What it takes to get a South African game on Steam

manguejoe

New Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
1
#7
What about taxes? Since they are selling in the USA but are from South Africa? Are they paying double taxes? Or did they open a new company in the USA?
 

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
5,024
#8
Majority of games I have heard about that gets released on steam is either platformer, isometric or top down, I can't recall ever seeing a FPS or proper 3D games.While 3D games requires tremendous amount of planing and resources, it might be why most South African stick to other types of games which are a bit easier to do, but still require a lot of resources and art, it's just generally easier.

While I haven't released games it self, I have worked and designed various 3D DLC's for various game creation kits, AGK, RPG world, Gameguru.With most effort going to into gameguru, and for experience, creating 3D worlds are much harder and requires a lot more time in general and a lot of content I have created has made it into published games.

Not to take any thing away from guys who publish games, but it's hardly the huge feat it was years ago, the sheer amount of content and creation kits available these days you could literally make a game without having to create a single piece of art work your self.You could have a game on steam in less then 3 months, and it would look decent.

I am kinda on the fence here, when news break that some South African published a game, it's so easy these days, it lost the wow factor.
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
13,869
#9
Majority of games I have heard about that gets released on steam is either platformer, isometric or top down, I can't recall ever seeing a FPS or proper 3D games.While 3D games requires tremendous amount of planing and resources, it might be why most South African stick to other types of games which are a bit easier to do, but still require a lot of resources and art, it's just generally easier.

While I haven't released games it self, I have worked and designed various 3D DLC's for various game creation kits, AGK, RPG world, Gameguru.With most effort going to into gameguru, and for experience, creating 3D worlds are much harder and requires a lot more time in general and a lot of content I have created has made it into published games.

Not to take any thing away from guys who publish games, but it's hardly the huge feat it was years ago, the sheer amount of content and creation kits available these days you could literally make a game without having to create a single piece of art work your self.You could have a game on steam in less then 3 months, and it would look decent.

I am kinda on the fence here, when news break that some South African published a game, it's so easy these days, it lost the wow factor.
I don't care what tools are used - I care about the finished product. And I don't play FPS games so just as well.

I'm not sure why you'd say it's not a feat though. Quality tools and asset libraries aren't going to invent a novel gameplay concept, dozens of levels, a story, the slick timing of appropriate audio and overall the coming together of the various elements that make a good game.

If you consider how many games with all original development suck, it's clearly not an approach that guarantees success.
 

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
5,024
#10
I don't care what tools are used - I care about the finished product. And I don't play FPS games so just as well.

I'm not sure why you'd say it's not a feat though. Quality tools and asset libraries aren't going to invent a novel gameplay concept, dozens of levels, a story, the slick timing of appropriate audio and overall the coming together of the various elements that make a good game.

If you consider how many games with all original development suck, it's clearly not an approach that guarantees success.
lol
I guess you never made use of the gameplay mechanics kits on either unity or unreal store ;) let alone the millions of assets kits, while generic, each kit can be modified combined and altered like you want it, from game play mechanics, cutscenes, title screens, shaders.In other words mate, you can make an entire game without having to code a single line of code.

So yeah mate it's hardly a feat in this day and age, you also have to remember I have been doing this since around 2004 ish.
Some examples of kits I have designed my self that people can buy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVVgCg4qVw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kmTwe5RCk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CpTxoD5VV4&t=10s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyyWka9lnFg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cORXqwQr4m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vvSb65eNX8

Exclusively worked on this DLC.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/365540/GameGuru__Death_Valley_Combat_Pack/
Designed various game demo's that have been used in software as well


So yeah mate it isn't even remotely hard getting a game on steam as it's made out to be, buying assets kits like mine, that includes all the scripts and stuff needed a week at most to construct and populate a level.

