Making People Care

Do you think that most indies don’t spend enough time on “making people care” about their game, compared to making the game functional and fun?

I’ve recently abandoned my game project because I felt that no matter how good I’d manage to execute the concept, the market at large would not care about it at all. And neither would I really, which is why I don’t have enough motivation to ever finish it in the first place. Making games probably just isn’t for me, but thinking and talking about them is, and until you stop me I’ll post a new thread every now and then.

Yesterday I was browsing steam and I realized that probably most people that ever see anything of a game at all, will only see a 120 x 45 pixel image and the name. That’s it. I’d be highly surprised if that isn’t the point where you already lose a large majority of all the people who potentially could be interested in your game. Can anyone confirm this based on actual data?

At this stage, what could be done to make a person care enough about your game to actually click the link and view the steam store page or at least hover the mouse over it and read the mouseover? Seriously, I’d like to know, because I can’t come up with a good answer. Titles with marketing budget probably do it by hammering the name into your brain on other channels so you’ll click it “because you’ve heard of it”, but let’s assume this is not an option. How do indies get someone interested enough to even view the store page?
I’m genuinely curious because I don’t really have an answer. My first thought is to choose title and thumbnail image to as best as possible communicate in which general genre and theme the game is set. If it has “tactics” in the name and I’m interested in tactical combat games then this might be a first step to making me click. If the same game sounds like a MOBA (e.g. “Heroes of …”) you’d already lose me there. Any better ideas?

Let’s assume we’ve managed to get someone over that first and very important hurdle, now s/he’s looking at the store page. Does any actual data exist in which order people check out information on that page and where the average user leaves the page again? I’d imagine most look at the steam review rating first and if that’s mostly negative they’ll leave the page again because everything else would most likely a waste of their time. Personally I always skip the video at first and click on a few screenshots to get a feel for what kind of game I’m looking at. It’s that reason why I think it is a really stupid idea to include only cutscene images or bullshots here.

Example:

None of the screenshots show the GUI at all. The camera perspective can be set like that ingame, but it is entirely impractical so when I’m playing it would never look like this. Those screenshots don’t tell me what I need to know about that game to get interested. Based on those I’d have most likely left the steam store page without investigating further. This is a huge problem imho, because it turns out this is my third most played game in my steam library with 163 hours, closely followed with 157 hours and counting in part 2 of the game. If the game hadn’t been gifted to me, most likely I’d have missed out on that, because the screenshots do a poor job at communicating why I should care about the game.

What do you think makes the perfect selection of 4 screenshots for the steam store page? You can upload more, but if the first 4 don’t hook someone I doubt they scroll to see more.

Let’s assume we’ve found a brave soul who is not discouraged yet and is now willing to read something about your game. I always go for the little descriptive text, top right below the artwork. For AS1 it reads:

Is that a good text? I think not, because it only adresses people familiar with the franchise. It doesn’t even tell me it is an RTS. I’d imagine this text area should focus on getting new people into the franchise, veterans most likely already care enough to dig deeper and scroll down for more in-depth text describing what’s better about this game, compared to other titles in the series.

To be honest I don’t think the trailer video is really that important. If screenshots and description didn’t make me want to investigate further I’ll not sit through 2 minuts of video. If I am already interested at that point I’ll click through the video to see if it has actual gameplay footage that answers further questions. If it doesn’t, I’ll find that on youtube. If the trailer seems enjoyable on its own merit, I might watch it. But honestly I don’t think it really has much power to change my purchase decision either way if it isn’t showing straight up gameplay.
Do you think I’m underestimating the importance of trailers? Would people rather watch a trailer than read 3 sentences of description? I’d rather do what is faster (read) but maybe that isn’t the norm.

When I sit in my room and look towards my shelves, I see a row of old cardboard boxes that games used to be shipped in, before the DVD case was invented. Some of the titles include: GTA 1, Pizza Connection, TFX, Jagged Alliance 1, Doom 3, Worms Reinforcements, Sim City 2000, Sam and Max hit the road, Stunt Island and Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. I realized that for almost all the games I have on display it would be pretty easy to come up with a 2-3 sentence “elevator pitch” or “steampage description” that at the time of release of the game would have gotten people interested or even excited. But I don’t think that carries over well into the present time. So much has been done already, so much has been explored, we are so heavily bombarded with new releases and gamers as a whole have become so jaded… what can still be done to make people care?

This seems like a really important question for me, because it has to be kept in mind right from the start of making the game, and can potentially have huge influence on how well greenlight campaigns, crowdfunding, press coverage etc. would work.

