A(nother) proposition for a game asset development company
by Bryan Edds · in General Discussion · 03/01/2004 (5:23 pm) · 30 replies
After having researched and found the last asset development idea I had to be impractical, I would like to submit for your evalutation the following idea for a video game asset development company -
I want to start an online asset development company that shares after-tax income with all its contributors. The main clients would be indie developers, which means I would try to sell mass product at low prices. And the content would be packaged in sets of 50 - 100 related assets. A contribution is where an artist signs ownership of the asset over to the company. The artist DOES keep the right to use the asset, but no longer has ownership over it. The company then sells the license to use the assets to indies either in standalone form, or in genre packs (eg - RPG asset pack has all the models, songs, and SFX needed to make an RPG) to create income. The income is shared with the contributors 65/35 (favoring the contributor). The amount of money a contributor gets depends on what percentage of the total assets contributed belong to the contributor times the percentage of income shared per month. For example, if the company has 2,000 assets, and the contributor worked full time throughout a year to create 150 assets, and the company shares 65% of its profit with its contributors (the other 35% staying with the company to pay for overhead and growth), and the company sells $20000 of product in a month, the the money given to that contributor amounts to -
150 / 2000 * 0.65 * 20000 = $975 for that month.
That would be $11,700 a year, certainly enough to live off of if you're on your own.
Or, let's say they just work part time on development, and contribute only 50 assets -
50 / 2000 * .65 * 20000 = $325 for that month,
which is $3900 a year.
Also, once you contribute an asset, you get paid for that contribution every month for the life of the asset (which is as long as we keep it on sale). You only get paid for assets that are actively on sale, whether they sell or not.
Here, you can see how it would get even better after contributing for another year. Say you contributed 150 assets last year, and 50 of them get retired for whatever reason. Also say that you contribute another 150 assets in the next year. Your total assets would be 250, and the income would go up dramatically. But before recalculating the numbers, there is one hitch - over time, as the company grows, the total number of assets grows. We would have to assume that another 1000 assets were gained in 1 year's time (at 50%) growth. This decreases the percent of the total income you will get, but the total income for you is increased because the more assets the company has, the more sales will be made (up to a limit)! Assume that you have 250 assets in the company, and the total asset database consists of 3000 assets, and sales multiply by 1.5 to $30,000 a month. Your income would be thus -
250 / 3000 * 0.65 * 30000 = $1625 for that month.
That would be $19,500 a year - not bad.
Now, don't get too excited about having 350 assets next year if you make 150 more. This is because most of the assets made 2 years ago will be retired. So, you would have 150 total assets retired, leaving you with 250 this year, and about the same income as last year, roughly, assuming that the companies gain 1000 assets, but retires an equal amount. Conservatively, the company would have to retire most of its 2-year old assets every 2 years because of increasing hardware capability and higher polygon counts. Current submissions can not be too high poly because only models that work in real-time games will be accepted. Of course, if the original artist wishes to update some retiring assets to keep them in the database and making money for him, then he can update the model as is needed - which may be less time consuming than making a whole new one. Another reason that assets may need to be retired is if there was a flaw discovered in it, and it needs to be fixed.
continued...
I want to start an online asset development company that shares after-tax income with all its contributors. The main clients would be indie developers, which means I would try to sell mass product at low prices. And the content would be packaged in sets of 50 - 100 related assets. A contribution is where an artist signs ownership of the asset over to the company. The artist DOES keep the right to use the asset, but no longer has ownership over it. The company then sells the license to use the assets to indies either in standalone form, or in genre packs (eg - RPG asset pack has all the models, songs, and SFX needed to make an RPG) to create income. The income is shared with the contributors 65/35 (favoring the contributor). The amount of money a contributor gets depends on what percentage of the total assets contributed belong to the contributor times the percentage of income shared per month. For example, if the company has 2,000 assets, and the contributor worked full time throughout a year to create 150 assets, and the company shares 65% of its profit with its contributors (the other 35% staying with the company to pay for overhead and growth), and the company sells $20000 of product in a month, the the money given to that contributor amounts to -
150 / 2000 * 0.65 * 20000 = $975 for that month.
