Right now my current fixation with Believer is less about level design (I'll get back to it when I feel like it) but about the things that actually matter to a game's success, which is to say marketing and monetization. I've already talked about monetization here, but it occurs to me that if I actually want this game to see a substantial audience (which I do), then I need to start actually thinking about how I present this. For a start, I cannot go to Tumblr alone for this, Tumblr is a notoriously bad place to market a game on, unless you are already someone with a pretty substantial following. I will thus be using this place as more of a testbed for ideas that could potentially work before i switch to, (sigh), other platforms.
Hey, I don't have a screenshot for #ScreenshotSaturday because honestly I'd been losing energy for the project after a bit of exhaustion with it. The way I roll, I tend to hyperfocus on things for months before crashing hard, so I've been trying to be kind to myself and let things happen as they happen. I have a really good thing going with this project, so it's going to stay on my mind, and I promise you I will come back to it in full force at some point.
That said though, a thing that's had me actually a little bit energized about Project Believer again is asking myself about its monetization. I know, right? But anyway, let me cut to the chase:
The first half of Project Believer will be free, and the second half will be paid.
So like, monetization is often a necessary evil of game development. It's not why I do it, and I never want it to be why I do it, but ultimately a dev's gotta eat. Now, I'm in a position of privilege as I live with my parents, but the thing about gamedev is that despite being fun it is still work. Money is a social construct, it only exists because millennia ago some humans decided it would be a good idea for money to exist. So any transaction raises questions about value and if something is "really worth it." This is especially prominent with piracy in the mix; I am well aware that any money I make off this game, however I monetize it, will be the result of player generosity.
So there's this game I've been playing, right, it's a mobile score attack game called Dungeon Cards. It's a genuinely well-designed game, a lovely example of dual-purpose design, but what's important for this conversation is how it's monetized. In a run of Dungeon Cards, you're trying to collect as much gold as possible. Getting a high score is how you unlock more things, but you can also spend the gold on upgrades between runs. And the cool thing to me is that after a run, you can choose to double the payout you get, in exchange for watching an ad. This doesn't double your score, you still have to play well to unlock cool stuff, but this lets you upgrade yourself faster. I have never, before this game, been excited at the prospect of watching an ad. But it honestly feels good, especially after a really good run. I find myself willing to watch ads when it isn't forced on me.
Obviously different people are going to have different thresholds for what's okay, but to me it's less about the specific acts of monetization and more about the message it sends. I am well aware as a player that Anna Mikhailova, lead developer of this game, needs to make money, and that ads are part of that. Merely rewarding ads rather than forcing them signals to me the desire to compromise, to make an informed transaction.
Any monetization model a gamedev uses will send its own message to players. A flat cost up front will signal a belief that the game simply deserves to be paid for up front. This is risky on two fronts, as it's easy to set an honestly fair price that audiences find extortionate, but it's also easy to underprice and make way less than you probably should have. And either way it raises the inevitable question of how much a game is "really worth," which is not really a question that can be answered.
Common free-to-play models like battle passes and gacha will signify something different, the desire to cast a big net and make a low entry barrier, but also a desire to capitalize on the most dedicated players, possibly infinitely. I urge you, as a player, to think more deeply about the monetization models of games you play, and what messages they're sending. Because money and art inevitably intersect, which means that monetization is, in a way, its own artistic statement.
So with all this in mind, let's finally get to my game. I am making a story-heavy tactical RPG with probably eight chapters. If this gets enough attention, I'll probably make more, because my goal with this game is to get people invested in the characters and world. I'll know I've done something right if people are begging for more. I ultimately want people to be able to play this game without paying, but also want to get paid. While pay-what-you-want is cool, it's also inconsistent, and I also don't want to send the message that my work is worth $0 unless you're feeling charitable.
So, here's my plan. The first four chapters will be free. This will be enough to get a sense of the gameplay, the characters, the setting, and where the story is going. If you're picking up what I'm putting down, and you wanna see more, then I've done my job right. Hopefully that means you're okay with paying to see what happens next. This does put a certain obligation on me, that I make an act 1 so good you want more, and then make an act 2 good enough to justify the payment. Given enough time, I think I'm up for the challenge.
hey, i'm on a trip so i don't have much to show for screenshot saturday (and also it's not really a thing here like it is on twitter) but i do wanna show what i've been working on: actual notes in my physical notebook!
over the past month i've been working on this map called Nataliatown for my tactics rpg.
it's an immigrant enclave, worn down because the government won't fund repairs. and now some fash are here to destroy what's left. are you ready to stop them?
