Indie Games: What's the opportunity cost of NOT releasing on all platforms at the same time?

[melodiousmowl]

I was looking to play some Binding of Isaac on my Xbox and realized that Afterbirth † is still not on that platform. I realize Nicalis has some aversion to the platform - but isn't it a self-fulfilling prophecy? The game may still come out but it's now years after, theres no press or buzz.... wtf do you expect?

So I wonder - what is the opportunity cost of not releasing on all (reasonable) platforms at the same time, in alignment with all of the advertising, press, and buzz for indie developers?


EDIT: This is a kind of hypothetical question. I know the reasons it doesnt happen, but if it COULD have, would it have yielded enough extra profit to have been worth it.

 

[Rodjer]

Certifications and dev kits?

It's way easy and cheap to make an indie game on PC and releasing it on Seam/GOG or whatever.
For a console game you'll need certifaction to put your game on stores, buy dev kits and these two things are very expensive for a small studio.

 

[Dyle]

It costs money to port games to other platforms and the lost revenue of waiting until all platforms are ready would be greater than the additional revenue of launching them all at the same time, particularly when in the instance you mention the Xbox version is without a doubt the worst performing of all four platforms the game is on. It also doesn't help that Afterbirth+ was fairly poorly received relative to Isaac's other releases and Nicalis has other games coming that would be more likely to pay dividends

 

[StallionDan]

Platform holder may give free promotion if timed exclusive. One release to fund a port etc.

 

[Sub Boss]

You miss out on potential sales!

However, sometimes indie devs don't have the resources to release a game in all platforms at the same time and they have to prioritize

 

[melodiousmowl]

Certifications and dev kits?

It's way easy and cheap to make an indie game on PC and releasing it on Seam/GOG or whatever.
For a console game you'll need certifaction to put your game on stores, buy dev kits and these two things are very expensive for a small studio.

Click to shrink...

Right - but then it releases in 6 months to a year after, and sales are flat etc... so what was the point? It's hard enough in crowded stores (ps4 and xbox are both guilty of this) whereas the more simple style of the switch store I think nets them a ton more exposure.

 

[GMM]

Generally it's a question about resources, for a lot of teams it's not viable shipping on many platforms at the same time.

In this case it's just Nicalis and their terrible business efforts, everything about how they release and maintain video games is terrible, especially if you are outside the US.

 

[Deleted member 17210]

I think about games like Freedom Planet. It likely would have been more successful if it was on everything day one instead of spread over years.

 

[delete12345]

Right - but then it releases in 6 months to a year after, and sales are flat etc... so what was the point? It's hard enough in crowded stores (ps4 and xbox are both guilty of this) whereas the more simple style of the switch store I think nets them a ton more exposure.

Click to shrink...

If the devs can afford the cost, then it is up to their discretions if they choose to release on the platform.

 

[Kyuur]

Right - but then it releases in 6 months to a year after, and sales are flat etc... so what was the point? It's hard enough in crowded stores (ps4 and xbox are both guilty of this) whereas the more simple style of the switch store I think nets them a ton more exposure.

Click to shrink...

Gonna need sources on "sales are flat" . There are numerous stories where indie games sell better on a new platform months or even years after initial launch.

 

[Minthara]

Right - but then it releases in 6 months to a year after, and sales are flat etc... so what was the point? It's hard enough in crowded stores (ps4 and xbox are both guilty of this) whereas the more simple style of the switch store I think nets them a ton more exposure.

Click to shrink...

There is multiple reasons why a dev releases on a platform 6 months to a year after:
1) They think the demand is there still
2) They want to learn how to port a game to that console because they want their next game to be multiplatform
3) They are a small team and it just takes time
4) They were waiting to hear back on some aspect of certification
5) They needed to save up the money in order to start the port
6) Someone offered to help them with the port
7) They are planning to release more content to the game/make a sequel so they want to get their game out there before that content drops
8) They just wanted to see if they could

 

[melodiousmowl]

It costs money to port games to other platforms and the lost revenue of waiting until all platforms are ready would be greater than the additional revenue of launching them all at the same time, particularly when in the instance you mention the Xbox version is without a doubt the worst performing of all four platforms the game is on. It also doesn't help that Afterbirth+ was fairly poorly received relative to Isaac's other releases and Nicalis has other games coming that would be more likely to pay dividends

Click to shrink...

That doesn't really answer the question though. It costs money to make opportunity, thats the point. Is releasing way after ALWAYS better than investing a bit more and doing it up front?

I know I have gone on the xb/ps/sw store and found games I had been interested in on PC just there with 0 knowledge on my part, and I like to think I keep up with game releases.

I have released software with 0 advertising, and I know how well it does (the answer is not well).