That would be $11,700 a year, certainly enough to live off of if you're on your own.
Or, let's say they just work part time on development, and contribute only 50 assets -
50 / 2000 * .65 * 20000 = $325 for that month,
which is $3900 a year.
Also, once you contribute an asset, you get paid for that contribution every month for the life of the asset (which is as long as we keep it on sale). You only get paid for assets that are actively on sale, whether they sell or not.
Here, you can see how it would get even better after contributing for another year. Say you contributed 150 assets last year, and 50 of them get retired for whatever reason. Also say that you contribute another 150 assets in the next year. Your total assets would be 250, and the income would go up dramatically. But before recalculating the numbers, there is one hitch - over time, as the company grows, the total number of assets grows. We would have to assume that another 1000 assets were gained in 1 year's time (at 50%) growth. This decreases the percent of the total income you will get, but the total income for you is increased because the more assets the company has, the more sales will be made (up to a limit)! Assume that you have 250 assets in the company, and the total asset database consists of 3000 assets, and sales multiply by 1.5 to $30,000 a month. Your income would be thus -
250 / 3000 * 0.65 * 30000 = $1625 for that month.
That would be $19,500 a year - not bad.
Now, don't get too excited about having 350 assets next year if you make 150 more. This is because most of the assets made 2 years ago will be retired. So, you would have 150 total assets retired, leaving you with 250 this year, and about the same income as last year, roughly, assuming that the companies gain 1000 assets, but retires an equal amount. Conservatively, the company would have to retire most of its 2-year old assets every 2 years because of increasing hardware capability and higher polygon counts. Current submissions can not be too high poly because only models that work in real-time games will be accepted. Of course, if the original artist wishes to update some retiring assets to keep them in the database and making money for him, then he can update the model as is needed - which may be less time consuming than making a whole new one. Another reason that assets may need to be retired is if there was a flaw discovered in it, and it needs to be fixed.
continued...
#2
-Jeff Tunnell GG
03/01/2004 (6:32 pm)
Not to coment on the plan itself, but on one of the assumptions. $20,000 per month in sales? That is a HUGE number.-Jeff Tunnell GG
#4
I can create far LESS assets and make MORE off royalties than this system claims. Furthermore, my work would never be retired- there is no reason that a decent game couldn't enjoy 2-5 years of sales, as long as it doesn't fall into the pitfall of relying on technology that makes it seem dated.
Something like Orbz could easily see stable sales for 5 years.
Allowing someone else to fix the work and "claim" the income for himself- that ain't gonna fly.
Retiring work? No way. I have yet to find a single asset ANYWHERE that is not flawed in some manner- when you try to pump that asset into an engine that it isn't specifically designed for, it gets much worse.
This shows extreme narrow focus and no real insight into future progression. Eventually we'll have Hal-Life2 running on devices the size of a wristwatch. Original content will need to be provided for those devices. The next Gen Gameboy will probably need low-poly models and textures, since it will probably be capable of running something at least as simple as QUAKE. This doesn't even mention things like Playstations handheld gaming device, PDAs and Cellphones, which are already in existance.
This requires near-generic works. Isn't the industry already plagued with generic, non-inspiring art? For an industry that claims artistic freedom, there isn't nearly as much "art" going on as there is "graphic design" and "advertising".
Sold in packs, there really wouldn't be any consistency in quality or style. So these would essentially be useless except as mockups and placeholders. Most everything would have to be reworked without a standard and focus.
Also, this assumes that all models are equal. They aren't. So why should someone that creates 150 "tolerable" models get paid far more than a modeler that creates 20 "excellent" models?
So the modeller is allowed to use that work. For what? I can't imagine that pay is terribly high for a modeller that creates generic work that might be seen in other game engines. Basically they may as well be selling the work DIRECTLY to the studio and bypass you completely.
Finally, there is no way that I am providing incremental saves to ANYONE. That is my own property, my own work.
