Ego-Driven development vs Consumer-Driven development - Your thoughts?

News & General Discussion
1

Definition for Terms:

Ego-Driven Development - This is where a developer creates a game for only themselves, and almost by convenience, or perhaps through sheer generosity or need for sustenance, just happen to share it with others.

  • There is no target demographic other than “Me.” Those who want the game to change, are welcome to not buy & go elsewhere unless you want the change for your own enjoyment, your own playthrough. Those who are like you or who want to experiece your exact vision are a welcome demographic as long as they dont request any changes. Although others are welcome to play or buy, they are not your target.
  • If you make for yourself but ALSO include others in your target, you are NOT Ego-Driven. This type truly does NOT care what others think, just as long as they are successful enough to keep making games for only themselves; That is all that matters.

Consumer-Driven Development - This is where a developer creates a game for others or for themselves while still focusing on others in any way. The majority of developers make games based on their own taste, so that is assumed. It can mean making a game for the sake of making a good game (fun) for eveyone to enjoy, making a game as a form of business (for profit), expressing art through games to share with the world in the way they want to experience it (as opposed to wanting others to experience your game ONLY and EXACTY as you intended) or any reasoning which focuses on making a product for others to enjoy, not only yourself.

  • There is a target demographic other than just yourself. Some aspect of the game is open to change based on the target group’s feedback. Anything more than the target demographic is welcome; sometimes even a focus (“Let’s target Everyone!” ; “Let’s include this one feature to extend our audience beyond our target.”).

I have seen both types of development styles in indie games. In fact, the Ego-Driven developers who create games exclusively for themselves, then share their games, actually happen to be (at least at times) very successful. Both financially and in popularity, especially given their context, and especially compared to some Consumer-Driven games which fail despite their extensive feedback testing. (If you believe this to be incorrect, please say so.)

Do you feel as though one is better than the other? Just different? Many developers want to make a game for only themselves, but still end up focusing on others. Even so, some Consumer-Driven developers make games for themselves which naturally means they want others to like it & thus consider others every step of the way. The difference is that the Ego-Driven truly don’t care as long as they themselves like it. Which are you?

To clarify, you can want to make a game for yourself, but be Consumer-Driven.

These are two views of who you target development for. IMO, this can make such an enormous difference in game design decisions.

But does it matter when it comes to financial success?
Does it positively or negatively effect the industry for either path?

Your thoughts…

2

I see what you’re getting at although it is difficult to really categorize to this degree.

Like I definitely fall in some areas of your so called Ego-Driven group and at the same time I fall in some areas of the Consumer-Driven group.

I definitely want to make a great game as in a game that is entertaining to play for both myself and others. I definitely have a strong desire to make it entertaining for others.

However, I know there are people who will never play the game due to the visuals. And while that can be said for probably every game to some degree… I am intentionally choosing to keep all of the visuals the simplest bare minimum necessary. So that can be seen as ego-centric based on your definition.

Because my view is exactly the people who do not play the game due to how it looks can just play other games and that is fine with me. Yet at the same time I have a target audience in mind and the target audience are people who place more value on the gameplay experience than the visuals. And that would be consumer-centric designed for those consumers in mind. And it could also be seen as ego-centric “my type”.

So there is some fuzziness there because things cross over between the two.

I would like to say I think a person can only succeed by creating games they love to play themselves first & foremost. It makes logical sense, right? If you are making a type of game that you do not even normally play then you have no idea what the perceived target audience likes and doesn’t like.

BUT… I think what can happen is you can end up making your own version of those games that appeals to some of the perceived target market and also appeals to others who are not part of the target audience for those kind of games normally. Basically you may find a target audience exists for the game you created even though nobody really knew they were out there. A possibility.

On the other hand, if you make a game much like the ones you like to play but set out to improve the things that you think are just way too common and otherwise improve adding a bit of depth or whatever (and also these are the same things you know other people would like to see) I think you can also reach a portion of the general target audience for such games while intentionally reaching those people who are outside of the normal target audience because of the things you intentionally “fixed” and otherwise improved.

I guess that all means in the end as far as success goes… there is probably no difference. I do think you need some target audience in mind but whether you are making the game for a specific target audience you are not a part of or making the game for you based on your view of other games similar to the one you are making… that is still making the game for a target audience. Because me, you, etc each of us represents a group of people out there to some degree.

It’s very difficult I think to truly make a game that is only for yourself. Unless you are a person making games who never actually plays the games and participates in any manner in the gamer community. Because otherwise you will at the very least be reading the views of other gamers when they say they hate this about these kinds of games or they wish these kind of games would also let you do that.

