Game Developer Deploys Interesting Sales Strategy By Telling Fans Not To Buy His Game As A Gift For Others
from the huh? dept
This being a site focused in part on emerging business models, we tend to see a wide variety of new and innovative attempts to monetize artistic talents. There can be many specific expressions when it comes to these new models, but we like to think that the best of them fall under the more general concept of connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy. That's what makes one game developer's strategy for success so completely original: he's connecting with his fans and telling them not to buy. And should you think I'm somehow exaggerating or misinterpreting what the creator of the game Frontiers actually said, here's some text from the post he put on the Steam community site, entitled: PSA: Do NOT buy this game as Christmas gift.Hello, everyone - Lars here with a friendly developer PSA. A lot of folks have told me: I'm buying this game for my kid/friend/spouse for Christmas, they love exploration games! And I say the same thing every time: DON'T!*Now, I already know what you're thinking: holy crap, those idiots on cable news who said that there's a war on Christmas were right! No, no, dear readers. Lars isn't some anti-Christmas Scrooge, he's just concerned that people will give the beta version of the game as a gift to unsuspecting loved ones who won't understand that it isn't complete and that this will somehow undo the universe.
The only people who will love it are players who seek it out for themselves, because it's NOT FINISHED. Your kid/friend/spouse will just be annoyed with you. I'm proud of this game, and with everyone's help I believe it's going to be great - but it's not great yet, so in the meantime get your kid/friend/spouse Dragon Age or The Binding of Isaac or something, trust me. The December release date unavoidably puts Christmas gift in people's minds. That's why I'm only releasing a trickle of press copies till after the new year. People are prone to impulse buy right now, and you don't want people impulse buying an Early Access game, especially not for others.I mean, look, it sounds like Lars is doing everyone a favor here, but this is all equal parts insulting and business-dumb. I'd wager that most gamers that are diving into Steam's Early Access beta games probably have a firm understanding that these games are unfinished and quite possibly buggy. That was certainly the case when I got in early on Starbound, for instance. But that didn't stop me from gifting the game to my brother, because I'm a thinking human person who can determine for whom gifting the game would be appropriate. I certainly didn't need the game developer to tell me to simply not buy the game for anyone for Christmas.
Which brings us to a general maxim for anyone selling anything: blanket requests that your product not be bought probably aren't the best of ideas. Just a little Christmas pro-tip from me to you.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: beta, christmas, frontiers, games, gifts, presents, video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You only get one first impression
If someone, somehow, got me a game that 'Looked great', but the copy was before it was run through bug hunting, had numerous glitches, and was obviously incomplete... well, I probably wouldn't be too happy, with them, or the game itself.
If someone's first impression of a game is based upon a game-in-development, odds are that impression is not going to be very good. And if the first impression is rubbish, or even just mediocre, the recipient of the gift isn't likely to care about the game whenever it does come out, and any 'reviews' they give, to friends and family, are going to be based upon the incomplete game they received, which isn't likely to be very flattering to the game or developer.
Now, to anyone who knows about the game already, someone who is already interested in it, and has been considering picking it up, they might be a good recipient. But anyone outside of that narrow category is probably best presented with a complete gift, for the sake of everyone involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You only get one first impression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You only get one first impression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree. We spend so much time bashing game companies for spending too much time trying to make money (see: yearly releases, DRM, etc.) and not caring enough about the games (see: EA, Ubisoft, etc.). This is a refreshing perspective in which the developer actually gives a shit about something other than cashing in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Both of those screwed up on their timings, both apologised, and Bungie/MS offered compensation as a result of the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Admit it when they screw up.
Whether they botched the timeline for release, ran into something that needed fixing, shipped a game with a glaring problem, whatever. As long as the company is willing to admit that they made a mistake, they know it, and they will do what they can to fix whatever the problem is, more often than not their customers will accept that.
Where companies get into trouble is when they assume their customers are idiots, and treat them accordingly. Pretending that a massive glitch isn't a big deal, blowing past a release date with not a word about it, inserting features that the customers/fans clearly don't want, and then acting shocked or indignant when the customers object, anything along those lines.
Basically, if a company treats it's customer/fans like mature individuals, then the fans will return the favor. If a company treats it's customers like morons, then they shouldn't be surprised when their customers are less than thrilled by the treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've bought enough supposedly finished games that were rushed to market with the idea of putting out a patch later to fix everything. Only sometimes that patch never gets made. So you get stuck with a game that sometimes isn't playable or is so sucky as to not be worth the effort to attempt to play it because it was never quite finished in the rush to start making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This post is a waste of electrons and a waste of time: bitching because a developer wants to make people stop & think before buying?