There is some assumption that developers need to animate the content and stuff, sure when they want to do specific things, all AI pretty much have default animation, and when you don't have the AI animated you can add an animated rig in less then 15 minutes.
Then there is procedural rock, tree and terrain generators, prebuild scripts ect.It actually just allows you to concentrate on construction the game level, and with what is available and how flexible these gameplay kits are, you wouldn't know if two different games are using the same kit.
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
13,869
#11
lol
I guess you never made use of the gameplay mechanics kits on either unity or unreal store ;) let alone the millions of assets kits, while generic, each kit can be modified combined and altered like you want it, from game play mechanics, cutscenes, title screens, shaders.In other words mate, you can make an entire game without having to code a single line of code.

So yeah mate it's hardly a feat in this day and age, you also have to remember I have been doing this since around 2004 ish.
Some examples of kits I have designed my self that people can buy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVVgCg4qVw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kmTwe5RCk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CpTxoD5VV4&t=10s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyyWka9lnFg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cORXqwQr4m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vvSb65eNX8

Exclusively worked on this DLC.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/365540/GameGuru__Death_Valley_Combat_Pack/
Designed various game demo's that have been used in software as well


So yeah mate it isn't even remotely hard getting a game on steam as it's made out to be, buying assets kits like mine, that includes all the scripts and stuff needed a week at most to construct and populate a level.

There is some assumption that developers need to animate the content and stuff, sure when they want to do specific things, all AI pretty much have default animation, and when you don't have the AI animated you can add an animated rig in less then 15 minutes.
Then there is procedural rock, tree and terrain generators, prebuild scripts ect.It actually just allows you to concentrate on construction the game level, and with what is available and how flexible these gameplay kits are, you wouldn't know if two different games are using the same kit.
You're missing my point though. I'm not doubting that video game development has much better tools and asset libraries available these days. I'm saying that it's irrelevant.

Good games generally share some combination of common qualities: entertainment value, the characters, slick controls, a compelling story, the sound editing, solid gameplay, the art style, the decisions players have to make, any sense of reward, multiplayer experiences etc. etc.

Pre-made assets and some sophisticated development tools barely scratch the surface of what constitutes a great time. And the last thing on any gamer's mind while they're playing a fantastic game is whether or not the developers made their own lives easier through cutting-edge dev tools and asset libraries.
 

cguy

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,425
#13
Majority of games I have heard about that gets released on steam is either platformer, isometric or top down, I can't recall ever seeing a FPS or proper 3D games.While 3D games requires tremendous amount of planing and resources, it might be why most South African stick to other types of games which are a bit easier to do, but still require a lot of resources and art, it's just generally easier.

While I haven't released games it self, I have worked and designed various 3D DLC's for various game creation kits, AGK, RPG world, Gameguru.With most effort going to into gameguru, and for experience, creating 3D worlds are much harder and requires a lot more time in general and a lot of content I have created has made it into published games.

Not to take any thing away from guys who publish games, but it's hardly the huge feat it was years ago, the sheer amount of content and creation kits available these days you could literally make a game without having to create a single piece of art work your self.You could have a game on steam in less then 3 months, and it would look decent.

I am kinda on the fence here, when news break that some South African published a game, it's so easy these days, it lost the wow factor.
I am going to reserve judgment on the featiness (or lack thereof) of this until there are reviews.
 
Last edited:

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
5,024
#15
[MENTION=105871]Bryn[/MENTION]
Good games generally share some combination of common qualities: entertainment value, the characters, slick controls, a compelling story, the sound editing, solid gameplay, the art style, the decisions players have to make, any sense of reward, multiplayer experiences etc. etc.
I can see you have never created a game in your life, which isn't your fault.Game theory however have entirely different set of goals and fundamentals, we would end up here for a weeks discussing it.Would say from player perspective he has specific requirements or opinions in mind, which doesn't necessarily line up with game theory as such.

Game theory in general have some basic rules that developers adhere to.If you were to google that you will find that what you said above doesn't align with game theory entirely.But nice try any ways.The biggest problem is gamers are largely judgemental, with minimal experience or knowledge in developing a game, which is no doubt going to cause friction at some point.

