I thought it was like, a well-understood fact by now that most indie games on PC are sold at unsustainably low prices that make it very unlikely that you can recoup development costs (let alone fund a second project) without an outlier success?
Like, that’s just a statement of fact, I don’t get why we have those conversations periodically. The typical indie game is priced at 25-50% of what it should be on release and most people buy it on a desperation sale discount on top of that.
I don’t think that you can just make your game and multiply a “normal” price by 4 and sell it and expect to have a sustainable business; it’s more complicated than that.
But it’s very obvious that across the board, expectations are detached from reality.
I think most people who buy games on steam would be shocked at how few copies most games sell and how much they cost to make, really. If you ever played an indie game you really liked and wondered why there was never any follow-up from the same people... this is probably why.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
PS, I think folks are conflating a question of boundaries ("is strategic fluting okay") with one of game balance ("is strategic fluting overwhelming other strategies"), which is natural - strategies that are visibly aggressive often are "felt" by players more
cf stasis in destiny, where the sense of helplessness in being frozen definitely caused players to overestimate how powerful those abilities actually were [even if they were indeed overutned]
given the exploit it's really hard to say right now what the actual impact of strategic fluting is, and of course blaseball's deeply stochastic way of selecting outcomes will make it hard to see.
ftr I think saying "strategic fluting is cool actually" is unambiguously the right move, and I think the spikiness of that competitive aspect is what makes blaseball the splort we are all love
blaseball is all about catch-up mechanics and reversals, about the cruelty of random chance, and about so-called success being A Terrible Mistake; all of those themes are served by the ability of players to be sneaky and aggressive in how they play
and inasmuch as this stuff can cause imbalances I trust the game band to figure it out - again, the game is loaded with catch-up mechanics, much like how in real life the way to be a good sports team is to tank for those high draft picks (or is that just the nba?)
So I finally had a chance (over the last couple months) to play a Belonging Outside Belonging game and I think I get what people enjoy so much about them
one note though: I think I'd have gotten a clearer initial impression of what those games are like if instead of talking about "GMless games" we talked about "shared-GMing games"
Also, I don't know if this transposes to other games but the one I did play felt like it would benefit from more concrete and frankly prescriptive scenarios and character motivations; it felt very much like a batteries-not-included experience.
PS if you’re targeting English-language Steam users I don’t think there’s ever a reason to price your game lower than $5. It’s very dubious that you’ll get more sales at, say, $3.50.
If you want your game to be very accessible I’d actually look into making my game free (or free-to-play or free-to-try) before I’d consider a <$5 price point for a traditional downloadable game business model.
Obviously mileage may vary for different platforms, audiences, etc.
When you get into that very low price range, the biggest barrier to making a sale is “do I want to spend money at all, gotta get my credit card out and do this whole thing... ehnnnnn” and not the specific value.
Okay, sure, let's try a short explanation.
A 'block chain' is just a file structured in a special way. It holds an accounting ledger. Bitcoins exist only as values recorded on transactions on that ledger, much like how real money largely exists as numbers on bank ledgers.
It's a blockchain because new transactions are added to the ledger in blocks. Anyone can generate a block -- doing so is misleadingly called "mining," but it's really processing transactions.
At any given moment, millions of computers are trying to generate the next block on the chain. But only one will be the chosen one that actually becomes part of the "real" block chain, and therefore only its transactions will be considered valid and real.
see that's the thing about modern fascists -- it's not really possible to earnestly believe this shit any more; modernity won already. it's self-consciously a sort of atavistic pageant where they 'choose to believe' in the nonsense
the first go-round really did believe in volk and all that shit but the current crop doesn't have that option; they can only intellectually cling to a position that believing would be better
consider how jordan peterson is too much of a diminished little nub of a man to really talk about believing in witches and dragons; instead he has to have all those mental contortions to argue that believing in witches and dragons is good actually (but never that they exist)