Why don't you just go cry on Tumblr about how "triggered" you were by the developer's insensitivity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proved wrong
You may disagree with the guy's strategy, but who's being insulting by saying he's insulting and business-dumb, especially when there's a horde of 6 of your readers who already disagree with you? The savvy gamers you're worried about will see a developer trying to do the right thing and realize that they can *still* buy the game if they want. Who's insulted by that? Perhaps he's had this happen before and didn't enjoy dealing with the aftermath. You don't know because you didn't ask.
P.S. I tried to reply to every comment here with "Ditto" because so far, I agree with every one of them, and wanted to make the meta point that I think so many people will disagree with you that I'd agree with all the ones to follow. (The logic's not so tortured in my head...) Looks like my "ditto" spam will get moderated into the waste bin, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proved wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are a terrible brother and an enabler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a burning desire to never play it again.
Even knowing it was early access, still being tweaked and fixed... many of the bugs/glitches have killed my desire to play the game.
Firing up a game and spending over 4 hours patching and only getting half way... kills the soul.
No documentation of features... kills the soul.
Logging in and nothing working like it should, trapping you in a tutorial that you have to complete to advance... kills the soul.
I think he is doing a good thing by telling people not to gift it to others. You can be excited about something, and overlook some bugs in early access. If someone gives it to you, they might not be as tolerant of the unfinished portions & bugs. If you ask me about the game that was gifted to me, my review isn't very good even with the caveat that I've not played much because the errors made me so angry I gave up. I pulled myself away from the game and stopped trying hoping I won't kill all my desire to play it in the future when its "better" or done. I was excited about the game, and what they have put forth so far isn't anywhere close to exciting me.
I see why he is doing it, it might not look like the best idea but being upfront that early buzz can make or break the game so let people find it organically rather than drop it in their lap.
Imagine if an EA dev lost his mind and came right out and said they made me shovel this out the door, please don't buy it until I can get the first patches done. Honesty isn't something we expect from those selling us something, but it can create quite a bit of good will moving forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Documentation
Ah. Considering I don't think I ever opened a game manual, like, ever, that would indeed explain neatly why I'm a soulless bastard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Documentation
Searching for it yields multiple places, with varying answers.
You could try to puzzle it out in game but the costs for trial and error represent 40 real world hours per item to try and figure it out and there are 32 items to try.
Some things work in mysterious ways because there is no indicator that the bonus is working.
I can play most games without having to look up the most basic concepts, this one leaves me confused and frustrated, I'd rather spend my limited free time toying in a 10 yr old MMO than exploring this new one at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Firing up a game and spending over 4 hours patching and only getting half way... kills the soul.
No documentation of features... kills the soul.
Logging in and nothing working like it should, trapping you in a tutorial that you have to complete to advance... kills the soul.
Easy solution.... Stop playing EA or Ubisoft games! - They 'kill the soul' :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations!
I think the dev's quite right and you're quite wrong. If, as he said, he's getting lots of buying-as-a-gift messages from the relatively uninformed, then they actually need to be told that Early Access is not appropriate for everyone. Nothing here prevents the well-informed from making the choice.
This dev's looking out for his customers' best interests and Frontiers is now on my wishlist. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations!
This is the single most poorly-conceived article I've ever read on Techdirt. It's picking a fight with some poor sod who's done absolutely nothing wrong at all, who's done everyone a genuine good, in fact - and using the most incredibly petty and asinine reasoning I have ever heard of as an excuse.
Mr Geigner, I realise Christmas can be a stressful time, but seriously, what in the nine fucking hells were you thinking, man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations!
I lol'd.
But in Defense of the Helmet, and as a semi-pro gamer, I do see his point. I play 7 days to die, it's still being worked on, but it's clearly playable and really fun. Now, I would gift it to a fellow gamer, but only if said gamer had it on his steam wish list or otherwise was showing interest in said game already. I probably wouldn't gift it to a casual gamer because if it's alpha status, and the possibility that it would ruin their impression of the game. Having said all that; I would rather make my own decision as to who I feel can handle an alpha release game.
I think Tim is saying that we shouldn't automatically dismiss a gift idea because the game is in development. I agree with that thought, but perhaps he should have qualified it a little better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations!
Is there some kind of award?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations!
The Great Ritual's very simple: The right fist is raised in front of the practitioner's face, the index finger points vertically up, the thumb points horizontally.
The hand - which, when seen from ahead, now appears to form a letter-L - is moved backwards and forwards to and from the forehead three times, reaching a distance of no more than nine inches away from the face, while the mystic words are chanted:
"Loserrr! Loserrr! Loserrr!"
I hope you enjoyed your reward, Mr Geigner. You certainly earned it. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gifting someone an EA game is like donating to a Kickstarter in someone else's name and saying "Well, hopefully your full gift gets here eventually!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some developers use early access to launch alpha builds and giving people playing in it access for cheaps, raising the price gradually up to release. That is leaving gamers in a pickle of having to buy early to avoid a price-jump. No pain, no gain! I call early access for ludomania investment since you never know what the game you end up playing is!