If I don't know about it, people finding it at all might equate to basically a mistake, which doesnt reflect well on the dev;/publisher OR the big stores

 

[Minthara]

That doesn't really answer the question though. It costs money to make opportunity, thats the point. Is releasing way after ALWAYS better than investing a bit more and doing it up front?

I know I have gone on the xb/ps/sw store and found games I had been interested in on PC just there with 0 knowledge on my part, and I like to think I keep up with game releases.

I have released software with 0 advertising, and I know how well it does (the answer is not well).

If I don't know about it, people finding it at all might equate to basically a mistake, which doesnt reflect well on the dev;/publisher OR the big stores

Click to shrink...

Your assumption is faulty because it assumes that they have the money to "invest a bit more and do it upfront".

Yes, many small studios are terrible at marketing and advertising, but that is a learned skill and they have to learn it at some point.

Edit: Not to mention: Marketing and advertising costs money, a lot of it too.

 

[melodiousmowl]

Your assumption is faulty because it assumes that they have the money to "invest a bit more and do it upfront".

Yes, many small studios are terrible at marketing and advertising, but that is a learned skill and they have to learn it at some point.

Edit: Not to mention: Marketing and advertising costs money, a lot of it too.

Click to shrink...

I don't assume they have the capital, expertise and whatnot - I am asking a kind of hypothetical: would the outcomes be better if those investments could be made? This is all looking back on past things that have happened and speculating.

If they had the 300 brapples it took up front to release everywhere at once in line with advertising/pr/buzz/etc, would the outcome have been 20,000brapples more than what ended up happening with releasing after.

I know the switch has been a goldmine for a lot of devs - so it can throw off the calculations a bit ;)



EDIT: And seeing this happening all the time, what can/should platform holders do to alleviate the issue?

 

[Odeko]

More so than money, many indie studios just don't have the manpower to do a whole bunch of ports to different systems. Each system is a big upfront cost, and then on top of that each one you have to support multiplies the amount of maintenance and upkeep you need to expend indefinitely going forward.

Then on the other had you have to weigh the potential benefit — how many people are there that would only buy an indie game on Xbone but not PC? Certainly some, but is that relatively small slice of the total pie worth all that spend? Generally the answer to that is "only if we hit it pretty big."

That's why you're starting to see lots of games come to Steam and Switch first to test the waters, as those are by far the two biggest indie platforms currently. Then if something is popular enough there you'll see them start to work on PS4/Xbone/GOG/iOS/Mac/Linux/whatever versions, since they can be confident that the 10% extra revenue will be worth it.

 

[impact]

People on everything but Switch will wait for a sale/bundle/GwG/GamePass/PS+

And I don't blame anyone. It really sucks when you already paid for something and then can get it for virtually nothing.

 

[Dyle]

That doesn't really answer the question though. It costs money to make opportunity, thats the point. Is releasing way after ALWAYS better than investing a bit more and doing it up front?

Click to shrink...

That's the thing, there is no absolute answer, it depends on a lot of factors and is different for every title. For Isaac PC has always been the lead platform, because that's where it started, has the dedicated streaming community, and is where it's supported by mods, so the others have been a much lower priority. The game is only made by about 5 people, all of whom are working on numerous other projects at the same time, which is necessary to ensure that they don't put all their eggs into one basket. They busted their butts to get Afterbirth + on Switch very soon after the system launched and it worked out very well and got a lot of attention where it would have gotten less if they had waited to launch it alongside the xbox version. While there would be some benefits to launching them at the same time, the challenges required to make it a reality would greatly outstrip the benefits in many cases.

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

Lots of reasons not to do simultaneous releases.

Makes development less complicated, greatly reduces the required manpower and makes overall development much less expensive if you only have to target one platform (a big deal when you're working on an indie budget!)

Your game also instantly becomes higher profile if it is a platform exclusive (or even a timed exclusive). That's not even getting into co-marketing and subsidised development on the part of the platform holder!

Exclusivity means that you can offer platform exclusive features that benefit your game's intended design (or create new kinds of games that are not even possible at all on competing platforms - see games like World of Goo for how this can pan out really well).

Opportunities for double dipping.

Resonance with a specific console audience (platformers and gameplay focused games on Nintendo, story driven and arty games on Sony etc).

The list goes on and on.

If anything, it often doesn't make sense for most indies to launch on all platforms day and date.

 

[Gnorman]

People on everything but Switch will wait for a sale/bundle/GwG/GamePass/PS+

And I don't blame anyone. It really sucks when you already paid for something and then can get it for virtually nothing.

Click to shrink...

This will start to happen on switch too once sales start improving. I've only had my switch 5 months but I've definitely started to notice more aggressive discounts. No where near ps sales of course but I think they will get there eventually.