Plan for Phil Carlisle
by Phil Carlisle · 12/13/2005 (10:25 am) · 25 comments
For those of you that dont know, one of my current projects is a World War Two themed Dogfighting game called Air Ace.
Air Ace is a reasonably large scale project which is based around two key technologies, the TSE shader engine (using Atlas terrain) and the Tango physics engine. These two factors are what lies at the heart of what is essentially quite a simple multiplayer dogfighting game.
Now I *know* fundamentally that Air Ace is going to be a great addictive game, based on the feedback and support from the great people of the Air Attack community (which is a game which predates Air Ace and from which we draw great inspiration for design elements).
So the big question on my mind, given that the execution of the game goes to plan, which is has to date. Is how to actually pay for and support the project.
The problem is that essentially, Air Ace is a very focussed niche kind of game. Which has its good and its bad points. On the good side, is that I very clearly know what game it is intended to end up as. The design is easy, the execution is relatively straightforward and the marketing within the niche should be reasonably easy to do.
The problem comes when I consider that 1) The niche we are serving might not be enough to support the game long-term 2) The niche might be shrinking or being fragmented 3) There is by definition a cap on the number of people within the niche to market to.
This begs the question, are there any other methods of releasing the game than the traditional box-product or paid-for-download that would make more sense?
Given that the long-term cost of hosting servers is a continual one, actually charging a one-time fee is a bad call. LORE has had some good support from its relatively few users, in terms of lorecon and such. But it has suffered in that the costs of keeping the game alive and playing has drained a lot of funds from the developers.
So to my mind, the recurring costs of keeping the product alive must be met by the players of the game somehow. So what possible models could we look at for funding?
1) Box product style one time payments
2) Recurring "subscription" based payments
3) One time fee plus additional funds for additional features and add-ons
4) An alternative method of funding altogether (in game advertising?)
5) An altogether different alternative
Now the box product model is out of the window realistically, for the reasons I already mentioned.
The subscription model is what the current market leaders such as Fighter Ace do, which is a sustainable model as long as the number of active subscriptions is greater than the costs of running servers and additional developments.
The one time fee plus additional add-ons has still the plus of getting some initial funds for the first play of the game, but then it becomes more speculative wether players pay for additional content. Plus players have certain mental expectations when they pay for products which might make charging for smaller feature additions a tough sell.
In game advertising offers an interesting alternative. However with the reduced funds being paid for online advertising in general and for most gaming sites, maybe this model isnt a good way of heading.
Then there is an altogether more radical approach. This is something I've been mulling over and trying to get a clear mental picture of. What if the game were given away for free? What if the revenue were generated via some other means? Would it be possible to figure out another method of generating revenue from the game? How about giving the client away for free, then charging people a minute amount to run an "official game server". That way, the people who host the game can pay a small amount in a recurring payment, but perhaps incorporate some kind of internal advertising model per-server which allows the hosts to advertise whatever products they like.
In essense, I'm saying shift the costs of hosting onto another organisation (one with more money and position for those kinds of things), but one that produces a minimal income stream to us as the developers. They return thier costs of hosting and paying for the server software by either charging players, or by using advertising within the game.
Another possible outfield sort of idea, is to simply make the game donation based. Place the onus on the players to keep the costs covered otherwise the thing dies. Doesnt seem like a nice prospect, allowing the game to die if a bunch of players cant get themselves organised to pay for it.
In the end, the speculative nature of the game means that it might even be worth trying out different methods of funding in order to secure its longer-term survival and future development.
I'd be happy to hear of any alternative funding models, especially if anyone has figures to support a given method. As it is, the actual delivery and update model of the game is still anyone's guess as we focus on getting the title shipped first and worry about the details later.
Its a good dilemma to have.
Air Ace is a reasonably large scale project which is based around two key technologies, the TSE shader engine (using Atlas terrain) and the Tango physics engine. These two factors are what lies at the heart of what is essentially quite a simple multiplayer dogfighting game.
Now I *know* fundamentally that Air Ace is going to be a great addictive game, based on the feedback and support from the great people of the Air Attack community (which is a game which predates Air Ace and from which we draw great inspiration for design elements).
