Which game would have the best market? And make the most Money?
vertex
So I have 2 primary game ideas, I've went through each of them fairly
well. One is set 2049 or near future, and the other around 2380.
So both of them I want to be somewhat realistic like Arma 3 (Like 70-85%), which obviously the Near future would be the most realistic, both have same general game-play, with a different look, technology, and other things.
For each game my team and I plan on making the multiplayer first, then the story later
So the first one is called BattleState (Set in 2049) (Think of Call of duty Adavanced warfare, with a much better story, and better look)
The back-story is basically in 2025 the sand-andresfault along with other fault lines cause the earth to alter, governments collapse, in order to maintain order, economic/political unions are formed, with Britan, USA, Japan, and others along with part ownership of company who helped bail out the goverments, and then you have the federation formed which contains Russia, China, and other who help the rebels with supply's and reinforcements. In 2044 a civil war breaks out between the peoples alliance and the Union, the people alliance is well funded,with about the same quality of gear/tech as the union
So the primary game play my team and I would want to focus on is Conquest, where players have multiple maps in which they can travel around a north america map, in different war-zones meaning different points of the north america map in which people can travel to in the main menu (So there will be 10-20 different maps when finished, where players can teleport from the main menu and play on that map) And much like Planet-side the maps can be controlled by players, showing the region controlled by either the AI (Which would be the Union) or the players team (The alliance). With this players would be able to join different randomly generated missions (I have about a list of 50 variables, which I could make over 5000 different missions) There players can do do different missions, rank up, and earn money. Now this will be sorta like a RPG, in which player can have different jobs (Which they can level up those jobs, and switch from job/roles at any time) Players will earn RP (reputation points) which can be used to gear up, and buy vehicles, and by buy vehicles, I meant for a one time use. Players can also use money to buy training courses to be able to actually use gear/weapons/anything and they will have to buy the licensing for the guns after they complete the training course. Now there will be only 1 team in which players can join, and the other team will be AI controlled to increase realism, meaning AI will react to different things, such as killing a Enemy officer will make the AI act ski-dish, and there morality go down. Along with a lot of other realistic effects. Also supplies and gear can be limited if a base, ware-house, hospital, factory, ect. gets taken and is controlled, by the enemy which can limit perks, abilitys, supplies, and
The second one is BattleStar (set in 2380) (think of Halo, and star citizen for a basic look)
The back story is basically set on a planet, that has been partially colonized, and a war breaks out between the federation and the Rebels, who are well funded and supplied.
The gameplay is basically the same as before with the conquest idea but instead of a continent its the planets map, with the same basic principles as battle state, but with more tech, more enviroments/wild-life, different types of physics, different types of attacking/missions/other/ect., and battle mechanics/tactics.
Although we may have 2 different team in which players can play so instead of Just Player Vs AI, it may be PVP with a mix of AI on each team.
Please give me your opinion of which one you think would be more popular and make the most money.
So both of them I want to be somewhat realistic like Arma 3 (Like 70-85%), which obviously the Near future would be the most realistic, both have same general game-play, with a different look, technology, and other things.
