don't want to call out people but this fallacious choice of interpretation has happened even recently elsewhere. As far as I can tell the criticisms made aren't directly about money but are about making design decisions that only exist when money is taking precedence over ethics, such as ripping off (not being inspired by, ripping off) other works and designing hollow game experiences where gameplay is used as an inconvenience that only money can bypass.


Quote from: colburt187
If someone enjoys a game, it's a good game. Doesn't matter if it's pay to win, ads, IAP etc. if people play it and enjoy it then the game has achieved it's purpose.  To that person who played it and enjoyed it, it's a good game.
The reason I'd say this isn't universally valid is because people don't have perfect judgement. People can be tricked, they can be manipulated, they can be gullible, they can have biases, and they can be ignorant of better alternatives. Somebody who knows nothing about technology might be swindled into thinking a crummy laptop from the 1990s is state of the art and worth 100x its value, they could walk away from that deal happy and fulfilled, but does that mean it was a good deal? More extreme examples of this would be snake oil and praying away cancer, things that have probably given people a great deal of relief and satisfaction, that does not mean they are good creations, and I would have no problem comparing some of the scummiest gaming has to offer to these. Ignorance is bliss but that's not a justification for playing off of people's vulnerabilities.

Another side to this which is just as important is that things like pay-to-win and IAP aren't just means of manipulating people, but they're very slippery slopes to making poor structures for games. I've said that free-to-play prevents games from being self-contained, and what I mean by that is if you're setting out to encourage people to pay money in-game then often times that entails putting the ulterior motive of inciting want/need in the player, which means the game can't just focus on being enjoyable in whatever way it pleases, it needs to keep that intention in mind which can have results like splitting up content, making core gameplay an inconvenience, and making material desire a focal point to the game in place of something better.


MiscEtc

  • *
  • Posts: 162
Very eloquently put Blob.

 You said it better than I could have

colburt187

  • *
  • Posts: 2389
"If someone enjoys a game, it's a good game. Doesn't matter if it's pay to win, ads, IAP etc. if people play it and enjoy it then the game has achieved it's purpose.  To that person who played it and enjoyed it, it's a good game."
"The reason I'd say this isn't universally valid is because people don't have perfect judgement. "


Yes I agree with your point here and most of the other points you made.  My comment was inspired by a Billy Connelly quote when he was told that jokes on controversial subjects are not funny, he said if it makes people laugh, then its funny.

I have a strong dislike for Pay to win games and any form of conning people out of money in all aspects of life.

but in terms of the game that started this discussion,

"The gameplay of Flappy Wings has absolutely no monetary requirements"

"This game does nothing to require or entice me to pay a single cent. I simply chose to. "

I don't have a problem with this, the game is obviously inspired by flappy bird, but HidetoKoudanshi is an adult who happens to like the design and game play of this particular game. If she finds this game fun and wants to buy some hats to support the developer I don't have a problem with her spending a couple of dollars and I don't have a problem with the developer earning those dollars.

I really enjoy the game block fortress, Its also obviously inspired by Minecraft, I bought the game and I chose to spend some in game cash on a helper robot because I was enjoying the game so much.

I could upgrade all the robots and still only spend around $10 which is a third of what i spent on a single game for the snes back in the day, and Chuck Rock was definitely not worth it.

HidetoKoudanshi

  • Posts: 112
My problem is the clear supposition that I'm a talentless or greedy hack who supports talentless or greedy hacks.

Why can't we do both? Honestly, why is it wrong to want to make quality, enjoyable games that also make money? Let's leave all the Flappy business behind.

Tell me why it's wrong to try to make engaging, enjoyable games that also make its creator money?

The straw man of 'you're saying making bad products for money is greedy therefor you're saying trying to make money is greedy' really needs to stop.

Because I said I want to make bad products and I like supporting bad products. Above, I said let's leave Flappy Bird/Anything aside. Even when I did, people still took swings at me... about Flappy Bird/Anything. I continued on only about monetizing games in harmless, innocent ways, like Jetpack Joyride making different heads and bodies for its main character. The heads and bodies do nothing whatsoever for gameplay. You will fly far, collecting lots of coins etc, or not, based on your own skills. Nothing to do with him wearing a Wonderwoman head and a Santa suit body, or a cowboy body and a Terminator robot head.

The reason I'd say this isn't universally valid is because people don't have perfect judgement. People can be tricked, they can be manipulated, they can be gullible, they can have biases, and they can be ignorant of better alternatives. Somebody who knows nothing about technology might be swindled into thinking a crummy laptop from the 1990s is state of the art and worth 100x its value, they could walk away from that deal happy and fulfilled, but does that mean it was a good deal? More extreme examples of this would be snake oil and praying away cancer, things that have probably given people a great deal of relief and satisfaction, that does not mean they are good creations, and I would have no problem comparing some of the scummiest gaming has to offer to these. Ignorance is bliss but that's not a justification for playing off of people's vulnerabilities.