So the big question on my mind, given that the execution of the game goes to plan, which is has to date. Is how to actually pay for and support the project.
The problem is that essentially, Air Ace is a very focussed niche kind of game. Which has its good and its bad points. On the good side, is that I very clearly know what game it is intended to end up as. The design is easy, the execution is relatively straightforward and the marketing within the niche should be reasonably easy to do.
The problem comes when I consider that 1) The niche we are serving might not be enough to support the game long-term 2) The niche might be shrinking or being fragmented 3) There is by definition a cap on the number of people within the niche to market to.
This begs the question, are there any other methods of releasing the game than the traditional box-product or paid-for-download that would make more sense?
Given that the long-term cost of hosting servers is a continual one, actually charging a one-time fee is a bad call. LORE has had some good support from its relatively few users, in terms of lorecon and such. But it has suffered in that the costs of keeping the game alive and playing has drained a lot of funds from the developers.
So to my mind, the recurring costs of keeping the product alive must be met by the players of the game somehow. So what possible models could we look at for funding?
1) Box product style one time payments
2) Recurring "subscription" based payments
3) One time fee plus additional funds for additional features and add-ons
4) An alternative method of funding altogether (in game advertising?)
5) An altogether different alternative
Now the box product model is out of the window realistically, for the reasons I already mentioned.
The subscription model is what the current market leaders such as Fighter Ace do, which is a sustainable model as long as the number of active subscriptions is greater than the costs of running servers and additional developments.
The one time fee plus additional add-ons has still the plus of getting some initial funds for the first play of the game, but then it becomes more speculative wether players pay for additional content. Plus players have certain mental expectations when they pay for products which might make charging for smaller feature additions a tough sell.
In game advertising offers an interesting alternative. However with the reduced funds being paid for online advertising in general and for most gaming sites, maybe this model isnt a good way of heading.
Then there is an altogether more radical approach. This is something I've been mulling over and trying to get a clear mental picture of. What if the game were given away for free? What if the revenue were generated via some other means? Would it be possible to figure out another method of generating revenue from the game? How about giving the client away for free, then charging people a minute amount to run an "official game server". That way, the people who host the game can pay a small amount in a recurring payment, but perhaps incorporate some kind of internal advertising model per-server which allows the hosts to advertise whatever products they like.
In essense, I'm saying shift the costs of hosting onto another organisation (one with more money and position for those kinds of things), but one that produces a minimal income stream to us as the developers. They return thier costs of hosting and paying for the server software by either charging players, or by using advertising within the game.
Another possible outfield sort of idea, is to simply make the game donation based. Place the onus on the players to keep the costs covered otherwise the thing dies. Doesnt seem like a nice prospect, allowing the game to die if a bunch of players cant get themselves organised to pay for it.
In the end, the speculative nature of the game means that it might even be worth trying out different methods of funding in order to secure its longer-term survival and future development.
I'd be happy to hear of any alternative funding models, especially if anyone has figures to support a given method. As it is, the actual delivery and update model of the game is still anyone's guess as we focus on getting the title shipped first and worry about the details later.
Its a good dilemma to have.
About the author
#2
Also, a lot of the more niche indie games (and higher quality like Lore) are going for 25 dollars these days. You might want to consider that as well.
12/13/2005 (11:01 am)
Have you thought about micropricing? Charge for decals or extra planes or guns or single-player levels. That way you can get more than the typical 20 or 25 dollars out of the consumers.Also, a lot of the more niche indie games (and higher quality like Lore) are going for 25 dollars these days. You might want to consider that as well.
#3
1) While I understand that your primary target audience may comprise a 'niche' market, I think you may be underestimating the potential appeal of the end product.
If memory serves, you had stated that there would be "easy, medium and hard" levels of flight control.
In my mind, this broadens your potential user base significantly. Hard core flight sim enthusiasts would be abe to enjoy the depth and complexity of a realistic flight model, while those with a taste for quick and easy action would be equally served.