At least that is my experience. I am mainly I suppose making the game for me. At least I tell myself that. But at the same time I know others share the same views that I have. Because I have read and been involved in discussions on these things at one time or another.

Ha ha. If you sense my struggle in writing this it is because it is a very hard thing for me to separate. I suppose if I believed I was the only person on earth who would like the game I am making I would be less likely to make it. Maybe that helps. But again unless a person lives under a rock or something they have to be aware of the views of at least some other people.

Finally… moving on…

I’d much prefer to see people doing more of the ego-centric thing as far as just making the kind of games they want to make… just doing their own thing… their own way. I think that is good because it creates diversity. And that is much better than every person trying to make a game that looks and plays almost exactly like other existing games.

So… would it be better to have 10,000 games that all basically look & play like Skyrim or would it be better to have 10,000 games that although all are inspired by Skyrim there is a huge diversity in how they look and play? I think the latter is much better for the consumers and the developers.

3 Likes
3

I’m trying to refine & define these two mindsets, so bare with me for now. I may need to simplify the definitions even more, or elaborate on the psychology behind the two with more precision. I was thinking that a lot of people may fall into both categories.

From what I read, your are definitely Consumer-Driven for my definitions.

However if what you say is true, then perhaps I need to reconsider my definition of ego-centric.

Or put in a caveat about how judging resources (one way or another) to where you can make your game’s scope more feasible is excluded from both definitions. I fully understand people who can, but necessarily don’t, make visuals better so they can release their game sooner or focus on other areas. I know Dwarf Fortress wanted to focus on their gameplay & features, so they skipped graphics entirely. I wouldn’t say that is Ego-driven, nor Consumer-driven. It is just what you gotta do sometimes in gamedev: slice those features for your game’s sake. However the fact Dwarf Fortress is created exclusively for the creator, would define it as Ego-Driven…so perhaps him skipping graphics IS ego-driven as you just suggested. Hmm… I’d prefer to create definitions that are mutually exclusive, but you’re right…seems it’s easy to become both. I was trying to define a mindset, a type of psychology, more than I was trying to categorize something specific. It is hard to figure out what parts of these mindsets are predictable and what parts are just coincidence.

By my definition, you should be entirely consumer-driven because you meet the criteria of having a target audience greater than yourself. Ego-Driven would require “No Audience” while Consumer-Driven would require “Some audience, of some kind, even if at the exclusion of other audiences.” As long as the audience isn’t “people just like me” in a non-generic way.

But my definitions may have failed to convey the idea behind them.

If “People just like me” is generic, I see how confusing that is. If your target demographic is “Everyone who likes playing games, like me!” then technically it could fit both. I’ll have to think about how to refine these definitions so that Ego-Driven can be exclusive.

I don’t perfectly understand the predictable results of these mindsets, but I do understand the Ego-Driven mindset as something tangible that I’m studying and close to understanding. I have seen repeatable patterns in some contexts, but don’t know if they apply outside those contexts/communities. And “Consumer-Driven” is an uncomfortable definition as it seems to include “Everyone who isn’t Ego-Driven” and that may be an issue as well.

Thanks for the thoughts & pointing out the flaws in my definitions. I appreciate it as I try to understand how I see other developers think & try to quantify it in some way. I wanted to throw these definitions (rought draft) out into the world before I wrote anything serious about them.

1 Like
4

Hmm, I am going to edit the poll to reflect the choice of “Both”. You made some great points that I simply can’t really refute.

edit: poll edited

5

I said this elsewhere:

A game where the developer creates it only for themselves, is a game that no one else gets to play, otherwise it’s not only for themselves. If they release it to other people, if they want to show it to other people, then it’s not a game that is only for themselves. So unless someone leaks someone else’s game, despite their wishes, I don’t think any of us have really played someone else’s game that was really “only for themselves”.

Also, when reading your descriptions, I felt like you don’t like Ego-Driven very much (your description of it seems a bit negative).

So, I’ll redefine the two categories a bit to be able to reply.

An “Ego-Driven” (I don’t really like the term) developer, is someone who tries to express something through his game (and I don’t mean that in an artsy way, it could be “this my idea of fun”) and during that process he tries his best to convey that.

It’s sort of like explaining a concept to someone else, trying to make them see why something is interesting/fun/emotional/whatever. The developer needs to take account who he/she is “talking” to and how to best make them understand what you’re trying to explain. The whole purpose is to make players see why something is interesting/fun/etc.

