Retro Gamer review...

merman · Post by **merman** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:18 am 0

Issue 43 (Donkey Kong cover), page 92 in the RetroRated section:

Retro Gamer wrote:Quite simply the best game currently available on Xbox Live Arcade - overall 97%, Retro Gamer Sizzler

Also scored an excellent 98% on value for money, Darran the editor is a big fan of the game.

It's refreshing to see Minter stick two fingers up at those publishers and developers who are currently playing it safe on Microsoft's online service... Free of the sort of arty farty rubbish you will often find peddled in most full-prices releases these days, Space Giraffe is nothing more than gaming in its purest form.

skip · Post by **skip** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:24 pm 0

Ironic that the dude's name is Darran...

Of the reviews I've read, probably half are gushing in their praise, a quarter think it's flawed but very good and maybe a quarter 'don't get it' (which given the more 'advanced' type of play required isn't really surprising, dumb reviews/reviewers notwithstanding).

I honestly think it's critically a very good outcome - be happy about that Yak.

Let's hope sales continue / pick up over time. I know I've yet to buy one. Need a 360 first...

Glyndwr · Post by **Glyndwr** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:53 pm 0

skip wrote:Ironic that the dude's name is Darran...

Of the reviews I've read, probably half are gushing in their praise, a quarter think it's flawed but very good and maybe a quarter 'don't get it' (which given the more 'advanced' type of play required isn't really surprising, dumb reviews/reviewers notwithstanding).

I honestly think it's critically a very good outcome - be happy about that Yak.

Let's hope sales continue / pick up over time. I know I've yet to buy one. Need a 360 first...

I don't have 360, but I still bought it. I used a mates.

Yak · Post by **Yak** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:27 am 0

Yeah overall I'm pretty happy with how it's been reviewed. Mostly it's done well and those that get it really get it

.

Creatively I'd call it an excellent success - it's elicited string opinions on both sides and been talked about a lot rather than being released to quiet obscurity. In that respect I'm very happy about it, and if only I had more of a financial buffer to allow me to continue to stick two fingers up to how things "should be done" I happily would, believe me.

The only thing that is dragging me down about it all, and which does I admit make me oversensitive to those that try to attack it, is that respected critical acclaim and passion+effort put into a project and all the best intent in the world simply don't pay the mortgage, it seems, at the end of the day.

Jamesac · Post by **Jamesac** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:20 am 0

Would sales in the same range at 800 points have made up the difference? I'm not looking for personal facts/figures, just wondering if the next full-priced release (with hopefully a less stressful development due to an existing and tested engine, leading to faster turnover) turn out to be enough to lessen the pressure. Because Space Giraffe shows incredible, deep, and overall fun design, and I'd hate to see future games get castrated.

I'm also a big fan of people not being driven to the poorhouse while they blindly follow their muse over the edge of a cliff. Assuming the poorhouse is at the bottom of the cliff, of course.

James

sack · Post by **sack** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:04 pm 0

I'd have stumped up 800 for it.

Looking at a retail price index table and doing a quick bit of maths (and assuming I got it right) 800 points equates to around 3 quid in 1985 (2.99 to be exact) - same as mastertronic 2.99 range game.

400 points comes to around 1.50. Less than a mastertronic game you probably only brought for the hubbard soundtrack anyway

At 800 points your price is essentially the same as 22 years ago, the games have gotten better, you get instant feedback on scores from the leaderboards... There's no way in hell you should feel bad about charging that.

Googer · Post by **Googer** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:33 pm 0

Personally, I'd like it if MS would let us directly buy stuff from XBLM as gifts for other gamertags, sent to them as prepaid codes for them to enter in, same as MS has done as full-version freebies they toss in with some Live Gold packages, etc. Who's with me?

U-B · Post by **U-B** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:38 pm 0

Jamesac wrote:Would sales in the same range at 800 points have made up the difference?

Would the sales have been in the same range though? A higher price would have put off at least a few people, but the key question is how many. It seems like, whichever way you go with the price, there are elements of risk and second guessing yourself - I guess that's just market economics for you

Personally, I would have happily paid 800 points, although any higher than that might have given me pause.

benedictw · Post by **benedictw** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:13 pm 0

Its been said (by others) that Niche games, like Jeffs, tend to appeal to a certain segment that don't really give a shit about the price. 800pts for SG? No problem.

U-B · Post by **U-B** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:42 pm 0

benedictw wrote:Its been said (by others) that Niche games, like Jeffs, tend to appeal to a certain segment that don't really give a shit about the price. 800pts for SG? No problem.

I'd hazard a guess, though, that that's why he went for a lower price than the norm - in the hope that it would attract further interest from outside of that segment. It's all swings and roundabouts, but unfortunately it sounds like it didn't work as well as he hoped.

I was actually thinking, not that Microsoft would go for it, that a model similar to Radiohead's new album could have been interesting - ie. choose your own price (although perhaps with a minimum price, as opposed to their free option). With that type of model, I certainly would have chosen a higher price than 400 points - both to show my appreciation for the game, and to go towards future development efforts.

bcass · Post by **bcass** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:01 pm 0

At a very rough estimate, I'd say that 15,000 sales (SG was close to that number before the patch) at 800 points per sale (Â£6.80) yields a pretty good income, even if you split it between two. In fact , it yields a far greater than average income. Of course, this means you'd have to produce one game per year to keep that income going, but if you say had a couple of big hits (sales in the hundreds of thousands) then XBLA arcade could be a highly profitable source for very small teams. In fact, if you had a couple of big hitters then you'd easily have the scope to release the more adventurous stuff.

Jamesac · Post by **Jamesac** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:34 am 0

I certainly hope it averages out to more than one Llamasoft game a year.

I thought 400 points for Space Giraffe was a great idea too, bound to bring in more people out of curiosity at least, and it's more than a little disturbing that it doesn't seem to have worked out that way. I'm hoping it's just that XBLA users are the kind of people who'd have bought the game anyway, but we'll see.

James

Bounty Bob · Post by **Bounty Bob** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:36 pm 0

bcass wrote:At a very rough estimate, I'd say that 15,000 sales (SG was close to that number before the patch) at 800 points per sale (Â£6.80) yields a pretty good income, even if you split it between two.

Does the developer get all of the money from the sales? I'd have thought MS take a cut too.

bcass · Post by **bcass** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:41 pm 0

Of course Microsoft take a cut, after all, it's them who are providing the infrastructure for you to sell your game. I don't know what it is, but I think you get more if you develop your game without their funding/assistance. My estimates were based on the developer geting Â£5 per game from that Â£6.80.

Even if the developer cut is Â£4 per game, you'd still end up with higher than average anual income when divided by two.

Tetra Elemental · Post by **Tetra Elemental** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:21 pm 0

Since when have niche games ever made big bucks?

You can't have your cake and eat it. It's developer integrity and lean pickings or it's a willingness to compromise for the mainstream to some extent and oodles of lolly.

Space Giraffe is a game designed to cater to the tastes of the author. This is great if your own tastes reflect those of the mainstream community. Not so great if you're still stuck in the 1982 coin-op era and like your games rock hard and trippy. So why is it so surprising, or "disturbing", that such a self indulgent game fails to sell by the bucketload? If you want money as well as critical acclaim and self-gratification you have to design a game with other people in mind, those "other people" being gamers of a more casual ilk because that's where the money is on XBLA. You can do this and still cater to the hardcore gamer and still make a game you enjoy playing.