Thanks for turning gaming into a nanny business where we don't trust people to have logical reasoning and thinking skills and know what game is worth their money and what game isn't. Thanks, also, for equating me and anyone who agrees with me to shady snake oil salesmen, or people who support shady snake oil salesmen. Seriously. When do we get to the part where I sacrifice live babies and write code in their blood while using their skin as a wrapper for the box?

Another side to this which is just as important is that things like pay-to-win and IAP aren't just means of manipulating people, but they're very slippery slopes to making poor structures for games. I've said that free-to-play prevents games from being self-contained, and what I mean by that is if you're setting out to encourage people to pay money in-game then often times that entails putting the ulterior motive of inciting want/need in the player, which means the game can't just focus on being enjoyable in whatever way it pleases, it needs to keep that intention in mind which can have results like splitting up content, making core gameplay an inconvenience, and making material desire a focal point to the game in place of something better.

Why don't you get back to this discussion when you stop basically accusing those of us on this side of the argument of being people in long black coats and top hats, with long, thin moustaches we curl as we cackle evilly and write games broken up into 5 minute-playable sections that must be unlocked with game gold that can conveniently only be purchased in lots of 20-RL dollars and whose characters die without a constant feed of RL-dollars-purchasable food items, and boss monsters than can only be won with a 100-RL dollar powerup.

I agree that that kind of monetization is awful and that is not what I intend to code into my games at all and I'm really tired of people suggesting that's entirely what I intend to do just because I might code in a ridiculous costume for my main characters to wear that doesn't effect gameplay at all and is just there for stupid fun and nobody has to pay for them and WARGARBLEDFLKHGDPVJDKL.

There. That felt better. I won't quote and repost everything colburt187 said as this is a lengthy-enough post but
EVERYTHING COLBURT187 SAID IN HIS PREVIOUS POST BEFORE THIS ONE.
If I ever commission you for code work, please know that I understand how commissioning works. You must get paid first before you will code anything for me. Only once you are paid the agreed-upon price, will you begin coding for me. I respect artists and coders. You deserve to be paid for your hard efforts.

colburt187

  • *
  • Posts: 2389
Did my post make the little guys head explode? What part if the post did you not agree with, I was thinking we were on the same page.

dripple

  • Posts: 748
Gentlemen, please calm down.
Sure, my games won't get better with all the new features of Stencyl.
But I do have more fun creating bad ones.


MayazCastle Keeper

SadiQ

  • Posts: 1780
This is another thread that has SEVERELY moved away from it's original question :(
Proud member of the League of Idiotic Stencylers! Doing things in Stencyl that probably shouldn't be done.

HidetoKoudanshi

  • Posts: 112
Forgive the confusion, colburt187. I agree with you 100%. The smiley exploded because this argument is stupid, not because of you. I just feel this entire argument is stupid.

I don't think anyone in this thread wants to make bad, money-grubbing games, and being treated as if that is exactly what we want and are going to do, that players need to be protected from evil people like us, is what is utterly stupid.

What do you say we all agree that making  games with bad game design whose only purpose is to push people into IAPs is bad game design, and that people acknowledge that we feel that is, in fact, bad game design, and get back to good game design and helping each of us achieve that without condescension, belittling, or shaming anyone for wanting to make any money for our efforts, so long as we are being ethical about it.

That's where I'm at. I've looked into many of you and you're all such intelligent, lively, helful people, even the people that seem to be on the opposite side of this. So let me help end this by saying I'm grateful for the input of everyone who has managed to remain civil and the Stencyl community is better for having you here and willing to stand up for what you believe in.

Thank you very much and I hope we can all be friendly, if not friends, at this point. Take care folks. I think I've said all I can say. (Ha! Famous last words on the internet! ;D)
If I ever commission you for code work, please know that I understand how commissioning works. You must get paid first before you will code anything for me. Only once you are paid the agreed-upon price, will you begin coding for me. I respect artists and coders. You deserve to be paid for your hard efforts.

colburt187

  • *
  • Posts: 2389
Ah I see, well anyway it's been an interesting discussion,

In conclusion,

Definitely go with FGL to make the most money from sponsorship.

Blob

  • *
  • Posts: 722
Please don't misread my intentions, nobody should be offended by my post if they feel like the criticisms don't apply to them, none of my post was an accusation that people in this discussion adhere to what I was criticizing, it was just a cautionary tale of what does go on in the gaming industry.

The only part of my post that applied to people in the discussion was my distaste with straw man arguments being facilitated, which still persist. It is a straw man to say that I think anyone here is an evil stereotype who employs what I'm criticizing, I don't. It is a straw man to imply that I said you said you want to make bad products, I didn't. It's mislabeling me when you refer to my intentions as 'nanny' intentions when I don't believe in any government or 3rd-party  regulations over games. I am not accusing anyone here of being any kind of person, but I am certainly being accused of doing so. I don't want my points to lose validity because they're being taken personally.