How to measure a game success ?

[silva]

Occluded Sun: thats my line of reasoning too. A game can be a great market product, yet be poor as a piece of design. And vice-versa.

About Kult, I don't know it well, but from what I hear about it, yeah, it could be considered a successful game even if not succeeding financially.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

By what metric would you determine that a game actually is pearls before swine, however?

[silva]

Pearls before swine ? Sorry, don't know what that means. Non-native speaker here.

By the way, I would rate the Star Wars license being nicely represented in the tabletop environment, since all 3 games (weg's, saga, eote) look reasonably well designed and succeed in pleasing their target crowd.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

It means an object of great value, presented before a mass audience that cannot appreciate said value. IE, a pig wouldn't recognize the value of pearls, they would just be so much oyster smegma as far as they could tell.

So, this theoretical game that is of immaculate design and great play value, that cannot be appreciated by the Paizo loving hordes (or any other given cash cow of the hobby), could be said to be "pearls before swine".

[ACOS]

So, this theoretical game that is of immaculate design and great play value, that cannot be appreciated by the Paizo loving hordes

Be careful - that kind of coyness is liable to launch him in to another BearWorld sales pitch.

---

Succeeding at your intended design goals and pleasing your target crowd

Look silva, all these other goals sound all feel-good and high-minded; but as end-goals, it's bunk. There are 2 possible end goals: money and/or prestige. And many times people are willing to trade one for the other.
The reason a maker of games wants to get critical acclaim is that (1) it feeds their ego, and (2) it motivates people to throw money at you.
The reason a maker of games is concerned with design innovation is (1) bragging rights (ego), and (2) to give people an reason to want to throw their money at them.
"Succeeding at intended design goals" is inanely vapid - the design goals are there as a means of establishing value so that people will throw money at it. "Pleasing your target crowd" is simply a means of convincing them to throw money and/or acclaim at you - otherwise you wouldn't wouldn't be releasing it for public consumption.
Are you starting to notice a trend here?

And as much as some people might try to tell you otherwise, neither money nor prestige are bad motivations. Otherwise, having a job or friends would be bad things. Profit is objectively a good thing.

Also, fuck Ron Edwards - that guy is a tool, and his sycophants are douchebags. The fact that anyone is still talking about him in 2014 with anything other than disdain or pity is just mind-boggling.

[momothefiddler]

I don't suppose it comes up much in the realm of published games, but I would dare to guess that some people make a game because they want to play that game themselves, which I'd argue is separate from money or prestige.

[ACOS]

I don't suppose it comes up much in the realm of published games, but I would dare to guess that some people make a game because they want to play that game themselves, which I'd argue is separate from money or prestige.

Yes indeed.
However, why put it out for public consumption if it is only meant for you and your circle of friends?

I'm not saying that the bar for money or ego has to be set very high, but as soon as you put it out there, a bar has been set.

[momothefiddler]

I don't suppose it comes up much in the realm of published games, but I would dare to guess that some people make a game because they want to play that game themselves, which I'd argue is separate from money or prestige.

Yes indeed.
However, why put it out for public consumption if it is only meant for you and your circle of friends?

I'm not saying that the bar for money or ego has to be set very high, but as soon as you put it out there, a bar has been set.

Eh. I once wrote a song for someone and then I was like hey maybe other people would like it too so I slapped a copyleft on it and put it on the internet. Point being, sharing a game would be far less work than making one, so there's a chance someone could make a game for themselves and then share it so other people could enjoy it.

...but yeah, the likelihood of that happening without any desire for prestige is pretty low.

[magnuskn]

The company might do better on paper next year - by not having to spend so much overhead. But they don't have any secret weapons left so their actual sales will go down (and you can't actually make up for this by just doing more price rises). 40k is not a success. It was once successful, but now it is a rotting hulk, sitting in Britain even as zealots all around worship it without realising it is dead, and more and more people turn apostate. 40k is in fact its own Emperor.

So, how many years down the line until they are financially desperate enough to advance the timeline? ^^

[Maxus]

Fuck that. They'll reduce prices on their minis to a quarter of their current before they make a plot change.

[Mistborn]

Yeah I don't see Games Workshop advancing the WH 40K plot line at all, no matter how grim the darkness of the near future looks for the company.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I dunno, they just did a pretty big plot advance for fantasy. If that works out, I don't see why they wouldn't do something similar for 40K.

[silva]

I don't suppose it comes up much in the realm of published games, but I would dare to guess that some people make a game because they want to play that game themselves, which I'd argue is separate from money or prestige.

Bingo!

Most creation processes begin as a desire from the author to produce something he would like to consume himself. This applies to music, movies, books, games, art, etc. Market considerations come after, and could even be said to be peripherical to it most of times - thats why its not uncommon to see criticcally aclaimed products not selling well and vice-versa. The exception is products "made by comittee" but even then, when it gets out of the comittee room its delivered to an author who will pretty much create something he would like to consume in the first place (even if more or less constrained by the comittee parameters).

Gygax and Arneson created D&D because they envisioned a kind of game they would like to play. The fact it was a successful market product later is a consequence, not the drive of its creation. Greg Stafford created Glorantha, White Bear and Red Moon, Runequest and Pendragon because thats the kind of setting and games he appreciates to read about and play. Warren Spector created Ultima Underworld, Thief, Deus Ex and System Shock because immersive first-person games is what he dreamed about when he put his head on the pillow when he was 13. The Black Isle crew put forth Planescape Torment because they loved the setting and would like to see it in a videogame. Quentin Tarantino created Reservoir Dogs because he is nuts, not because he is a market visionary.