Obviously, the 'niche' is your strongest asset when it comes to marketing and sales, but I'd see that as more of a launching point for the title, not necessarily the "be all end all".
Heck, I'm not much of a flight sim guy, but I plan to pick up a copy of Air Ace!
2) When discussing the overall costs of running a server, I'm a bit confused.
Are we talking a simple "master server" that lists all currently running game servers, or something a bit more "robust"?
I'm aware that the Lore servers track player scores or some such, which would invariably increase the overhead associated with storage and bandwidth, but depending on the size of your user base, how bad can it really be?
I don't know, maybe I'm just a bit "Old School", but I've never really seen the need nor had the desire to have my stats tracked on a master server, whether I'm completely lethal in the game in question, or cannon fodder. If the game is fun, it's fun, the rest is really just gravy anyway.
All of this is not to say that searching for alternative funding is moot, but I do think you may be underestimating the overall appeal of the title. (C;
12/13/2005 (11:11 am)
Phil, I have a few thoughts, but I may be operating under a misunderstanding about the nature of Air Ace.1) While I understand that your primary target audience may comprise a 'niche' market, I think you may be underestimating the potential appeal of the end product.
If memory serves, you had stated that there would be "easy, medium and hard" levels of flight control.
In my mind, this broadens your potential user base significantly. Hard core flight sim enthusiasts would be abe to enjoy the depth and complexity of a realistic flight model, while those with a taste for quick and easy action would be equally served.
Obviously, the 'niche' is your strongest asset when it comes to marketing and sales, but I'd see that as more of a launching point for the title, not necessarily the "be all end all".
Heck, I'm not much of a flight sim guy, but I plan to pick up a copy of Air Ace!
2) When discussing the overall costs of running a server, I'm a bit confused.
Are we talking a simple "master server" that lists all currently running game servers, or something a bit more "robust"?
I'm aware that the Lore servers track player scores or some such, which would invariably increase the overhead associated with storage and bandwidth, but depending on the size of your user base, how bad can it really be?
I don't know, maybe I'm just a bit "Old School", but I've never really seen the need nor had the desire to have my stats tracked on a master server, whether I'm completely lethal in the game in question, or cannon fodder. If the game is fun, it's fun, the rest is really just gravy anyway.
All of this is not to say that searching for alternative funding is moot, but I do think you may be underestimating the overall appeal of the title. (C;
#4
But there has to be some alternative. I know the players will play it. But how to actually make that viable for the product long-term is an interesting thing for me.
12/13/2005 (11:11 am)
Andy: the way I see it, is that asking for micropayments just wont fit into the american/european mentality the way it does in korea/china/japan. Europeans would see it as "nickel and diming". But there has to be some alternative. I know the players will play it. But how to actually make that viable for the product long-term is an interesting thing for me.
#5
Or... just make it into a Battle of Britan MMOG with ground combat too :)
Ladder and ranks is a must for long term online play. But then you have to worry about haxxorz and stuff.
Make it so where you can't just start in a Spit .. you have to start in a trainer and earn you way up to the elite aircraft.
Also some bombing with stats.. .maybe a world map that tracks the war. Add a little python middleware like MoM...
12/13/2005 (12:03 pm)
Hum, do it like BF2. Charge for the client.. You and others deserve some cash. Then give away server. Let them pay for running servers if they want to. Or... just make it into a Battle of Britan MMOG with ground combat too :)
Ladder and ranks is a must for long term online play. But then you have to worry about haxxorz and stuff.
Make it so where you can't just start in a Spit .. you have to start in a trainer and earn you way up to the elite aircraft.
Also some bombing with stats.. .maybe a world map that tracks the war. Add a little python middleware like MoM...
#6
I'm personally on the fence regarding in-game advertising. As long as you control the level of the advertisments, and make them relevant in game (ex. era-specific coca cola ads :), it might be cool.