For each game my team and I plan on making the multiplayer first, then the story later
So the first one is called BattleState (Set in 2049) (Think of Call of duty Adavanced warfare, with a much better story, and better look)
The back-story is basically in 2025 the sand-andresfault along with other fault lines cause the earth to alter, governments collapse, in order to maintain order, economic/political unions are formed, with Britan, USA, Japan, and others along with part ownership of company who helped bail out the goverments, and then you have the federation formed which contains Russia, China, and other who help the rebels with supply's and reinforcements. In 2044 a civil war breaks out between the peoples alliance and the Union, the people alliance is well funded,with about the same quality of gear/tech as the union
So the primary game play my team and I would want to focus on is Conquest, where players have multiple maps in which they can travel around a north america map, in different war-zones meaning different points of the north america map in which people can travel to in the main menu (So there will be 10-20 different maps when finished, where players can teleport from the main menu and play on that map) And much like Planet-side the maps can be controlled by players, showing the region controlled by either the AI (Which would be the Union) or the players team (The alliance). With this players would be able to join different randomly generated missions (I have about a list of 50 variables, which I could make over 5000 different missions) There players can do do different missions, rank up, and earn money. Now this will be sorta like a RPG, in which player can have different jobs (Which they can level up those jobs, and switch from job/roles at any time) Players will earn RP (reputation points) which can be used to gear up, and buy vehicles, and by buy vehicles, I meant for a one time use. Players can also use money to buy training courses to be able to actually use gear/weapons/anything and they will have to buy the licensing for the guns after they complete the training course. Now there will be only 1 team in which players can join, and the other team will be AI controlled to increase realism, meaning AI will react to different things, such as killing a Enemy officer will make the AI act ski-dish, and there morality go down. Along with a lot of other realistic effects. Also supplies and gear can be limited if a base, ware-house, hospital, factory, ect. gets taken and is controlled, by the enemy which can limit perks, abilitys, supplies, and
The second one is BattleStar (set in 2380) (think of Halo, and star citizen for a basic look)
The back story is basically set on a planet, that has been partially colonized, and a war breaks out between the federation and the Rebels, who are well funded and supplied.
The gameplay is basically the same as before with the conquest idea but instead of a continent its the planets map, with the same basic principles as battle state, but with more tech, more enviroments/wild-life, different types of physics, different types of attacking/missions/other/ect., and battle mechanics/tactics.
Although we may have 2 different team in which players can play so instead of Just Player Vs AI, it may be PVP with a mix of AI on each team.
Please give me your opinion of which one you think would be more popular and make the most money.
Replies
Give us some more info:
1. What's your budget?
2. What's your timeline?
3. How much game dev experience do you have?
Here's my initial thoughts, the shooter market is very saturated, unless you can gamble with a few hundred million dollars it isn't worth the risk. If you've got $100k or less to spend, make a smaller scale unique game.
It may not be the case anymore but for the last year or so investors have been super hyped about VR and willing to give you money. Game development is a terrible investment, which is why it's hard to line up funds, so hop on that VR money while you have the chance (It may be gone already though).
also...starting off with statements like its going to have a better story and be better looking than a 50 million dollar budget AAA title is really setting yourself up for failure and looking at life through a distorted lens.
if you are getting into game dev strictly to make money, that is a recipie for disaster. You need to be making something you are passionate about that even if 10 people played it, you would be happy. Like justin said, whats your budget, your experience level etc? There are so many factors that go into a production knowing more would really help.
@skyboyfly
The AAA IPs you've noted as inspiration for your project involved hundred's of devs with years of experience and attained skillset covering various disciplines over multiple years of development too achieve market pre-eminence of their respective genre. What you're proposing if an indie/small team is practically 'pie-in-the-sky' waste of resources/effort/time period! or if this is indeed a one man band endeavour even more so...
(*head shakes*)
The stickiest games are the simple ones, for example Mine Craft, Fruit Ninja, Crossy Road...etc Hell my all time favourite aside from "Little Big Planet" was a 'casual' mobile game called "Flappy Bird" which was published as a 100% free release. How it managed to generated revenue was via in app advertising, I believe at the height of it's fame off the top of my head around 50K a day (USD50,000)
So mentioned above make something you like and/or research a specific niche in the market that as yet remains un-tapped. Drop this cloned CoD - Halo come 'Battlestar Galactica' thing...because it's nothing but a doomed too fail! sinkhole of over-ambitious tripe to begin with.
You don't necessarily have to go all the way to the Stephen's Sausage Roll side of the spectrum, although you shouldn't rule it out, but gameplay is the single most important thing to making a hit game. This goes double if you haven't got a kick-ass marketing department that could sell a turd to a Fields Medal winner.
Note how you also quoted 'or something'.
And on top of that, what's wrong with suggesting a 2d sidescroller?
There's just simply a lot of reference online about them, as well as just all-out example projects that you can study.
Turn based strategy, a chess like game where you place units and at the end of each turn each unit moves X tiles forward, once a unit meets they attack each other once and continues next turn until one of them dies. Could throw in spells to spice it up a bit.