Keep in mind that this is strictly MY opinion, and why I won't be investing in this system- this isn't an attempt to knock a noble idea. I don't believe in the GameBeavers system either. But many other artists may feel differently.
03/01/2004 (7:06 pm)
From an artists standpoint, I won't invest any time or energy into a system like this.I can create far LESS assets and make MORE off royalties than this system claims. Furthermore, my work would never be retired- there is no reason that a decent game couldn't enjoy 2-5 years of sales, as long as it doesn't fall into the pitfall of relying on technology that makes it seem dated.
Something like Orbz could easily see stable sales for 5 years.
Allowing someone else to fix the work and "claim" the income for himself- that ain't gonna fly.
Retiring work? No way. I have yet to find a single asset ANYWHERE that is not flawed in some manner- when you try to pump that asset into an engine that it isn't specifically designed for, it gets much worse.
This shows extreme narrow focus and no real insight into future progression. Eventually we'll have Hal-Life2 running on devices the size of a wristwatch. Original content will need to be provided for those devices. The next Gen Gameboy will probably need low-poly models and textures, since it will probably be capable of running something at least as simple as QUAKE. This doesn't even mention things like Playstations handheld gaming device, PDAs and Cellphones, which are already in existance.
This requires near-generic works. Isn't the industry already plagued with generic, non-inspiring art? For an industry that claims artistic freedom, there isn't nearly as much "art" going on as there is "graphic design" and "advertising".
Sold in packs, there really wouldn't be any consistency in quality or style. So these would essentially be useless except as mockups and placeholders. Most everything would have to be reworked without a standard and focus.
Also, this assumes that all models are equal. They aren't. So why should someone that creates 150 "tolerable" models get paid far more than a modeler that creates 20 "excellent" models?
So the modeller is allowed to use that work. For what? I can't imagine that pay is terribly high for a modeller that creates generic work that might be seen in other game engines. Basically they may as well be selling the work DIRECTLY to the studio and bypass you completely.
Finally, there is no way that I am providing incremental saves to ANYONE. That is my own property, my own work.
Keep in mind that this is strictly MY opinion, and why I won't be investing in this system- this isn't an attempt to knock a noble idea. I don't believe in the GameBeavers system either. But many other artists may feel differently.
#5
Please don't critique the numbers, they are totally contrived. It is the idea that I hope you will study and critique :)
Oh, and believe me, I wouldn't retire an asset unless I have a GOOD reason. Please don't assume that I'd start nixing work willy nilly - as long as people buy the work, I will leave it in the database to generate revenue. In other words, I'll let the customers decide.
Also, if a particular model is really good, I could just make it worth 2 assets. Its a matter of degrees, and the system has the flexibility to meet your concerns.
Also, the original creator always has first dibs on fixing up work. But, if they neglect that for, say, 6 months and the asset is unusable, then someone has to fix it, and I would allow it to be someone else. That's just slack on the developer part if they can't maintain their work within a reasonable amount of time.
Randall - "Sold in packs, there really wouldn't be any consistency in quality or style. So these would essentially be useless except as mockups and placeholders. Most everything would have to be reworked without a standard and focus."
That is a big concern, and there may be some standard issue techniques required for model submission. But it's no worse (actually far better) than going to turbosquid... You also need not buy in packs, as you can just buy individual assets if you want :)
And maybe I could make it so you do not have to provide the incremental saves themselves, but rather some screen shots of the incremental saves.
Don't worry, I'm totally willing to compromise to meet everyone's concerns. You just have to tell me what you concerns are, and I should be able to address them. None of this business plan is written in stone!
03/01/2004 (7:18 pm)
These numbers are just assumptions grabbed out of mid-air to demonstrate the propsed system. I know there are a lot of artists out there producing good work, but seeing no money at all.Please don't critique the numbers, they are totally contrived. It is the idea that I hope you will study and critique :)
Oh, and believe me, I wouldn't retire an asset unless I have a GOOD reason. Please don't assume that I'd start nixing work willy nilly - as long as people buy the work, I will leave it in the database to generate revenue. In other words, I'll let the customers decide.