You no doubt have a good niche to follow into, so I think as long as you create an envireonment that can encourage players to fork over more cash I'm sure you'll be fine ;)
12/13/2005 (12:07 pm)
I don't know what game mode structure your'e planning for the game (single player campaign, multiplayer only, etc.), but would having episodic content be a viable option for funding? If you were doing content that would be difficult for the community to do successfully interms of missions, levels and so on, you have the potential to keep offering more to keep players interested. You did mention add-ons for the game as not being a necessarily reliable form of stable cashflow, but do you lose much by having that as an option, outside of time spent on creating the new content? I'm personally on the fence regarding in-game advertising. As long as you control the level of the advertisments, and make them relevant in game (ex. era-specific coca cola ads :), it might be cool.
You no doubt have a good niche to follow into, so I think as long as you create an envireonment that can encourage players to fork over more cash I'm sure you'll be fine ;)
#7
This is what I saw him do:
-Charge a full retail price for each major version($50 or so)
-Provide tools for users to create and sell their own airplanes, scenery, and plugins
-Provide frequent free updates for each major version
-Release a new major version each year or so.
12/13/2005 (12:44 pm)
Have you looked at the way X-Plane's developer (Austin Meyer) has kept it alive for so long, even though its a niche product?This is what I saw him do:
-Charge a full retail price for each major version($50 or so)
-Provide tools for users to create and sell their own airplanes, scenery, and plugins
-Provide frequent free updates for each major version
-Release a new major version each year or so.
#8
If the players run the servers themselves, then there is little cost, aside from the master server. If you are stat tracking, you can have the stats uploaded to a database after each game, if you have web hosting (assuming you're not hosting it yourself) for your game and or company, you likely have some sort of database that you're already paying for.
12/13/2005 (1:08 pm)
If you could list what residual costs you are concerned with, we as a community, could likely come up with a few solutions for them. If the players run the servers themselves, then there is little cost, aside from the master server. If you are stat tracking, you can have the stats uploaded to a database after each game, if you have web hosting (assuming you're not hosting it yourself) for your game and or company, you likely have some sort of database that you're already paying for.
#9
Do not dismiss Andy's suggest as "micro pricing" or nickel and diming. If done properly, you can get users who are into the game to buy "upgrades" that have zero impact on the actual gameplay. To expand on his idea, a great way to raise money would be to sell customized skins, logos, and emblems for the aircraft. As a flight sim, your biggest fans will be forming virtual squadrons, and you can both cater to them (and make them feel good) as well as make some serious money off them by selling them the ability to skin their squadron planes how they want.
$50 to add a squadron and then $5 to register a player as a squad member is easily covered by the players, but could very easily mean several thousand a year. Support for that would mean that your game servers would need to keep and distribute new "skins" automatically.
As more of a global approach, I'd suggest that you give the entire game away for free. Dark Horizons kinda sucks because there is NEVER anyone playing it. You need to get people in to your servers to make the game fun (This is a problem in general with multiplayer indie games). The best way to do that is tons of marketing and a free game. Get people in, show them its fun, and then try to get money out of them for upgrades to their play experience:
1. Charge a reasonable yearly fee to create a permament login that will track stats and allow for a "bio". (You should probably not offer monthly at all.. advertise the price as like ONLY $2.50 per month!!! but don't give an option to pay just $2. Make them pay the entire $30 for a year whether they use it or not).
2. Offer extra add-ons like access to a few special planes. Just make sure they don't unbalance the game... choose planes that are specialists, and can be beat, but that fit a certain style, like the P-49 (a super tough bruiser/zoomer, but a crap turner) or the FW190D9 (great cannon, fast a climber, but again can't turn).
3. Offer pay per play events (tourneys). A couple times a month pick a time when most of your players are on and host tourneys and give some small prizes (tshirts, mugs, aviator wings). Run events like free-for-all furballs, squad based tourneys, 2v2 tourneys, Smear the Queer, and any other game types you can come up with. Charge a very small fee to join, like $1. If you are proactive with these you can very easily turn in a nice little chunk of change each month.