Small arena FPS where you try to survive against waves and gain a highscore.
Yes you have to start somewhere but why not start with a simple FPS as he wants to make a FPS in the end.
Here's some heavy hits;
- Are you an 'idea guy' or will you actually be a developer?
- Will this have funding? The days of volunteers making games for free are over, its a cancer of this industry.
- That funding dictates the scope of your game.
- This style of Multiplayer game need servers, will your indie company have the capacity for that.
- Don't confuse story with gameplay
- Watch that video
- Read those posts
- Have fun
Having ideas just isn't enough, having money isn't enough, hell even having the experience isn't enough. Fully funded AAA titles with an army of devs behind them get cancelled. If your pure motivation is money, then you likely won't achieve that this way. I also find it funny when people say that they'll make a game better than X game because it's their story. Unfortunately, telling stories is hard, telling a good story is even harder, and presenting a story that works in the realm of game development is even harder because so many more things come into play that need to be available to drive the story.
For both of your games, if you plan on being the single developer, you'd need to scale back like 99% of what you want to do. Because a single person can make a simple space sim or fps shooter. But then trying to add in story elements, complex environments/ characters, and soon you'll be overwhelmed.
JUST DO IT!!!!
Justin's suggestion is even better. Learn to crawl before you try to run.
Judging by the OP's post, I would assume he/his team has very little to no experience. "Think of Call of duty Adavanced warfare, with a much better story, and better look" - this line tells you everything you need to know.
The reality of it is, the learning curve is a lot lower when it comes to making a 32x32 spite sheet for a character than it is to model, uv, texture, rig, animate, and all that. Even for relatively basic old-school Quake 3 spec artwork it's an extensive amount of work.
It's sort of odd that I have to explain this. Surely all the people here with 5-15 years of experience tried to do something like build their own 3D game or mod from scratch when they were just starting out, only to realize how completely and utterly out of their element they were. I know I did, multiple times!
In all seriousness, start with some unity or game maker video tutorials and learn the basics of coding and art, then you will quickly see what is possible within a given timeframe. Also if you are in for the money then you might want to go into mobile. Mobile games are much closer within your optimal scope either way. Try making a small and fun game with 2D gameplay, no story, no open world, nothing of sorts.
@Eric , actually the term skinner box is used all the time, especially in free to play and mobile / MMO areas as a form of critique or to describe their mechanics, as its very prelevent
EarthQuake said:
Judging by the OP's post, I would assume he/his team has very little to no experience. "Think of Call of duty Adavanced warfare, with a much better story, and better look" - this line tells you everything you need to know.
The reality of it is, the learning curve is a lot lower when it comes to making a 32x32 spite sheet for a character than it is to model, uv, texture, rig, animate, and all that. Even for relatively basic old-school Quake 3 spec artwork it's an extensive amount of work.
It's sort of odd that I have to explain this. Surely all the people here with 5-15 years of experience tried to do something like build their own 3D game or mod from scratch when they were just starting out, only to realize how completely and utterly out of their element they were. I know I did, multiple times!
This.
Given the thread's premise, it wasn't that much of a stretch determining the degree of expertise that had authored it, actually I hadn't got beyond the first line in fact:..before penning a response:
'So I have 2 primary game ideas, I've went through each of them fairly well. One is set 2049 or near future, and the other around 2380.'
I've stopped counting the number of occasions these types of statements pop up on the InterWeb from time too time, though be it said well meaning uninitiated ambition to be fair but wholly under resourced in every which way possible...so yeah it is really as simple to keep it, well SIMPLE! full stop.
That mobile platform example I touched on earlier was made by a solo indie dev. The reason offered when he'd eventually pulled it from the App Store and Google Play in 2014 was paradoxically due to it's runaway success had affected his state of mind.
I think probably a topic best left for another discussion.
our own blankslatejoe talking about his xp with solo developing his game Tower of Gun. Some good info
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1021895/Creative-Corner-Cutting-Tower-of
Instead of making a full game, you make only a single level or even a 'short playable moment' of a single level (like an intense moment of the level), and everything should look & feel like shipping quality.