Also, if a particular model is really good, I could just make it worth 2 assets. Its a matter of degrees, and the system has the flexibility to meet your concerns.
Also, the original creator always has first dibs on fixing up work. But, if they neglect that for, say, 6 months and the asset is unusable, then someone has to fix it, and I would allow it to be someone else. That's just slack on the developer part if they can't maintain their work within a reasonable amount of time.
Randall - "Sold in packs, there really wouldn't be any consistency in quality or style. So these would essentially be useless except as mockups and placeholders. Most everything would have to be reworked without a standard and focus."
That is a big concern, and there may be some standard issue techniques required for model submission. But it's no worse (actually far better) than going to turbosquid... You also need not buy in packs, as you can just buy individual assets if you want :)
And maybe I could make it so you do not have to provide the incremental saves themselves, but rather some screen shots of the incremental saves.
Don't worry, I'm totally willing to compromise to meet everyone's concerns. You just have to tell me what you concerns are, and I should be able to address them. None of this business plan is written in stone!
#6
03/01/2004 (7:23 pm)
But the idea depends heavily upon the numbers, Bryan, so you really can't say that and have a good discussion about your idea. Saying $20,000 -vs- $200 in sales, for instance, heavily weights the viability of such a plan. We're talking the difference between money to pay for food for the month, and money to pay for a single Big Mac and Fries for the month. Reguardless of if everything else is a viable idea, if there's almost ziltch for sales, then it's still a dead plan.
#7
It would be really arrogant of me to say that I could possibly know what the sales could look like :) The only metrics we really have is the how sound the idea seems to us. It's just like proposing a video game concept.
03/01/2004 (7:27 pm)
But, how could I or anyone possibly know the numbers? It would literally require a psychic to predict the future like that :)It would be really arrogant of me to say that I could possibly know what the sales could look like :) The only metrics we really have is the how sound the idea seems to us. It's just like proposing a video game concept.
#8
50 / 300 * .65 * 3000 = $325 a month for part time work.
And, on the next year, he would make even more since last year's assets are, in all probability, still selling. Not to mention how much he'll make in the next few years if Randall is right and the assets do not often need retiring.
Would that be more reasonable?
03/01/2004 (7:32 pm)
Jeff, these numbers were based on when the business grew really big. But let's assume that the business is small, and only has 300 assets and makes $3,000 a month. The numbers work out to the same profit for the artist who worked part time and made, say, 50 assets -50 / 300 * .65 * 3000 = $325 a month for part time work.
And, on the next year, he would make even more since last year's assets are, in all probability, still selling. Not to mention how much he'll make in the next few years if Randall is right and the assets do not often need retiring.
Would that be more reasonable?
#9
For instance - there are already places that sell content for 3D applications, Game Development, Music, etc. Find out what they do in monthly sales, and suddenly that will give you a much more realisic model of what to expect in sales on month 1, 2, 6, 12, year 2, etc.
The information is out there - you just gotta track it down. Then, when you have that information in hand, you suddenly have a way of creating and presenting a plan using semi-realisic information that tells people if this is an idea worth pursuing at all (and you yourself would know if this is a plan that you are even interested in putting more effort into, or deciding if this needs to be a sideline for an existing contract development business, etc.)
03/01/2004 (7:34 pm)
Well, not sure if your are familiar with the concept, but, read up on writing Business Plans. Yes, some of it is semi-pull-it-out-of-your-butt numbers, but it's educated guesses rather than random number generation.For instance - there are already places that sell content for 3D applications, Game Development, Music, etc. Find out what they do in monthly sales, and suddenly that will give you a much more realisic model of what to expect in sales on month 1, 2, 6, 12, year 2, etc.
The information is out there - you just gotta track it down. Then, when you have that information in hand, you suddenly have a way of creating and presenting a plan using semi-realisic information that tells people if this is an idea worth pursuing at all (and you yourself would know if this is a plan that you are even interested in putting more effort into, or deciding if this needs to be a sideline for an existing contract development business, etc.)
