-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Develop 2010 | Reasons why some publishers turned down 'Joe Danger'
- Thread starter Pooya
- Start date
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
I would love it if they add Monkey as DLC! 
Cosmonaut X
Member
jett said:
First day sales are typically a fairly high percentage of first week sales in retail, and I'd imagine that that the same applies in DD, although with a longer tail.
Add to that the costs cut by not having to produce packaged games (retailer cut, publisher cut, manufacturing, printing etc.) and I could certainly see a four-man team breaking even on sub-50k sales.
Mr. B Natural
Member
Publishers these days are tightening up big time and are scared pantless to just about anything that isn't a sequel or a sure thing. Those excuses they made to the devs of Joe Danger are just that...excuses. Do not take them as anything but or a sign of anything in gaming. It's the equivalent of the dating cliche "It's not you, it's me."
Saying things like "put monkeys in" and "we need less fun" makes no sense cause they're excuses. It's just like someone breaking up with you cause you're too nice or too smart or whatever. It's just a way of saying "Not interested. Never will be."
Saying things like "put monkeys in" and "we need less fun" makes no sense cause they're excuses. It's just like someone breaking up with you cause you're too nice or too smart or whatever. It's just a way of saying "Not interested. Never will be."
SolidSnakex
Member
They also went through Sony's Pub Fund which seems to be really helpful for smaller devs
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/966/966813p1.html
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/966/966813p1.html
Collecting giant coins feels unrealistic to me
We want games that are less about fun right now
Imagine listening to this being used as a serious reason against your work. I don't know Murray but I feel for the guy and any other developer that has to deal with this kind of shit.
We want games that are less about fun right now
Imagine listening to this being used as a serious reason against your work. I don't know Murray but I feel for the guy and any other developer that has to deal with this kind of shit.
SolidusDave
Member
jett said:
It was also quite expensive (especially compared to other "indie" games like Critter Crunch), maybe they didn't expect the success themselves so they originally calculated with a higher income per purchase so they can make some money out of it.
Vinterbird
Member
vareon said:
Games were the goal of the game is not to entertain you, or for you the player to have fun. Games that have a theme, story or feel of something more then "everything is happy-land and these mechanics are really fun!".
Basically it's a way of saying "evolving video games to something more then juvenile stupid teenage entertainment crap", which I am all for.
Diseased Yak
Gold Member
Hahaha!! Damn. Giant coins and monkeys.
Grats to Hello Games, though. Totally deserving, I've been playing Joe Danger on and off the last week or so and it's fun as hell.
Grats to Hello Games, though. Totally deserving, I've been playing Joe Danger on and off the last week or so and it's fun as hell.
Mr. B Natural
Member
vareon said:
It means "We're not interested in publishing your game. here's some bullshit to string you along cause we don't have the balls to just out and say it"
Actors, screenplay writers, authors and the like have to deal with this side-talk all the time. It's a part of the publisher -> client relationship. These guys must be new to it cause it shouldn't surprise anyone with any experience with this sort of thing.
Hot Coldman
Banned
I want to break the nose of the cunt who said the 'less about fun' comment.
Princess Skittles
Prince's's 'Skittle's
......Gravijah said:
Vinterbird
Member
Teetris said:
I have no idea, I read the We want games that are less about fun right now as what the publisher was focusing on publishing wise, and not a general critique of Joe Danger itself, more as a "it's cool and all, but not our focus at the moment".
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
That was my first thought as well. I'm not gonna glance knowingly at NSMBWii and its sales figures, cause of differences in PS3 vs. Wii userbase, etc, etc, but still....Gravijah said:
Looks like an awesome game, btw. On my "buy" list for this fall.
JumpJeff84
Member
Interesting.
Also, I want to reiterate that Joe Danger is awesome.
Also, I want to reiterate that Joe Danger is awesome.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Publishers are all cunts.
Except the monkey guy. That guy knows whats going on.
Except the monkey guy. That guy knows whats going on.
Thetallywacker
Banned
No context of the conversation to those quotes so they should be dismissed. High risk on PS3 has become a simple coin flip. Making it a system of no right or wrong game decisions. The early risks from Sony were already taken early in the generation. I don't need that much info or word of mouth to purchase a game on the PS3. It just has to click. Other systems it has to be heavily advertise or gotten strong word of mouth. I purchased the game with only the knowledge that I'd be on a bike and jumping buses.
crazy monkey
Banned
monkey guy sound smart actually. Monkey with great name and riding bikes and doing stunts and collecting coins could be classic.
soul creator
Member
why we still got Joe Dangers?
BobTheFork
Member
well I was about to say this but: 50k is the first WEEK of sales, and they broke even on Day 1. That mean's the game cost less than 750k to develop. I still haven't bought this yet.monocromo said:
Visualante
Member
It's like the Orange Film board ads in real life.
Cromulent_Word
Member
yea, in a crazy world where devs keep all the money their games make.monocromo said:
unfortunately this world does not exist.
Cromulent_Word said:
Yeah, I know that. A part of the earnings (and sometimes a big part) goes to the publisher... I was not referring that all the money was for developers... that's why I wrote that the X amount of money was for the project. The "4-men project" part was probably misleading. Its likely that I have not expressed myself properly... my english is pretty bad.