By discouraging people from gifting the game away the developer is discouraging the more risky gift-givers. But the catch: The hardy gamers will look at the warning and ignore it like the OP.
The end-result is a positive word from most about the ethics of the developer, a slight short-term cost, but likely very limited!
In the short term it will have a small price, but in the long run this developer has just secured himself some powerful guerilla marketing like this piece is causing!
Congratulations. It speaks to this sites credibility that an article can get the users so much in opposition. So much for lemmings following it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Still, much like I can claim the moon is a giant paper circle taped to the sky all day long and still be wrong, they can insist that people on the site never disagree with what's posted on it all they want and they will likewise also be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The developer wants people to step back, rein in that impulse, and let the game speak for itself when it and the prospective player are on the same player. I'd say he's right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the point of marketing?
That's not sustainable business. If I need to get screws into a wall, I have nothing to gain from some marketing droid selling me a hammer. Even if it is a really good hammer.
Now here a developer tells people what purpose the current product is not suitable for, and the article author flies into a rage that he won't maximize sales that way.
Well, that was the purpose: to not sell in situations where the product would not match the buyer's purpose, and thus get a drop in reputation.
I've been sold business software once by a close-to-market-leader, and the sales drone was full of enthusiasm about how well it would suit the desired purpose. I am not buying anything from that outlet ever again because we are talking about a certified trained salesperson, and if a certified trained salesperson's state of the art performance is selling half-finished crap unsuitable for the purpose, then there is no way you'll ever find out whether or not a product will be usable when bought from that outlet.
I want sales and marketing to be particularly informed and forthcoming about when something will not be useful or suitable for a particular purpose. If they have less of a clue about their product than third-party testers, they are not doing what they are paid for. A sustainable business is not built on finding new suckers each day. It depends on building a loyal customer base, and you don't get loyalty by bullshitting people.
Oh, by the way I would claim the same principle to hold in politics. Even though current politics seem to focus on the "Fool me once, shame on me, fool me yet another hundred times, more shame on me" approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the point of marketing?
This is exactly what is wrong with games today. Game makers are so sensitive to the negative critique that they pretty much demand game reviewers give them a good review or from then on no new games to review. The problem with this approach is that it has killed the creditability of the reviewers.
This in turn has killed a whole bunch of game review magazines and fairly well put them out of business because the gamers figured out they were basically being lied to. You have the same circumstances developing over at Youtube with game players showing off the game with verbal chatter about how good it is. What they can't say is "here is a bug", or this is screwed up for controls, or anything negative. So again, it will kill this method off too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I follow the Nerd³ philosophy of early access games: Is the game worth the money now because that's all you're guarantied to get. That's something only the person who will be playing the game can decide.
Plus, if you give an early access game (or a game that should be in early access) to someone who's not an early access kind of person, you ruin their experience of the game. I could be gifted an early access game and it would be find. But if I gave my sister an early access game, she would play it for five minutes, call it a broken mess, and probably say that to anyone who asks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guys, read it again...
"I mean, look, it sounds like Lars is doing everyone a favor here, but this is all equal parts insulting and business-dumb. I'd wager that most gamers that are diving into Steam's Early Access beta games probably have a firm understanding that these games are unfinished and quite possibly buggy. That was certainly the case when I got in early on Starbound, for instance. But that didn't stop me from gifting the game to my brother, because I'm a thinking human person who can determine for whom gifting the game would be appropriate. I certainly didn't need the game developer to tell me to simply not buy the game for anyone for Christmas."
The point isn't that this guy is dumb or wrong for being honest about the state of the game. The point is that there is no need to be insulting to fans by pretending like they are unable to determine for themselves for whom the game would be an appropriate gift. When I hear someone say, "Don't buy my product as a gift.", all I think is "Well fuck you very much, maybe I just won't buy it at all."
If you can't see the problem with the hardline approach, well....*Shrugs*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guys, read it again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guys, read it again...
Poor helmet... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guys, read it again...
If you are a thinking human person... you can choose to self-select yourself out of the category of people to whom that warning applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guys, read it again...
I think the "don't buy it as a gift" reaction is pretty dumb. A better approach may have been to tell people you were adding a disclaimer onto the opening of the game or offer a "free to gift" version of just a portion of the game that is actually complete.
I know there are technical hurdles that could create, but if nothing else, instead of telling people not to buy it, ask them to let the person they are giving it to that it is incomplete and they will get a free upgrade to the completed version as soon as it is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guys, read it again...
/s
I think the more appropriate way to resolve this "moral quandry" is to give Steam gift certificates to a person and saying 'hey, it's in beta but you may want to check out (early access game)' in the comment field.