I know there still is hope, of the top of my head I know a few people on this forum are working on games that I think could make a significant number of people care enough about them to actively seek out more information and/or make a purchase. But I also see a flood of projects where I couldn’t think of a 2-3 sentence description to make people care about the game, no matter how hard I tried. And I also think this has not necessarily anything to do with “is the game fun?”. E.g. I played DayZ when it was still a mod and it was one of the buggiest messes that I’ve ever seen. It was heavily flawed, arguably not fun at all for many people, had a frustrating learning curve and ugly graphics, but it made me care because it offered me something that I hadn’t experienced before.

Novelty of some sorts seems to work well, and so does the polar opposite: well established franchises / IP. What else makes people care about games?

Should we invest more thought into this aspect of a game concept in the preproduction phase? I have the theory that it might actually be an excellent way to do a reality check on a project, if you built a mockup steampage screenshot with the description text and one mockup “screenshot” of the game. For me it would be a way to get a fresh eye on a concept and maybe get a more realistic idea if anyone would really care about that kind of game or not. You could even show it to a few people and see how they react. If they don’t say much, you might want to rethink the concept, if they get excited and ask when this is coming out, you are on to something.
Prototyping still needs to be done. You still might have something that sounds good on paper but falls apart when put to the test. But, if you have something that looks dull and boring on paper, but is actually quite fun to play, would you ever get enough people to try it and change their mind in todays gaming ecosystem? I feel like we have reached a point where extra thought needs to be put into this. I don’t even really see this as “marketing”, even though it confirms the saying “marketing can not be an afterthought” and it serves a very similar purpose.

Thoughts?

If you want to give it a try, write a 300 character (including spaces) description of the game you are working on. That seems to be roughly the maximum length that can be shown in that space on a steam store page in the top right corner below the artwork, more or less depending on how the line breaks turn out, so better keep it a bit shorter. Imagine this was the only chance to convince someone to even look at your your game, what would you write?

2 Likes

Let me put this way when you launch on steam you the average is 1 million impressions+ but average 0.3% of that clicks on your page, and only like 1…3% of those people that bothered to click on your page will actually buy your game (lets say even lower then that because its non targeted traffic). I’d guess good ratings will help and bad ratings can sink you. So yeah probably a good icon/name might be able to help you get a better click-through rate and then a better game will get better rating which will help you sell more units, the more units you sell the more exposure your game gets (steam is setup to make the winners win).

If you arent listed anywhere youll quickly fall into obsercuity get no traffic, no sales, but at least with steam every 2 months you can in fact do a 7 day sale where your actually listed in the “specials section” and visiblity is key to even getting any traffic/sales. Which is probably where youll make the bulk of your money unless your game is golden

1 Like

So I think there is a core difference between traditional PC gamers and mobile gamers.

I think Mobile gamers look for a fun game experience first and foremost.
I think PC gamers look for theme and feel first and foremost.

I know that I’m generalizing wildly here, but stick with me.

When I look at Men of War’s screenshots I get a pretty good idea of what the theme of the game is, and some idea of what the game play experience will be.

I really don’t think that most PC gamers are looking for ‘fun’ first and foremost when they consider a title. This is also why PC games tend to not be mechanics focused, the mechanics must be adequate, yes, but the more important elements come down to narrative, theme, and feel.

PC Gamer:

  • What’s the Setting?
  • Who do I play?
  • What am I doing?

The more appealing those answers are, the more interest your game will get.

Mobile Gamers are more removed from the game, the experience is more abstract, less intimate. The most important elements for mobile games tend to revolve around quick fun, and the willingness of the player to return to the game. These are things that are much more focused on the mechanics and design of the game and how it plays.

3 Likes
  1. Gorgeous looking concept. (Hmm what’s this).
  2. “Selective” beauty in-game screen showing UI and particles in full glory. (I see the in-game appears good)
  3. Example screenshot of gameplay and more functional systems.(This actually might have some substance).
  4. Action screen. (This looks like fun).

Why give up Martin? I mean besides from the fact in limited examples you’ve shown some real talent. Why go through all this just to throw in the towel? Even if it falls flat on it’s face, doesn’t matter. You might get a bit of a name out there, a couple of hundred may really enjoy your game / spread the word and next time you do even better.

The road is long, but as long as you enjoy that’s all that really matters (Well unless you’re looking to make a full time career out of it).

As for description.

<Brief description of what it’s about> <Exciting part (without spoilers)>… Bit ominous there, but if the plot is exciting and you’re excited about it put as positive a spin as you can (without lieing)…[/Quote][/Quote]

3 Likes

But “marketing” is exactly what your concerns are addressing. Not sure what your idea of marketing is, but it really is about communicating to an audience, to inform them, and to get them to care about your game. In your post, you also brushed across the Business Intelligence side of things, with analytics, A-B testing, advertising, etc. It’s all part of your marketing effort. That’s why in order to succeed as an indie, you have to treat your game as just the product development portion. It’s equally important to let people know about it. Because conversion rates are rarely higher than 5-10%. If you are above that, you’d be lucky, and you probably have a valuable product that fills the needs of an audience that is craving it.