A good Ego Driven developer, makes games that are interesting and explore his ideas (again, it could be story/mechanics/whatever) to their fullest.

A bad Ego Driven developer, fails to express why his/her ideas are interesting and fails to find a way to ease in players into his ideas. Their games are often too esoteric, too weird, aloof, un penetrable, unpolished and unbalanced. He might totally miss the point on how to make players understand his concepts and he might end up looking down on other people, if he mistakenly thinks he made his ideas justice.

A "Consumer-Driven" developer, is someone who makes assumptions about what his target group might want, and tries to cater to that as much as he can. His personal wishes and tastes don’t matter much. They can factor in, or they might not. They put the ill-defined “fun” above everything else.

A good Consumer Driven developer, takes long hard look on current trends in games, finds what makes them tick and iterates on them, creating a game that is very “fun” to play.

A bad Consumer Driven developer, looks down on his audience, slaps together a couple of current trends (ZOMBIES + SURVIVAL) in a very polished manner, with extensive tutorials and polished menus and flashy animations, while totally missing the point of why people like games like this, and then wonders why players don’t like his games, even though he used all the elements “that people like these days”.

So with that, re-definition, I’m an Ego Driven developer. Not sure where I fit in with your description though.

4 Likes
6

I personally despise “label-slapping”, but since it seems you are genuinely interested, I have casted a vote - I am an “ego driven developer” apparently - and I will answer your questions from my experience.

But does it matter when it comes to financial success?

No.

Does it positively or negatively effect the industry for either path?

It doesn’t affect the industry, as it already has been and always been diverse. Until the robots will take over of course. Then we’re pretty much screwed.

7

I think I boiled down my definitions.

Ego: “I really like this idea and I think other people will like it too, let’s make a game around it”.

Consumer: “People really like this idea, I think I can do it better, let’s make a game around it”.

And I think both of those are fine.

2 Likes
8

Like others, I’m not really comfortable with the definitions given. Stuff like this in particular:

“There is no target demographic other than “People who want to play my game.” Those who want the game to change, are welcome to not buy & go elsewhere”

Along with the comparative point on the “consumer-driven” side, both are just way too narrow (and this one feels derogative). They can’t cover situations such as where a developer is trying to convey some theme or idea, and takes player feedback to change the game to better represent that idea, which is probably where most experiences lie.

I vastly prefer this definition, and I think I mainly fit into the “ego”-driven development.

1 Like
9

Hmm, the problem with this “ego driven” compared to “consumer driven” is that it can overlap and doesn’t address every type.

Consumer-driven could be the type of game developer who has a goal to make money and looks for the games that sell the best and makes those games. This means the market floods with military fps games and zombie survival games. Is this consumer driven really? Consumer driven could involve marketing research that finds that niche of consumers who want to buy a game that is under-represented and has an audience ripe for the picking. Rather than flooding the market with more games, we could see games that appeal to that niche group, the group that likes military strategy games with airplanes, or the group that likes collectible games with racing cars. While a niche might be fewer people, it also might be people who have little choice but your game so they all buy your game. It is also a much easier group to market your game to because they are waiting for game just like yours. Of course, without research, one will never find these groups.

I have no idea what ego-driven really means. It could be the developer who cares little about the fun the player has and instead makes his own game/world that fits his gaming desires. It could include those who want to punish their poor players by making them suffer to win the game. Players could just be rats in the maze.

Or it could be that the developer is making the game he wants to play, which is not a bad idea, especially if he also does some research to find others who might want to play that game. He will be motivated and he will want others to like his game because it is something that means a lot to him. In my opinion, everyone should make the games they want to make unless they work for a huge company or are supporting a family with the money. I think a carefully crafted, loved game will show. Many of the indie games we consider great, innovative and remarkable were lovingly made by developers who had a dream.

I am making a game that is in the same style as one I worked on many years ago that failed. We had a very dedicated community of over 100k. It failed due to funding before being released. There was a market for the game, so the idea was not strictly without merit. It had never been done before so these players were waiting for ‘their’ game.

However, the team (I was just a writer) loved the idea and worked tirelessly, many investing their own money. Some wrote and published books on the lore. Fans contributed stories and endless forum posts. We were making a game we wanted to make. But we were sharing it with others.

The term ego-driven is really not a good fit. Ego implies thinking only of yourself. If you are making a game to appeal to a niche group of teenagers with disabilities, how does that involve ego if you love making the game?