4. Play a lot of fighter ace and copy them ;)
12/13/2005 (1:49 pm)
As someone who has run a game that was based off of a subscription/donation model, I can tell you that it is tricky. However, having a "donation" system where players are able to buy upgrades/rewards can very potentially boost the game into making considerable money (It can also kill it eventually if the "haves" end up dominating the "have-nots"). I tried to base my revenue model off of subscriptions, but ended up making 10 times more from donations. By giving players extra "perks" for more money sent, I also ended up with a culture where people would form donation "pools" to reach that magical $1k mark for full bonuses. Just be careful that you never end up in a spot where players have to donate to compete.Do not dismiss Andy's suggest as "micro pricing" or nickel and diming. If done properly, you can get users who are into the game to buy "upgrades" that have zero impact on the actual gameplay. To expand on his idea, a great way to raise money would be to sell customized skins, logos, and emblems for the aircraft. As a flight sim, your biggest fans will be forming virtual squadrons, and you can both cater to them (and make them feel good) as well as make some serious money off them by selling them the ability to skin their squadron planes how they want.
$50 to add a squadron and then $5 to register a player as a squad member is easily covered by the players, but could very easily mean several thousand a year. Support for that would mean that your game servers would need to keep and distribute new "skins" automatically.
As more of a global approach, I'd suggest that you give the entire game away for free. Dark Horizons kinda sucks because there is NEVER anyone playing it. You need to get people in to your servers to make the game fun (This is a problem in general with multiplayer indie games). The best way to do that is tons of marketing and a free game. Get people in, show them its fun, and then try to get money out of them for upgrades to their play experience:
1. Charge a reasonable yearly fee to create a permament login that will track stats and allow for a "bio". (You should probably not offer monthly at all.. advertise the price as like ONLY $2.50 per month!!! but don't give an option to pay just $2. Make them pay the entire $30 for a year whether they use it or not).
2. Offer extra add-ons like access to a few special planes. Just make sure they don't unbalance the game... choose planes that are specialists, and can be beat, but that fit a certain style, like the P-49 (a super tough bruiser/zoomer, but a crap turner) or the FW190D9 (great cannon, fast a climber, but again can't turn).
3. Offer pay per play events (tourneys). A couple times a month pick a time when most of your players are on and host tourneys and give some small prizes (tshirts, mugs, aviator wings). Run events like free-for-all furballs, squad based tourneys, 2v2 tourneys, Smear the Queer, and any other game types you can come up with. Charge a very small fee to join, like $1. If you are proactive with these you can very easily turn in a nice little chunk of change each month.
4. Play a lot of fighter ace and copy them ;)
#10
12/13/2005 (1:51 pm)
Incidentally, I forgot to ask you - WTH is the "Tango" physics engine? =\
#11
WWII planes went through a LOT of versions, and this can help you with limited art resources, as you can take the same basic model and version it out into a bunch of different planes relatively easily, and just adjust performance and weapon loadout.
The spitfire alone went from the Mark I in the Battle of Britian through to like the XIX end of war model. There were a couple wing redesigns in there, but the Mark I - VIII were all the basic same airframe just with better engines and improved guns. Same goes for the P-51, the Me109, FW190s, and the majority of the rest.
You could leverage this by giving away all the base model planes. Subscribers then get access to the later marks, perhaps doubling or tripling the available planes to them.
Now obviously this will involve a lot more art work on your end (model tweaks, skinning), but could very well be worth it. Especially since flight sim nuts tend to be like car nuts who love Gran Tourismo just for the fact that you can drive like 300 different cars.
12/13/2005 (1:56 pm)
PS - For another idea on the subscription "upgrade"...WWII planes went through a LOT of versions, and this can help you with limited art resources, as you can take the same basic model and version it out into a bunch of different planes relatively easily, and just adjust performance and weapon loadout.
The spitfire alone went from the Mark I in the Battle of Britian through to like the XIX end of war model. There were a couple wing redesigns in there, but the Mark I - VIII were all the basic same airframe just with better engines and improved guns. Same goes for the P-51, the Me109, FW190s, and the majority of the rest.
You could leverage this by giving away all the base model planes. Subscribers then get access to the later marks, perhaps doubling or tripling the available planes to them.
Now obviously this will involve a lot more art work on your end (model tweaks, skinning), but could very well be worth it. Especially since flight sim nuts tend to be like car nuts who love Gran Tourismo just for the fact that you can drive like 300 different cars.