#10
03/01/2004 (7:37 pm)
Really? Hmm... looks like I need to do some homework then. I had no idea that you could get these numbers. Wouldn't the companies be reluctant to give them to you since they're your competitors? Maybe I should try looking up you suggestion, and get some more concrete numbers. I'm totally willing to do the homework if it can give me a more realistic understanding of the situation.
#11
Yeah, it is. However, your numbers closely reflected MonkeyStones gross misjudgement of the PocketPC industry. They projected $250,000 a year in sales for a single game. Their entire line of published products has probably seen 1/10 of that. They simply didn't understand the industry and what people want to buy, and they failedto market their games effectively.
When you propose a game concept, WITH numbers, you look at the state of the industry and who is buying what, and focus on a demographic. There are millions of PC gamers out there. But you aren't selling to gamers, with a final product. You are selling to developer studios. A much smaller group.
03/01/2004 (7:38 pm)
Quote: It's just like proposing a video game concept.
Yeah, it is. However, your numbers closely reflected MonkeyStones gross misjudgement of the PocketPC industry. They projected $250,000 a year in sales for a single game. Their entire line of published products has probably seen 1/10 of that. They simply didn't understand the industry and what people want to buy, and they failedto market their games effectively.
When you propose a game concept, WITH numbers, you look at the state of the industry and who is buying what, and focus on a demographic. There are millions of PC gamers out there. But you aren't selling to gamers, with a final product. You are selling to developer studios. A much smaller group.
#12
03/01/2004 (7:40 pm)
True, true... Time for me to do some homework on these numbers!
#13
I commend the work your trying to do here Brian.
Play with the numbers and forget about retiring anything, someone might find the perfect model for there game that was made 2 or 3 years prior.
03/03/2004 (12:49 am)
Seems to me alot of artists are very reluctant to give up there hard work, I think this is a main reason finding game assets is difficult. Turbo squid is great but alot of the goods there are either very very high priced for a single item, or they are very high polycount. Alot of times I see things on TS that would fit my needs but they want 50 to 100 beans for it. So I end up firing up the modeler and doing it myself. Ive talked to others about contract work before at places like polycount, most of them want anywhere from $50 to as high as $200 an hour for character work. Getting quality assets seems to be one of the major grind for indies.I commend the work your trying to do here Brian.
Play with the numbers and forget about retiring anything, someone might find the perfect model for there game that was made 2 or 3 years prior.
#14
03/03/2004 (4:59 am)
Thanks! I really think this can work if we try! I'm still trying to dig up some more numbers, though... It's tough. But I'm heading down to the library tomarrow to see what I can find. I'm also planning on talking to some people from the SBA (Small Business Association, I think), y'know, just to see what help they might be willing to offer :)
#15
03/03/2004 (8:10 pm)
Www.google.com and google groups (newsgroups) are good to research whatever subject you need to get info on.
#16
To weigh in on this thread at such a late stage, here are my observations that you can use as food for thought. Most large developers that I've worked at hardly ever, if at all, purchase models from an established website that supplies art. I would have to say that almost all small developers (not "indie" developers) never purchase models. There are exceptions to rules, of course, but they are the exceptions in every case.
Architects & movie/TV post-production are one of the biggest audiences for this type of "off-the-shelf" work. ViewPoint, probably the largest commercial database of 3D geometry anywhere, has been around years and most of their sales are in the architectural & movie/TV industry. They have had, for a number of years, a low polygon line of models (check the catalogue they distribute, it lists poly counts underneath the model) that are targeted at game developers.
Other than one project at Activision I can't recall a team ever purchasing off-the-shelf art. And where did the team use the off-the-shelf art when they did purchase it from Viewpoint? In the opening movie. We required some buildings for a 1940's era city and a church with a dome like St. Paul's Cathedral in London, England. Artists suffer so much from Not-Invented-Here syndrome its unbelievable. Having said that, I can understand their viewpoint (no pun intended) that the off-the-shelf art doesn't quite fit the need, wrong texturing, too many polygons, too few polygons, etc.