EDIT:
Having been about a year going indie so far, the business things that I’ve learned have been much more valuable to me than the game (product) development side. I’m still getting chewed up in the markets, just like everyone else, but it’s a humbling experience to actually set aside time to promote a product, because you feel that it’s all for nothing, but really, how else is anyone going to find out about your game?

3 Likes

I was looking at the steam front page for games, using the “recommended for you”, and im like no, no no, oh shit yeah.

I have no idea whats its about but I like the look of it and it seems like its its pretty exciting, now I click on the page and realize the game isnt what I thought it was so I click out.


CDN$ 6.49

2 Likes

Heh. And, you just helped Redcon’s cause by simply adding a link to the Steam page. The more backlinks created from sites, especially authoritative sites like Unity, will in turn create more authority for that page. What’s authority? Why, Google search engine authority, that is! Even though it’s not your cup of tea, you just spread the word around. And, I actually clicked on the link, and also deemed the game not to my liking. Although that’s 2 impressions, you never really would have known if you or I would have actually liked the game.

And that’s how marketing works.

1 Like

I might not know very much, but my one attempt at reaching out to public was fairly successful. My title got greenlit in around 16 days and reached the top 100 in 6 days.

I spent a lot of time on the trailer, and I went through many iterations getting feedback.

Theme, narrative, the player’s role. These were the ideas that got hammered into me during the process. It’s what everyone wanted to know and wanted to see. These are the things that get people psyched and interested.

4 Likes

It’s the internets, that is allowed.

1 Like

That sounds like a really good choice, thanks!

Thanks for the encouragement, I truly appreciate it! The reason why I scrapped that game idea is mostly a gut feeling really. I haven’t even done 5% of the work yet and I’m already completely unmotivated to keep working on it. It’s a cutting my losses kind of thing I guess. I’ve had problems with the sunk cost fallacy before and I try to avoid making that mistake again. It feels like the project is a dead end so I threw the towel on this one and I’m already considering another project.

So right now I’m in the phase of just searching for the right kind of idea that would spark motivation again and keep it up long enough to get something playable done. This thread is part of the process really. I feel like there has to be a way to “fail faster” in the preproduction/concept phase and avoid having to invest as much time as I did in the last project to come to the conclusion that the idea is no good. On the first game I ever started it took me ~1000 hours or so. On this one it took a fraction of that and for the next idea I hope I don’t have to spent more than 20 hours pondering till I know it’s a deadend. Eventually maybe I’ll come up with a good idea.

A smart man from the advertising industry once said “Having a good idea is easy, recognizing that it actually is one is the hard part.”.

I phrased my questions poorly. I don’t disagree, but I’m mainly interested in the gamedesign aspect of it. I’m looking to make the product so compelling that it basically sells itself so to speak. Marketing is a giant topic in its own right and there is overlap between what I’d like to talk about and “pure” marketing, but I’d prefer to focus on “game concept”, “elevator pitch”, “key visual” and “steam page optimization” and leave all the social media, presskit, youtube, pax stuff etc. out for now.

Here is the question now, does this make it a good artwork because it made us click, or is it a really bad choice because it makes people click that don’t care for that type of game at all? This could only be answered by seeing how people who would enjoy that type of game react to that kind of visual. I have a hunch that it would sell better if the artwork looked a lot more like the screenshots because I feel like they tell me what I need to know about that game.

I think the reason for that is that your game actually has a compelling concept that makes people react in such a positive way. It registers as “fresh idea” for my brain where many other games would trigger the “this is boring” response.

The thing about that game that I like the most (and that I try to sell people on when I tell them about it) is that it is an RTS where the micromanagement and realism gets so deep that you can take a soldier, loot an anti tank grenade or rocketlauncher from the inventory of a fallen enemy soldier, sneak up on a tank with his limited line of sight arcs and aim your throw/shot in direct control mode to take that tank down with a single well prepared attack. The skill ceiling in that game is insanely high and you can do so many cool things that you can’t do in any other RTS series. Is that the impression you had from the screenshots? I’d be surprised.

That’s very useful information, I’d phrase it as the “where, who and what” of the concept.

1 Like

I think its a great looking screenshot, and it does its job because the click through rate is going to be through the roof (I’d bet) but the problem is it does not match the style or even the perspective of the game (I was excepting some kind of 3d game) so the conversion rate probably sucks (because its not what you expected).