How does ego NOT fit a zombie survival game that is only being made because the developer things he can make a million bucks. Is it not egotistic to think you can make that next great zombie game that will smash at the 1000’s out there?

Don’t know. lol Maybe it is more your motive than your actual implementation.

4 Likes
10

For me game development is only fun as a team exercise, so one of my major goal is to create a design that other team members are very enthusiastic about. They’re not me (ego) but they aren’t exactly consumers either. Though, generally every game developer can be assumed to be an example game consumer.

But that said, I definitely don’t want to make a game I wouldn’t be eager to play. Which is why I have no interest in developing for phones or other handhelds, for example - I don’t play games on them.

2 Likes
11

I entirely agree the OP is flawed. I was up late and forgot what i was originally contemplating, created the two terms, and then mixed up some stuff.

Ego-Driven sounds worse, more negative, because in the context of society it is. By definition it is selfish and concerned with themself & a desire to force others “or else you dont get it from me”. To change anything on request is blasphemy to their masterpiece unless they themselves want it in their playthrough.

But this subjective.

It is negative in the context of others.
It is positive in the context of one’s self.

Those Ego-Driven developers defend themselves by pointing out the fact “It is my game. I created it. No one is entitled for me to change anything for them.”

Hard to argue with that. Their Game. Their Choice.

But yea, I should edit these to be simpler definitions. I honestly thought this thread would die due to it being such a crappy OP.

12

That is because I mixed up two completely different ideas. I should have kept WHO target demographic is separate from HOW they view their game and varying levels of healthiness. Sorry about that. It didnt make any sense the way I orginally stated it.

However I find it interesting that you feel uncomfortable with this part

This is unfortunately a VERY real thing in the indie scene. A surprising number of developers believe this, especially among the “hardcore” types .

13

Since the community is interested in this discussion, I simplified the definitions.

This should help a lot & make the OP alot less crappy. I was too tired to realize I added in definitions that were part of completely different idea than the one I intended.

Please change your vote accordingly.

14

Now that I simplified the OP definitions, I got the chance to read this.

amazing stuff. one of my favorite posts so far this year. thank you.

Id give more positive details but im on my phone. Fantastic post.

1 Like
15

I’m just making stuff I like. Hopefully I like things others do too, but I can’t make stuff I don’t want or don’t like. I am not adding a single thing for other people and I have a very good reason for that.

4 Likes
16

What reason is it?

Just to be clear, I want everyone to know it is 100% reasonable to be Ego-Driven. It is YOUR GAME, you can do anything you want. That is what makes it so awesome to be indie.

I dont know what I am yet, with the new definitions.

I start being ego driven, making games for only myself (and my partner; our team is making a game only for ourselves) but I am not sure if I consider others or not in my design. I’ll have to think of it more.

I have to ask myself, “Are you willing to change a part of your game if your fans overwhelmingly request the change?” And I honestly dont know what my answer would be. Even worse, what if I disagreed with the majority of my audience and thought the change would be awful? Would I fix my flaw or remain stubborn for my own satisfaction?

Do I even care what others think? I cant immediately say I do…

17

Do they not playtest at all? In any way whatsoever? If they playtest–at ALL–then they are open to feedback and adjusting elements of their game, be it as small as making UI elements more readable. And by your definition (or previous one anyway) they are not ego-driven, even if their intent is still to produce/convey a specific experience that THEY crafted.

I feel that criteria is unnecessarily restrictive.

18

I’d like to say it similar to hippocoder :slight_smile:
I’m making stuff that I like to make, I hope others will like it too, and I DO want to work with others to refine the stuff I like to make and make it better for both :smile:

1 Like
19

I’m not really sure it’s possible to categorise things this way.

Let’s say you’re an actor - it’s a bit strange to have the idea that you’re acting your part ‘for yourself’ since so much of what you’re doing on a day to day basis is thinking about how to express it so that other people will receive the message the way you want. Or if you’re a band member, you might even be a complete narcissist but I don’t think it would be correct to say that anyone could be singing or performing purely ‘for themselves’ in the sense that the audience didn’t exist. It might be for your own pleasure, but one way or the other you have to pay attention to what people want.

In any artistic endeavor, I think you can be very much ego-driven, and you can make games or anything else pretty much purely for the benefits that it provides to you, but you can’t negate the audience and the influence they have on what you do. And in fact I think this is the `healthiest’ way to practise art - doing it for the egoistic feeling of being able to express yourself strongly. But you still measure success by your ability to influence the audience and not yourself.

20

I want to disagree with you, but I said this, so I can’t really…

1 Like