03/17/2004 (10:58 pm)
Looooong rambling post...To weigh in on this thread at such a late stage, here are my observations that you can use as food for thought. Most large developers that I've worked at hardly ever, if at all, purchase models from an established website that supplies art. I would have to say that almost all small developers (not "indie" developers) never purchase models. There are exceptions to rules, of course, but they are the exceptions in every case.
Architects & movie/TV post-production are one of the biggest audiences for this type of "off-the-shelf" work. ViewPoint, probably the largest commercial database of 3D geometry anywhere, has been around years and most of their sales are in the architectural & movie/TV industry. They have had, for a number of years, a low polygon line of models (check the catalogue they distribute, it lists poly counts underneath the model) that are targeted at game developers.
Other than one project at Activision I can't recall a team ever purchasing off-the-shelf art. And where did the team use the off-the-shelf art when they did purchase it from Viewpoint? In the opening movie. We required some buildings for a 1940's era city and a church with a dome like St. Paul's Cathedral in London, England. Artists suffer so much from Not-Invented-Here syndrome its unbelievable. Having said that, I can understand their viewpoint (no pun intended) that the off-the-shelf art doesn't quite fit the need, wrong texturing, too many polygons, too few polygons, etc.
#17
And this is where indie developers and "professional indie" developers deviate from each other on two salient points.
The first is this: For an indie developer their primary constraint is usually cost, they have little to no funding and are reluctant to invest any cash they do have in assets for their game. Assets, remember that word, we'll return to it in a little while. Time is "limitless" for them, they have no deadlines, no ship dates. Quality & fit are important, but rank far below cost. For a "professional indie" developer quality is usually the highest ranked requirement, followed by fit then time then cost. Occasionally time is exchanged for quality, but rarely.
And the second point of deviation is this: An indie developer says to herself "I shall create the asset, because I can't find a decent artist who will work for free." or "I shall create the asset because I have no money for art." or "I shall create the asset because these artists are charging too much for art at $50/hour." These are valid concerns for many, especially when they perceive that the game may not even get published, the game may not even get 20% finished (very usual on indie teams) before being abandoned.
03/17/2004 (10:58 pm)
What sets an indie and a professional indie apart is how they budget for their assets. I'm going to assume that most of the audience that will read this post are "programmers by trade" and therefore lack the necessary art & music & software skills required to produce high quality in-game assets. Let's say that you require an art asset (geometry, texture, image, sound effect, background music) for your current game. There's a few ways you can go about it; have one of your staff artists do it; have a contract artist/studio do it; license an off-the-shelf asset; or create it yourself by opening 3DS Max or Photoshop or ACID or SoundForge. Each of these options has pros and cons associated with them. The metrics that are actually measurable are; time & cost, obviously objectively, and quality & fit which are somewhat subjective but still quantifiable. The first two are hopefully obvious. Time equals how long it takes to create the asset, and, very importantly, integrate it in to the game. Cost is monetary. Even if you do it yourself in MS Paint, there is still a cost associated with it. Quality is how good the asset is. Pretty simple stuff. Fit is how well the asset works with the part of the game that it will be used in; if it's music, is it appropriate to the particular game genre, target audience, and part of the current mood of the game. Whilst Quality & Fit are subjective you can at least say "Perfect", "Good", "Okay", "Bad" & "Terrible" for any asset given to you.And this is where indie developers and "professional indie" developers deviate from each other on two salient points.
The first is this: For an indie developer their primary constraint is usually cost, they have little to no funding and are reluctant to invest any cash they do have in assets for their game. Assets, remember that word, we'll return to it in a little while. Time is "limitless" for them, they have no deadlines, no ship dates. Quality & fit are important, but rank far below cost. For a "professional indie" developer quality is usually the highest ranked requirement, followed by fit then time then cost. Occasionally time is exchanged for quality, but rarely.
And the second point of deviation is this: An indie developer says to herself "I shall create the asset, because I can't find a decent artist who will work for free." or "I shall create the asset because I have no money for art." or "I shall create the asset because these artists are charging too much for art at $50/hour." These are valid concerns for many, especially when they perceive that the game may not even get published, the game may not even get 20% finished (very usual on indie teams) before being abandoned.