#12
I would suggest 5) Drop me a mail and I'll explain the method. Did already talk to Jeff about this and he suggested me to talk to you :-)
Martin
12/13/2005 (2:06 pm)
Phil, don't do it donation based. It doesn't pay off!I would suggest 5) Drop me a mail and I'll explain the method. Did already talk to Jeff about this and he suggested me to talk to you :-)
Martin
#13
I feel that Air Ace is not as niche as you might think. I highly recommend charging the single player client in the $20 neighborhood. I would NOT suggest paying for multiplayer hosting yourself. Instead, consider offering a free server version of the multiplayer engine. Let the Air Ace enthusiasts host it themselves for their friends (all buying single player licenses).
Then, promote the game as much as you can. Post links, submit for game reviews, anything you can to get the word out. It seems to me that 90% of a games success is based on reaching the buyers. Once the purchases start rolling in, start working on Air Ace 2 (Battle over the Pacific) - just a thought for the theme. Anyway, add more models, textures, gameplay, etc. and depending upon the success of Air Ace 1, consider paying for mulitplayer hosting. Then organize hosting related events, like tournaments and competitions with 'buy-ins'.
As a business person, I feel that this approach best mitigates your loss risk. I definitely would avoid the donation approach. In any case, I'm certainly waiting to buy my copy. Good Luck!
12/13/2005 (2:42 pm)
Phil,I feel that Air Ace is not as niche as you might think. I highly recommend charging the single player client in the $20 neighborhood. I would NOT suggest paying for multiplayer hosting yourself. Instead, consider offering a free server version of the multiplayer engine. Let the Air Ace enthusiasts host it themselves for their friends (all buying single player licenses).
Then, promote the game as much as you can. Post links, submit for game reviews, anything you can to get the word out. It seems to me that 90% of a games success is based on reaching the buyers. Once the purchases start rolling in, start working on Air Ace 2 (Battle over the Pacific) - just a thought for the theme. Anyway, add more models, textures, gameplay, etc. and depending upon the success of Air Ace 1, consider paying for mulitplayer hosting. Then organize hosting related events, like tournaments and competitions with 'buy-ins'.
As a business person, I feel that this approach best mitigates your loss risk. I definitely would avoid the donation approach. In any case, I'm certainly waiting to buy my copy. Good Luck!
#15
12/13/2005 (3:57 pm)
I think you should have a look at how the webcomic guys are making it pay. Though I would bear in mind that for most, it doesnt. Have a chat with Howard Taylor over at http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ , really nice guy, very approachable. He recently'ish left Novell to do the webcomic thang, and seems to be doing great. I dont need to mention Penny Arcade or PvP, do I?
#16
I particularly like the idea of micro payments for special bonuses. For a game such as airace this would fit in very well. With custom plane logos and the like.
With an fps its a bit different though, but i shall definetely investigate those sort of options.
In game advertising is also another area worth looking into. Though for a game such as airace where would they advertise without spoiling the era .
12/13/2005 (6:45 pm)
This is a very interesting thread. After the initial launch of illumina i to plan on investigating multiple revenue streams.I particularly like the idea of micro payments for special bonuses. For a game such as airace this would fit in very well. With custom plane logos and the like.
With an fps its a bit different though, but i shall definetely investigate those sort of options.
In game advertising is also another area worth looking into. Though for a game such as airace where would they advertise without spoiling the era .
#17
This is the same approach that Dark Horizons tried, and IMO it hasn't been going so well (although without knowing sales numbers I'm only guessing). All I do know, is that being unable to find people online has made me stop playing it. You'd probably be better off asking the DH:L team about how it went, but from what I saw, releasing at $20 at marketing may still not get you the critical mass of online players you are looking for.
@all,
I think the question you really have to look at, is how many active players do you need to always have 100 people online flying on a couple different servers at all times?
