Do you like Diablo 3?

[eRe4s3r]

Well I blame both equally but for different things ;p

Crusader Kings 2 is a ok I guess safe for the combat system which is why I don't play these games, but not a 3rd party game on Paradox. For their own games Paradox seems to actually (mostly) care now.

Speaking of Indy, thats a good point. I am not even sure what definition I mean, I just call them that because of their games ,) If we go by publisher then any game on Steam would not be indy. So clearly the definition is odd to begin with.

Anyhow... broken games released with full price are a sure fire way on my "gonna rant everywhere I go about that" list. And don't even get me started on the *design* flaws of SOTS2... 

[StevenPeeler]

Surprise posts ftw ,) Was it google alerts? ;P

I still have no idea what kind of game Drox is going to be so yeah..  any plans on more media releases when the beta comes (gameplay videos.. obviously ,p) ? And your own patching system?

It's usually google alerts, but in this case one of our gamers pointed out this thread.

We will probably release some videos and we will definitely release a demo at some point in time.

Currently our patching system is like it has been in the past. We can usually patch our games fairly often before we start getting on portals though.

[keith.lamothe]

Thanks for dropping by, Steven   I do recall DC patches coming pretty quick during its beta.  I have fond memories of that first beta version: it totally wiped the floor with me because the quest progression rate and such nerfs hadn't happened yet

@eRe4s3r:

Speaking of Indy, thats a good point. I am not even sure what definition I mean, I just call them that because of their games ,) If we go by publisher then any game on Steam would not be indy. So clearly the definition is odd to begin with.

That's another point of confusion: distributor != publisher.  Valve distributes our games, for instance, but they're certainly not publishing them   Similarly, iirc, the Paradox folks are behind GamersGate, but that doesn't mean Paradox (or GamersGate) is the publisher of all the stuff on there.  It's kind of like in retail: Walmart might be selling (distributing) a game, but aren't doing any publishing, etc.

[eRe4s3r]

What does publishing even mean? Honest question. If steam puts a game on their platform that's pretty much what I consider "publishing" or do you mean when someone invests money in a game (but then, that is not a publisher, but an investor..)

seems like that term came from an age when there were only brick stores. I would assume most "Indies" do not need retail sales at all. When they are on Steam, that is.

Or put differently, what does Paradox actually do?

[keith.lamothe]

Or put differently, what does Paradox actually do?

Their involvement in each of the games they're publishing (leaving aside the ones they develop internally) is probably different, but a few things that the "publisher role" can include that a distributor would not:

1) Being involved in decision making about what the game should be, specifically pre-release (and possibly before work really even starts at all).  This may or may not be a "publisher actually has the authority" situation, but it often is.

2) Provide upfront funding (this is generally very "expensive" money for the developer in terms of the publisher's corresponding cut of the actual revenue).

3) Do most/all of the actual advertising/promotion/etc.

4) Work out distributor agreements.  This used to be one of the most important parts: sure, you could develop a game, but how could you distribute it?  Walmart doesn't talk to indies, they talk to publishers.  Shareware/etc worked for some people, but it was hard to make a living.  This is less important now with digital distribution, but even there getting on steam is not an easy thing for an indie.  Having a publisher like Paradox behind you makes that a lot easier.

5) Own the intellectual property and/or rights to produce sequels/expansions/etc (which may or may not include rights to the "story" part of the IP, code technology, etc).


As you can imagine, having a publisher can be both a great enabler and an incredible frustration.  In theory it could be a great relationship if you were working with people with absolute integrity and who had confidence in you, but in practice there's a lot of... well, problems.  I don't want to turn this into a rant.  Your imagination suffices, I'm sure   There's a lot of indies out there, even among people who could get a publisher if they wanted one, and there's a reason for that.

[zebramatt]

The wikipedia article on the subject is unusually well referenced for its brevity.

Indie game developers are not financially backed by publishers and usually have little to no budget available,[7] thereby generally relying on Internet digital distribution schemes.[8] Being independent, indie developers do not have controlling interests[9] or creative limitations[10] and do not require publisher approval[11] as mainstream game developers usually do.[12] Design decisions are thus also not limited by the allocated budget.[13]

Actually, there are pretty strong parallels with book publishers or record labels.

[Hearteater]

Actually, there are pretty strong parallels with book publishers or record labels.

More than just parallels, book publishers, game publishers, and record labels are all pure, distilled evil.

[Wingflier]

I agree with Hearteater.  As soon as gaming development becomes a business, instead of a hobby that the developers get paid for, it typically becomes garbage (see Diablo 3).

This is how, with much smaller budgets and teams, Indie companies can make such superior games - we've been seeing a lot of this lately.

This pretty much goes for any aspect of life though.  When money is your first priority you've lost sight of what's really important as a person.

[keith.lamothe]

More than just parallels, book publishers, game publishers, and record labels are all pure, distilled evil.

I wouldn't go that far; I think that if the people involved are honestly trying to do the right thing and have adequate compentence in their own field and confidence in the competence of the other side, it could work out pretty well.  Though I think the amount of overhead reduces the potential, and once you get to a certain number of people having all those things true of all of them is quite rare.

So in practice the "good outcome" rarely happens, because people are generally used to just looking out for themselves and viewing business partners as a sort of mix between opportunity and threat.  Which leads to the actual developers (be they programmers or musicians or authors or whatever) getting really small royalty percentages, etc.

[Mánagarmr]

The disconnection is likely in the fact that publishers are businessmen and developers are loving artists and customer-focused. It leads to some rather funky things.

[Hearteater]

The problem with publishers is they were all created in an age of printed paper and vinyl.  Their business is designed to operate around those things.  Now we have electronic distribution, which reduces distribution costs to a tiny fraction.  Why are ebooks 8.99?  Because paper books are.  What are publishers doing about the changes in their industry?  Lobbying for laws, filing patents, and suing everyone they can to keep their outdated business model alive.  Because they would rather continue making the profits they make now by blocking all progress in their industry, than innovate themselves.  We have corporations large enough now, that it is more cost effective to destroy than create.  It used to be "innovate or die".  Now its "die innovators."

[eRe4s3r]

Speaking of pricing of e-books, I would never pay more than $4.99 for a book nowadays, that is, new freshly released ones. You can imagine where I have to get most of my (already in paper form owned) reading material and how much "new" stuff I buy. I have a kindle....

Because, let's be real. Most e-book versions of already existing books SUCK. Bad graphics, not adapted to the different readers, bad page flow..... Also when we come to trilogies (or worse) I would not even consider buying books singularly anymore.

[zespri]

I agree with Hearteater.  As soon as gaming development becomes a business, instead of a hobby that the developers get paid for, it typically becomes garbage (see Diablo 3).

Yep, Diablo 3 is very good game that is great fun to play - you should try it! 

[zespri]

Because, let's be real. Most e-book versions of already existing books SUCK. Bad graphics, not adapted to the different readers, bad page flow..... Also when we come to trilogies (or worse) I would not even consider buying books singularly anymore.

Yep, world is not there yet, but I think it will be. I got kindle last week, surely it's a nicer experience than reading from iPhone (which I have been doing last 2 years).

[Wingflier]

Yep, Diablo 3 is very good game that is great fun to play - you should try it! 

It's got a 4.0 from over 5,000 reviewers - most of these ex-Blizzard fanboys who were disgusted with the game.  Some people made an account just to say how awful it is.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

I could go into detail about why the game fails so miserably, but suffice it to say that Blizzard's greed has ruined any chance it had.

No, it's a shining example of what happens when profit becomes more important than gameplay (also League of Legends).