Gift given? Check
Gift usable? Check, unless they pick an early access game. Then its a crap-shoot. Which is why the developer said what he did. Which is why we're here. Discussing it. Still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guys, read it again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guys, read it again...
His tone comes off more as trying to be helpful and informative, the tone someone would take when saying 'Please don't buy children pets for Christmas'. Not because they want none of it to be sold, but because you should be informed about the decision.
The key part is the place the dev is quoting the things he's been told. Someone who 'likes exploration games' is more likely to pick up the EA, go 'bleh' and put it back. Whereas if they were to wait longer for the game to be more finished, would be more likely to enjoy and recommend the game to others.
(Also, does Steam give discounts on EA games? i.e. they're sold for $20 but when released, it's $40? If this is true, then this makes a lot more business-sense.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guys, read it again...
In any case, the dev is connecting with fans and being a human being, which is better than some manage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guys, read it again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guys, read it again...
should be
"targeted at friends/relatives of those who are fans of the genre, not fans themselves."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guys, read it again...
Spoiler alert: Not everyone is as smart as you. This is why we have signs on things that warn people of obvious consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this dev comes out with a game that looks interesting, I am more likely to want to buy and play it, because he already has credibility as a dev who stands behind the quality of his game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dogpile!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dogpile!!!!!!!!
Piling On! 15 yeard penalty for the offense! First down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dogpile!!!!!!!!
Appreciated, but I don't mind in any way the community's response to this post. I actually LOVE it when the community shows their independence this way, rather than treating this site as an echo chamber. As others have mentioned, the community's ability to think on their own is something to laud, not to fight against.
That said, I've never found consensus particularly interesting either. I'd rather be correct than be agreed with....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dogpile!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dogpile!!!!!!!!
It's not my fault most of you are wrong.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dogpile!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dogpile!!!!!!!!
</obligatory movie reference>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Early access is essentially a paid beta test and I have seen more then enough examples of games that were utterly broken to the point of uselessness, games that were not just incomplete but barely started, games that were completely abandoned in an unfinished state and games that were attempts to commit outright fraud.
This developer recognizes the inherent issues in the early access program and I really have to respect his integrity, that he openly warns people of said issues. I'm sure it will cost him sales in the short term, but I'm also sure that this move will increase his reputation and fanbase.
After all the shenanigans that have been done with the early access model, this is actually a breath of fresh air to see someone taking responsibility for this choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My real issue here
Back in the old days when software was declared "beta", what that meant was that the developers thought the product was done and ready to release. The beta release was just the last round of testing of what was presumed to be the final product. What this developer is actually releasing isn't a beta at all, but an alpha. He's admitted in public that the game isn't done, therefore it can't be a beta.
This may seem pointlessly semantic, but I think it has several terrible effects. One of which is what we're seeing here: the developer feeling the need to warn people away from it (again, an actual beta would not require any such warning). The main one, though, is that it perpetrates the ongoing decline of software quality. If a "beta" is really an "alpha," then the initial release is actually the "beta", which is what leads to the need for the generally recognized good practice of never seriously using the initial release of any software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My real issue here
I don't think it seems pointlessly semantic at all, I think your spot on. Not only do a good portion of people, including some developers, not understand the Alpha/Beta terms, you have Steam calling it something completely different "Early Access".
On top of that, the pressure to hit your release window with a product can have companies releasing unfinished product, further muddying the waters, and with catastrophic effect. Look at the re-release of Halo...FAIL
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/11/22/microsoft-is-losing-xbox-one-momentum-d ue-to-343s-halo-master-chief-collection-misdeeds/
Not having a consistent, easy to understand vernacular in describing the "condition" of a game during it's early pre-release/development, combined with a deliberate attempt by some studios of "bending" the meanings to suit a specific situation, is causing customers to lose trust in the whole "early release" market.. and rightfully so. This story is a fine example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My real issue here
They've been doing that with game releases for years now it seems. At this point it's pretty much a given, never buy a game at release, wait at least a few months for them to actually do some bug-hunting and deal with the major glitches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So don't release it
Beta software is a dev's way of saying, "We can't be bothered to test this, so maybe you could do it for us. Oh, and you get to pay for the privilege as well."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So don't release it
The problem is that so much of the industry has decided to use "beta" releases as a kind of marketing rather than a kind of testing. The big tell-tale that a beta release isn't really a beta release at all is if there are no strictly controlled and enforced requirements for the people using the beta to make reports about its performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, for most of this games consumers, a little good will from the developer goes a lot further then Christmas induced marketing.
And as many commenters have already pointed out, giving this as a gift to a recipient that was already interested in this game isn't the problem, its giving it to someone who may not appreciate the game even knowing it is early access. Not to mention even perfectly functional well designed early access games tend to lack the necessary hook to get people to embrace them like they would once it's finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]