#18
The indie views art as a cost, "It will cost me this much to purchase these sound effects." The "professional indie" views art as an "asset." I said we'd return to that word again. You're reading this on the Garage Games forums, so you obviously splurged the $100 for the Torque Games Engine. Do you view the TGE as an asset to your development efforts? Of course you do! All joking aside about learning curve, bugs, and poor documentation, the sheer amount of effort expended by others in creating the TGE is an asset. That is purchasable at a very low cost, fortunately for us. As an indie developer you need to start thinking of art as an asset -- that's why they are called "assets" by development teams who keep their assets in an asset content management system, e.g. NxN's AlienBrain. When you start putting dollar costs on the art, along with the code you generate, you get a realistic idea of what an asset is worth, both real dollar value, and perceived value to you or your company.
03/17/2004 (10:59 pm)
The "professional indie" developer says to herself "I have a need for an art asset. Is there anything I already have I can reuse?" and begins looking through the company's collection of already existing assets. If the answer is "No" she asks "Is there anything I can buy off-the-shelf?" and then proceeds to look around for CD-ROMs of artwork for sale, or packages of models, or licensable music that has already been created (off-the-shelf is always cheaper than bespoke -- go buy a custom tailored suit some day if you don't believe me). And if the answer is still "No" then she must ask herself "How much will it cost me to purchase precisely what I want?" and proceed to speak with staff or contractor to figure out a price. Once she has that price she can ask herself "Do I have the mastery of skills, and the software, required to produce the asset that is up to specification?" and if the answer is "Yes" then she can cost out precisely how much it would be for her to create the asset. Let's assume that as the business operator & chief programmer of the project she won't be as fast as a professional, dedicated contract artist or musician who is focused solely on the job at hand so that extra time must also be allowed for. The game may be developed under a time constraint, say six months, so that too must be taken in to account as creating assets takes away from concentrating on the core competency, which is usually managing the business and writing code for most indie, both professional and non-professional, developers.The indie views art as a cost, "It will cost me this much to purchase these sound effects." The "professional indie" views art as an "asset." I said we'd return to that word again. You're reading this on the Garage Games forums, so you obviously splurged the $100 for the Torque Games Engine. Do you view the TGE as an asset to your development efforts? Of course you do! All joking aside about learning curve, bugs, and poor documentation, the sheer amount of effort expended by others in creating the TGE is an asset. That is purchasable at a very low cost, fortunately for us. As an indie developer you need to start thinking of art as an asset -- that's why they are called "assets" by development teams who keep their assets in an asset content management system, e.g. NxN's AlienBrain. When you start putting dollar costs on the art, along with the code you generate, you get a realistic idea of what an asset is worth, both real dollar value, and perceived value to you or your company.
#19
What anyone, indie or "professional indie" needs to ask themselves, always, is "how much will this cost me?" and then proceed to find or create hard data in answer to that question. Once that is done, ask yourself, "What's important to me? Cost? Quality? Fit? Time?" Now you'll have a better idea of whether to create the assets in-house or obtain them through another channel such as a website specializing in the asset type you need.
I teach game development at college to aspiring and professional game developers and also have a "3D Engine" that I've developed that I can utilize for creating games, so I know my way around game engines, but I also had to ask myself "to make my 3D game engine as good as a commercial 3D engine, what will it cost me?" and the answer was "a lot more than $100." So I bought an asset, the Torque Game Engine.
Did *YOU* buy an asset?
Or did you just buy Torque because you thought "that's a really cool toy that I'd like to play with"?
If it's the former, you need to apply the same logic to art assets too. If it's the latter, well, I guess you purchased a really expensive toy that you can play around with.
To conclude, and make all this relevant to the opening post in this thread, there are three types of people. Those who can't afford your off-the-shelf service. Those who won't buy off-the-shelf assets at any price. And those who may buy off-the-shelf if the price is right and the asset is of sufficient quality and a good fit. The last one isyour audience. That's the demographic you need to aim for and ignore the "I don't have enough money/I didn't create it" types. Good luck. It will be a hard sell.