You have 168 hours a week to cover, with an average player maybe putting in 2 hours a week (all those 40 hour a week guys will be canceled out by the mass of 30 minutes per week guys pretty easily). So you're looking at needing ~8500 active players in any given week to keep your servers busy and the game going strong. Now I'm pulling these numbers completely out of my butt, so probably multiply by that by two... (and that is still a completely random number I'm making up, but hopefully you get where I'm going with that).
Getting 8,000 total active players is hard enough as it is. Getting 8,000 to pony up $20 is even harder. Free at least makes getting those easier... and then once you *DO* have that many, getting money out of just 10% of them will keep you rolling.
An incredible 5,000 sales will net your $100,000... once
1,000 subscriptions per year at $30 will net you $30,000... every year... while giving you the chance to grow that number and augment it with things like pay tournies and donations.
12/13/2005 (7:19 pm)
@John K,This is the same approach that Dark Horizons tried, and IMO it hasn't been going so well (although without knowing sales numbers I'm only guessing). All I do know, is that being unable to find people online has made me stop playing it. You'd probably be better off asking the DH:L team about how it went, but from what I saw, releasing at $20 at marketing may still not get you the critical mass of online players you are looking for.
@all,
I think the question you really have to look at, is how many active players do you need to always have 100 people online flying on a couple different servers at all times?
You have 168 hours a week to cover, with an average player maybe putting in 2 hours a week (all those 40 hour a week guys will be canceled out by the mass of 30 minutes per week guys pretty easily). So you're looking at needing ~8500 active players in any given week to keep your servers busy and the game going strong. Now I'm pulling these numbers completely out of my butt, so probably multiply by that by two... (and that is still a completely random number I'm making up, but hopefully you get where I'm going with that).
Getting 8,000 total active players is hard enough as it is. Getting 8,000 to pony up $20 is even harder. Free at least makes getting those easier... and then once you *DO* have that many, getting money out of just 10% of them will keep you rolling.
An incredible 5,000 sales will net your $100,000... once
1,000 subscriptions per year at $30 will net you $30,000... every year... while giving you the chance to grow that number and augment it with things like pay tournies and donations.
#18
I completely agree with your statement and you presented a great breakdown. Remember that net numbers are closer to half - GG publishing terms returns 65% to the game developer. Selling 5,000 units will net closer to $65,000.
The big question is, How dependent is the game upon other users? If there is solid AI in the game, enough for it to stand alone, then multiplayer can be considered a value add - and you can get away with a bigger price tag. If the game has little/no AI and depends upon other players to present the challenge, then you definitely need a low/no price tag.
If I were in this situation and was dependant upon multiple users playing it, I would probably price the game as a quarterly subscription at $4.95 a quarter. I would probably take payments through Paypal (offers easy subscription billing). When users buy the game via Paypal, their name/passwors/date are stored in a MySQL database that you setup. Each time the game is started, it queries the database over HTTP to see if they are within the 3 month window - if so, the game starts, if not, they are prompted to pay. That just leaves setting up the server infrastructure, which would require some seed funding.
So - 5,000 purchases at $4.95 each quarter should gross $99,000 every year and net closer to $64,350 pre-tax. I really doubt that donations would measure up and it would be really hard to line up any new in-game advertising without a pre-existing track record.
12/13/2005 (8:40 pm)
Barry,I completely agree with your statement and you presented a great breakdown. Remember that net numbers are closer to half - GG publishing terms returns 65% to the game developer. Selling 5,000 units will net closer to $65,000.
The big question is, How dependent is the game upon other users? If there is solid AI in the game, enough for it to stand alone, then multiplayer can be considered a value add - and you can get away with a bigger price tag. If the game has little/no AI and depends upon other players to present the challenge, then you definitely need a low/no price tag.
If I were in this situation and was dependant upon multiple users playing it, I would probably price the game as a quarterly subscription at $4.95 a quarter. I would probably take payments through Paypal (offers easy subscription billing). When users buy the game via Paypal, their name/passwors/date are stored in a MySQL database that you setup. Each time the game is started, it queries the database over HTTP to see if they are within the 3 month window - if so, the game starts, if not, they are prompted to pay. That just leaves setting up the server infrastructure, which would require some seed funding.