1 Like

Do you know a bit about valve’s algorithms that decide when and where games get exposure? Might a high clickthrough with low conversion rate be a bad thing because the game gets frontpage featuring for X amount of clicks? Or does it get featured till X amount of people have seen it, no matter if they click or not.

There is very little that was “compelling” or “fresh” about my original game. The reason that it felt ‘compelling’ or ‘fresh’ was because of the presentation in the video. Although none of the graphics were particularly good or anything, I did a good job eventually of communicating an ‘idea’… a ‘narrative’.

But is it because that was inherent in the game, or because that’s how I presented it in the video?

Here was my first draft of the trailer.

Here was my final draft.

Same game, same mechanics, same ideas… but nobody wanted to play the first one, a good number showed interest in the second. I obviously polished a number of elements, and the second video is just tighter. But really, the biggest difference is in the fundamental approach to presentation, the first was a set of features essentially: “Equip your guys” - “Train your guys” etc. The second presented the game as an experience.

The first game looks like a mess. The second one is a game I would play.

You’ll notice that it just constantly gives the player hints at answers to those questions:

  • What’s the setting?
  • Who am I?
  • What do I get to do?
2 Likes

Yeah don’t give up, judging by the thoughtful replies and artwork you’ve already posted you must be capable of great things. What type of game is it?

2 Likes

I think you’re right, and I’m trying to focus more on the experience aspect for future concepts.

The scrapped one that had a tiny bit of work done already was supposed to be a topdown mech shooter, somewhat similar to “Brigador” on steam, but 3D instead of prerendered sprites. I had the original idea long before I’ve heard of Brigador.

I think my newest game idea is ready for scrapping, but I’ll try the 300 character description for practice:

The idea was to have a perspective of something like this:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/359580/

And gameplay inspired by This War Of Mine and Don’t Starve. With the stranded shuttle being your safe haven that you repair and improve over time. To do that you’d have to leave the safety of the shuttle and scavenge for resources in the dark corridors of the spacehulk-style wreck you are trapped in. Air was supposed to be a limited supply that runs out quicker when you walk and even quicker when you sprint, so that you’d have to plan ahead and not get lost to return to your shuttle alive. Shooting might not even be involved and the interplay between player and hostile creatures might be centered around deployable equipment to bait them, or chase them away.

Reasons for scrapping the idea:

  • I’m not 100% convinced this could be engaging for long enough and I can’t really picture it in my head.
  • In most games that have deployables I either ignore them from the start, or save them up so long that I don’t end up needing/using them either.
  • I did brief research on pixelart and made 2 crappy scribbles. I think I vastly underestimated the time it takes to produce good pixelart, and I didn’t even start with animation. Also it would be horribly timeconsuming to go back and change a character design/size after the animations for that character are drawn. I like the aesthetic, but I got the feeling that this kind of workflow will be forever out of scope for me. And I don’t even enjoy the process of making pixelart…
    And the approach to render in 3D and put a pixelation image effect on top has its own set of problems and limitations. For this it likely would just look bad.

Next!

Totally made me click too. But same reaction: once I saw the screenshots I had no interest.

You don’t set up shop in the middle of the Sahara Desert and then get upset when nobody comes.

Go to where the people already are. Somewhere, the continuum of your interests intersects with a huge number of other people. We are all here, for example, united by the common thread of being interested in video game development. There are other such intersections in this vast universe of people. Find games you care about that other people also care about. Instead of studying why you care, learn why they care, understand why they like it and commune with them. Become one of them, understand this audience better than you understand yourself, know their likes and dislikes.

Once you care about what the audience cares about, you will not have this problem anymore.

1 Like

My experience looking on the steam forums of games I really like is, that many of the people posting there are batshit insane and have no life. They’ll play 800+ hours of a game and give it a negative review, complain about every usability improvement to the game as making it too easy and trying to appeal to filthy casuals, etc… Or they fall into the other extreme and religously defend a game against any and all valid criticism.

I find reading steam reviews to be a better way to get a feel for what people like and dislike in a game (those can be very different for 2 people who like the same game). Watching video reviews also can be quite educational. I watch pretty much all that total biscuit and yahtzee release and some of what jim sterling makes.

Did you have any places in mind that are less toxic than steam/reddit/4chan?

I’m not really convinced that is true. If you like the same paintings as others it doesn’t mean at all they will like your paintings as well because liking something and being able to produce original work with the same qualities has little to do with each other imho.

1 Like

@Martin_H you may find the following article by a long time (decades) Indie game dev interesting:

How I Deal With Harassment, Abuse And Crazies In General

2 Likes

Well, that article was mighty depressing… Not that I was oblivious or it’s never happend, but it hits the message home… I’ve always fancied pottery, hmmm.!

3 Likes