Finally, I have a stack of sound effects audio CDs and instrument & music loop CDs, a stack of stock photo & clip arts, and purchase several CDs of 3D models (trees, cars, buildings) each year that I can drop in, either as place-holder art, or as final art with a little tweaking. And don't forget tools that are also "assets", e.g. Developer Studio, Thinstall, Wise Installer, Photoshop, and so on. So I really do buy "off-the-shelf" assets when it can save time & money.
03/17/2004 (10:59 pm)
The first two titles that my indie development studio shipped had budgets of $30,000 each. That is to say, they were designed so that all code, art, music & marketing was to not cost more than $30,000. How much did the company actually have available to spend? $0. Zero. Zilch. Nada! No money at all! Two veteran game designer/programmers generated all the assets; code, art & music, to a reasonable quality level for the first two games completely unpaid. Note the use of the word "unpaid", not "free." An important distinction. The two programmers were creating assets that were useful to the company. The programmers were working under the indie directive of "Cost, Quality, Fit, Time" but now that the company has capital that it can invest, the requirements have shuffled about to that of "professional indie", i.e. 'Quality, Fit, Cost, Time."What anyone, indie or "professional indie" needs to ask themselves, always, is "how much will this cost me?" and then proceed to find or create hard data in answer to that question. Once that is done, ask yourself, "What's important to me? Cost? Quality? Fit? Time?" Now you'll have a better idea of whether to create the assets in-house or obtain them through another channel such as a website specializing in the asset type you need.
I teach game development at college to aspiring and professional game developers and also have a "3D Engine" that I've developed that I can utilize for creating games, so I know my way around game engines, but I also had to ask myself "to make my 3D game engine as good as a commercial 3D engine, what will it cost me?" and the answer was "a lot more than $100." So I bought an asset, the Torque Game Engine.
Did *YOU* buy an asset?
Or did you just buy Torque because you thought "that's a really cool toy that I'd like to play with"?
If it's the former, you need to apply the same logic to art assets too. If it's the latter, well, I guess you purchased a really expensive toy that you can play around with.
To conclude, and make all this relevant to the opening post in this thread, there are three types of people. Those who can't afford your off-the-shelf service. Those who won't buy off-the-shelf assets at any price. And those who may buy off-the-shelf if the price is right and the asset is of sufficient quality and a good fit. The last one isyour audience. That's the demographic you need to aim for and ignore the "I don't have enough money/I didn't create it" types. Good luck. It will be a hard sell.
Finally, I have a stack of sound effects audio CDs and instrument & music loop CDs, a stack of stock photo & clip arts, and purchase several CDs of 3D models (trees, cars, buildings) each year that I can drop in, either as place-holder art, or as final art with a little tweaking. And don't forget tools that are also "assets", e.g. Developer Studio, Thinstall, Wise Installer, Photoshop, and so on. So I really do buy "off-the-shelf" assets when it can save time & money.
#20
Just pointing that out, no axe to grind here.....
03/18/2004 (2:15 pm)
For a *professional* developer, TGE costs a lot more than a hundred bucks. Getting to the point where you know TGE as well as you'd know your own engine will take you a considerable amount of time, and time is money.Just pointing that out, no axe to grind here.....
Torque Owner Bryan Edds
If the creator wishes to keep it in the database and generating income for him, then he must fix it, or else it will be retired. If the original creator does not fix it, then another person may do so, and take the income for himself. Of course, the creator always has first dibs on fixing his own asset to keep it from retiring.
Of course, not all contributions can count as a whole asset - whereas a fully textured character model would count as 1 asset, a single texture by itself would count as 1/10 of an asset or so (it may vary depending on need and quality).
Finally, to make sure that all work is original work (not stolen), incremental saves of the product must be sent in with the finished product. We will not accept an asset unless the process of its creation can be reasonably be shown with some incremental saves. Incremental saves is the way most artists work anyways.
These are some general ideas, and some very tentative and contrived numbers.