So - 5,000 purchases at $4.95 each quarter should gross $99,000 every year and net closer to $64,350 pre-tax. I really doubt that donations would measure up and it would be really hard to line up any new in-game advertising without a pre-existing track record.
#19
This game is going to sell IF there are in fact people out there who want to play this type of game, whether they currently know it or not. 2 levels is enough for anyone to know if they are interested in this game. You get then on 2 levels, levels that blow them away but are not the best levels you have in store, and they will buy the game. This game is a head slapper obvious success waiting to happen... as long as there is an audience. There is always the weird chance that the audience doesn't exist anymore. Not a high percentage chance, but it's possible.
I have been blowing the horn about your game for a while now. You don't have anywhere but up to go with this game. Shoot for the sky. Don't take the timid way with this game. It's as good of a game idea as they come. The TSE looks gorgeous and you have one of those few games being made that have that next exciting level of cool look to them. You know, like Doom3 and Gears of War. Air Ace doesn't have that much actual content to slow the thing down so you can make it all look so f'ing cool that I think potential players will be suprised and excited to play the newest cool looking flight game. TSE can go toe to toe with Doom3 and Unreal3 in visual quality and Air Ace can too. You may not have the $50 million budget, but your game content doesn't require squeezing every single scene with as much shit as possible. You game is about the open air and fast paced dog fights. This has retro next gen written all over it. You can do it man. I know you will!!!
That's just my 2 cents.
Anton Bursch
EDIT: sorry, i was logged in as The Weekly Plan Highlights
12/13/2005 (10:22 pm)
I have only one thing to say about the salebility of Air Ace. Put out a freeware 2 level version. Don't call it a demo, call it a freeware pre-release version of the game. People aren't trying out the game to see if it's worth buying. They are getting a free version while you are completely the full version. You put a link to your website which has frequent screenshots and facts about each new and exciting level that you are making to get the drool going for the players. In fact, you put a screenshot and a link in the main menu page just like the MMOs do now days. This game is going to sell IF there are in fact people out there who want to play this type of game, whether they currently know it or not. 2 levels is enough for anyone to know if they are interested in this game. You get then on 2 levels, levels that blow them away but are not the best levels you have in store, and they will buy the game. This game is a head slapper obvious success waiting to happen... as long as there is an audience. There is always the weird chance that the audience doesn't exist anymore. Not a high percentage chance, but it's possible.
I have been blowing the horn about your game for a while now. You don't have anywhere but up to go with this game. Shoot for the sky. Don't take the timid way with this game. It's as good of a game idea as they come. The TSE looks gorgeous and you have one of those few games being made that have that next exciting level of cool look to them. You know, like Doom3 and Gears of War. Air Ace doesn't have that much actual content to slow the thing down so you can make it all look so f'ing cool that I think potential players will be suprised and excited to play the newest cool looking flight game. TSE can go toe to toe with Doom3 and Unreal3 in visual quality and Air Ace can too. You may not have the $50 million budget, but your game content doesn't require squeezing every single scene with as much shit as possible. You game is about the open air and fast paced dog fights. This has retro next gen written all over it. You can do it man. I know you will!!!
That's just my 2 cents.
Anton Bursch
EDIT: sorry, i was logged in as The Weekly Plan Highlights
#20
If you can sell the game that way, it'd probably do well.
12/14/2005 (1:05 am)
People love attaching identity to their avatars. Proof of this: Second Life, Gunbound, Gaia...if they can get in for free, but getting an "advantage" or a certain look will cost them time or money, inevitably some players will choose money over time and that's where you can get your funding.If you can sell the game that way, it'd probably do well.
Torque 3D Owner Todd Pickens
Fantastic!
I use to carve WW1 era planes out of pencils with spinning propellers, paint and all. I think my sister still has one of them.
The old Red Baron vector graphics arcade game is my #2 all time favorite behind another even older vector graphics game, the name of which I don't recall, but it was a top down sword fighting game.
I haven't played Air ace, but all I read about it is good things.
I would love to volunteer to help with art on this, but I am not sure whats on my plate following the RTS environment pack I am wrapping up.