The amount of work is way less than making the full game, of course, but it still illustrates what you have in mind. You use this product to get funding \ kickstarter etc. to make the full game.
A prototype is usually very low on the visual fidelity stage but the gameplay mechanics are tuned enough for playtesting.
You do realize that it took 3 years to make Advanced Warfare for a core team of 100+ people with years and years of experience creating games in the genre?
Not that I know why we even bother as the OP has had minimal involvement in the thread. Posting once a week.
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf
When you say "Halo, and Star Citizen for a basic look" have you allocated enough time and budget for a little more version drift then both of those games? if so then i think you will be fine
Way to be a professional.
Not that all new users are like this, but the ones who get weeded out quickly are those who don't realize the fragility of attacking other users (or people who do work in the industry).
skyboyfly said:
Yes, I wanted to see how easy it was to piss people off, along with getting some info into the post (As I wasn't ganna post the long ass paragraph for nothing) (Just to piss people off) ALSO to all those poeple posted.... I'm not in game development for money, I actually love it, it's a part of my life. I don't give a fuck about long hours, I do it because I love it. And you want to talk about long hours,I've stayed up for 64 hours thinking about game development... So yall can fuck off. I have nothing but passion and love for it.
...Charming!
Hit a nerve have we?! hearing the unvarnished truth for the first time perhaps?
With an attitude like that, the OP'll probably last a FAST New York minute *IF* he manages to publish anything, let alone his beloved passion project.
Hmm...let's say for example's sake on the App Store. FUCKING HELL talk about throwing chum too the sharks, especially those doxy-troll "comments" can be exceptionally brutal; Shit! enough to draw blood from every orifice...if memory serves
Thinking back I've often wondered had I'd lurked around sites like Polycount a bit more thoroughly before I plunged head first into the mire, subsequently dipping a toe dev'ing a browser 32bit crappy side-scroller that bit the dust pretty damn quick...Where I might've ended up today?!
(wishfully thinking)
Lying back on some sandy beach somewhere warm sipping umbrella drinks, taking in the view of bikini clad babes alongside counting bucket loads of cash...
Instead of busting my hump basically along with hordes of other hopefuls trying to crack the market with the next 'Big Thing'...sigh!!!!!
Fuck you! "Flappy Bird"
Oh...and FYI OP - if you're still hangin around, a piece of free advice. It's fairly rare being treated so politely regarding that post. Actually I'll go so far as respectful even by most who've responded with their insights from real life experience, though it may not seem that way to you at first. So after you've picked up your toys, re-read a few of them there's gold to be had.
Over-'n-out.
Enough said here, I'm fucking off now.
Most of us have been you at one point or another in life, but then we worked for many years, got good enough to be part of a game project, got to see how the sausage is really made, and realized how foolish our younger versions of self were.
The big lesson here is that "Game Designer" is not an entry level position unless you're someone like Notch who hits it big on a personal project. Everyone has game ideas, everyone thinks they can do X better, but until you actually try you won't realize how delusional this sentiment is.
Which again, is why many suggested starting off small, with a more manageable project so you can come to terms with how video game development works. When I was 13 I started fooling around with 3D modeling, when I was 15 I was working on Quake 3 mods, and by the time I was 18 I was good enough to get paid for my time. That's 7 years between trying to do something and being able to do it at a semi-competent level. Resources are much better these days though, many of the things I had to learn by trial and error are easy available resources, with endless tutorials and the like, so if you're serious about working in games, it's all there, you just have to put in the work.
Originally I had written a much more blunt response here. I'm editing it out because you're clearly a young guy and flaming you feels bad. I'll replace it with the same advice I generally give to everyone including myself, which is to make more stuff and talk less.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/509250/TO_THE_TOP/
The creator of the game has made smaller games in the past. He was able to recruit talent based on his demo. That's another thing, you'll have a hard time recruiting people and being taken seriously unless you have some sort prototype to show off.
Since the OP said he spent 64 hours straight thinking about game dev, he could have made a game in that time period. Ludum Dare 38 just came and went.