I think you've got it up-side down there... if publishers don't feel like pumping millions into a project that really does need these resources to become a commercial success, you can hardly blame the gamer when a publisher decides not to give more money to make the game better.

Lets face it, gamers won't buy bad games, in fact, nowadays many won't even buy mediocre games... From a publisher's point of view it makes sense to not do too much risky things, but developers should insist on getting more money for the more risky projects.

Also, there are a couple of examples of ideas that really weren't great to start with, no matter how much money they would have pumped into it.



I disagree... usually they go with a commercially tested kind of game, lets say the standard kind of sci-fi fps game, but they add a new (usually gameplay related) gimmick and then call it 'innovation'.

That's not the kind of innovation that's really risky, unless you make the entire game bad. Examples that come to mind are Infernal or some of the other games that have time altering gimmicks... versus for example Prince of Persia Sands of Time, a game with somewhat similar features DID work and had great commercial success.

I have no doubt that for example Infernal could have been much much better than what it turned out to be... Ubisoft had all confidence in PoP and came with the resources needed. I think, to some extent at least, that it's as simple as that. Also the whole innovativeness of Prince of Persia wasn't the actual gimmick, but more so it's implications on the actual gameplay.

I think Rayman is also a very good example when it comes to gameplay that got an extra boost by the various new innovative 'gimmicks' in the last few games yes, but it's a game series that started out more or less like a 'Mario' type standard gameplay thing. They simply build up the game's name, put enough money into the series and that's why it's where it's now.



There are all kinds of ways to make money while making your artistic game. NOT to start your artistic game because you have no money is actually fooling yourself. Most companies that make even smaller games in between to get some development money usually end up making only these smaller games, as it's easy money.

It's somewhat of an illusion that this would really work... especially because those in between games have to be of good quality as well.



This should be heard and said WAY more often... as it's definitely applicable to most indie developers.



Yeah, I agree. As a developer you have to also treat those games like 'full games', not like 'in between cash cows', because quality will inevitably suffer when the attitude isn't right.

I think the spin-off game ideas are great by the way, probably something to look into indeed!



If your game ends up getting mentioned a few times on some of the bigger blogs and your game is at least mediocre / good, then you can expect a reasonable amount of mouth-to-mouth advertising for free and a percentage of sales because of that... It's usually / probably a short-time thing, but if people like your game, then they might be interested in your next game. 'Creating' a core fan-base is probably the most important thing for a indie developer to achieve, but at the same time spending a fortune at advertising for their indie games usually isn't.

Cheers