Some of these works were huge financial successes, other were failures, but all this is besides the point. And the point here is: with rare exceptions, what drives creation, at least if we consider the more relevant works in any hobby, is personal vision and impetus, not market. In fact, if nothing else market as a force does more harm than help to creation process, as proved by the mass-consumption of crap works like Call of Duties.

So, I suggest we take market consideration out of the equation for the discussion, or assign it as a variable with very low weight.

[momothefiddler]

I don't suppose it comes up much in the realm of published games

---

If you think there's any pleasure to be gained in playing, say, Deus Ex once you've spent however long writing, animating, coding, etc. the damn thing, you obviously have no idea how video games get made. Dali never went "Gee, I sure wish I could buy a picture of melty clocks to hang on my wall and look at, but I keep going to the store and not seeing one. I guess I'll just draw my own." People make tools for their own use, but they make art for others' consumption.

...Which I think leads me to an important point. When people write game systems for their own use, the system isn't actually the finished product. The games played are. And if you view a game system (and/or setting and/or plot and/or campaign etc.) as an artistic product rather than a creative tool, I don't want to play with you because you're going to be a godawful railroady bore.

I think rather than comparing non-profitable game systems to non-profitable paintings, we should be comparing them to non-profitable computer code. If you write something because you want that functionality, and you don't care about prestige or money from it, you have some incentive to make it freely available if that means other people with appropriate expertise have the opportunity to use it themselves and to improve it for you.

Fan-collaboration ttrpgs aren't symphonies - those are the campaigns themselves. Fan-collaboration ttrpgs are open-source software.

And now I've been rambling long enough that something here's probably way off but in my initial post I in no way meant to imply that games magically make money if that's not the goal, or even that they "should", whatever that means.

[silva]

If you think there's any pleasure to be gained in playing, say, Deus Ex once you've spent however long writing, animating, coding, etc. the damn thing, you obviously have no idea how video games get made.

If you think my point has anything to do with playing a game after spending time writing it, you didnt get my point at all.

An artist creates things the kind of which he likes to consume - a songwriter writes a blues song because thats the genre of music that inspires him. A videogame creator develops a flight simulator because the genre or premise of simulation excites him somehow. Etc, etc, etc.

The very eternal discussion for improving D&D3e on this forum is the perfect example of this. I bet that, if given enough resources, the first thing most people here would like to create is a "perfect" edition of D&D3e. Not because they want to make money out of it, nor because they want "prestige", but because D&D3e is the work that inspires and fascinates them somehow and they would like to see it improved. Simple as that. (I feel the same about Shadowrun, mind you, I would suport any KS that aimed to build it system from the ground up with the right premises and design goals, but thats another story).

About making it for other people comsumption, yeah I agree. But that is not related necessarily to making money. Kickstarter projects are proof of this - the backers want to finance something for their own and other peoples use, not to make money out of it. And the same is true for various kickstarters authors themselves, who dont get any significant proft from their projects.

[momothefiddler]

If you think there's any pleasure to be gained in playing, say, Deus Ex once you've spent however long writing, animating, coding, etc. the damn thing, you obviously have no idea how video games get made.

If you think my point has anything to do with playing a game after spending time writing it, you didnt get my point at all.

Then you missed my point in my initial post. I said that some people write ttrpgs in order to play them. I suppose your comment - that people write ttrpgs of the style they would like to play - isn't false, but I now see where the disconnect is. All of the ttrpg projects I've been involved in were because I had some interest not in creating something in the style I like, but because I wanted to use that finished product. Yes, artists produce things that are like things they like. That's... true, if trivially so.

I don't know how Kickstarter comes into it, though. I back Kickstarters because I want the finished product. It's a group-funded commission. "I will pay you to make this thing and give it to me."

[silva]

Oh I got it now. Yeah, I missed your initial point. Thanks for clarifying, momo.

[Slade]

40K only has one movie that I am aware of, which is in the category of not very terrible, at least IMO.

What they do have (and had) a bevy of quality computer games. Fuck, I got into the hobby because of Dark Omen.

DnD used to have good computer games under its belt. The best of which came out slightly before, or during 3e. Don't you think there can be a correlation between 3e's popularity and the success of Baldurs gate and Neverwinter series?

When was the last game under the DnD brand released? What was the last successful one?

I thought Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 1 and 2 were good (well Console) games.
Both were successful (though 2 was considered not as good at one).

Neverwinter Nights 2 (2006)? It was a success.

Is the MMORPG Neverwinter a success: I really can't tell.

[Occluded Sun]

The first rule of tautology club is primary. The second rule of tautology club is secondary.

Look, there's nothing that says a niche product can't be profitable, but in absolute numbers its ability to make money will be limited. Lots of people aren't interested in making profit as such - they want to make certain amounts of money.

Hasbro wanting D&D to turn an amount of profit is a good example.

[fectin]

Look, there's nothing that says a niche product can't be profitable, but in absolute numbers its ability to make money will be limited.

Like yachts.

[Occluded Sun]

Exactly. You can dominate the entire yacht market, but that total market isn't all that huge. You can make a good profit on yachts, but you can't expand to form a mega-corporation on yachts.