A good developer knows what his or her limitations are, knows what limitation the development software has, which is why development kits are used by 3rd party developers, Now at this point you going to moan again about it being irrelevant.But humor me for a second, and lets explain why what you consider is irrelevant is actually what makes indie games possible in the first place.

There have been game development software available as far back as 1998, specifically aimed at indies especially one man teams, where coding various parts needed for a game would make it largely impossible task to complete or take extremely long time.Time is money, indie developers can't sit and work on a project with no income, now you would argue next that this doesn't apply to game studio's but you will be dead wrong again, very few actually still specifically use in house tools and engines.Using unity, unreal, or cryengine cuts down team size as well tool development time and development time needed, developing and building in house tools requires tremendous resources and time.If you aren't aware the industry is particularly cutthroat and notorious for layoffs, there is nothing like job security in the industry.

The tools, prebuild assets, libraries and development kits, is the life blood of any indie developer, without it, the reality is a lot more sombre in that this game would not have been possible, whether it's a sidescroller or isometric game.So you call it irrelevant, perhaps you should reconsider and have a closer looks at how development tools have changed over the years, and what made it possible to have an influx of indies.
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
13,869
#16
[MENTION=105871]Bryn[/MENTION]


I can see you have never created a game in your life, which isn't your fault.Game theory however have entirely different set of goals and fundamentals, we would end up here for a weeks discussing it.Would say from player perspective he has specific requirements or opinions in mind, which doesn't necessarily line up with game theory as such.

Game theory in general have some basic rules that developers adhere to.If you were to google that you will find that what you said above doesn't align with game theory entirely.But nice try any ways.The biggest problem is gamers are largely judgemental, with minimal experience or knowledge in developing a game, which is no doubt going to cause friction at some point.

A good developer knows what his or her limitations are, knows what limitation the development software has, which is why development kits are used by 3rd party developers, Now at this point you going to moan again about it being irrelevant.But humor me for a second, and lets explain why what you consider is irrelevant is actually what makes indie games possible in the first place.

There have been game development software available as far back as 1998, specifically aimed at indies especially one man teams, where coding various parts needed for a game would make it largely impossible task to complete or take extremely long time.Time is money, indie developers can't sit and work on a project with no income, now you would argue next that this doesn't apply to game studio's but you will be dead wrong again, very few actually still specifically use in house tools and engines.Using unity, unreal, or cryengine cuts down team size as well tool development time and development time needed, developing and building in house tools requires tremendous resources and time.If you aren't aware the industry is particularly cutthroat and notorious for layoffs, there is nothing like job security in the industry.

The tools, prebuild assets, libraries and development kits, is the life blood of any indie developer, without it, the reality is a lot more sombre in that this game would not have been possible, whether it's a sidescroller or isometric game.So you call it irrelevant, perhaps you should reconsider and have a closer looks at how development tools have changed over the years, and what made it possible to have an influx of indies.
Nothing you've said contradicts my point, other than assuming my responses to that piece.

You just went on about how important dev tools and asset libraries are, and up above I think the first thing I said to you was that I don't doubt how useful they are to developers.

My point was that all of that has nothing to do with whether or not a game is good. Rayman Origins is not good because of the tools used by the dev - it's fun because of its charm, tight controls, clever levels, amount of content, replayability, overall gameplay and beautiful visuals. Similar story for Uncharted 4 but also its story and voice work. Even if nearly every asset used for both games was purchased from some dev marketplace it wouldn't take anything away from them. The creativity of the dev makes the game brilliant, not the assets. Just look at how many lousy games there are to see what I'm saying. The graphics and controls can be good while the game still sucks.

Your implication was that anyone can make a good game. I'm saying no way. People can easily create a piece of junk that resembles a game but isn't fun to play, sure, but it takes skill and creativity to bring all the elements together for a fun game, with or without fancy dev tools and asset libraries.

If you feel so strongly that there are countless games out there that are good purely because of people who produce individual assets for the devs to use, please provide some examples of this.
 

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
5,024
#17
Nothing you've said contradicts my point, other than assuming my responses to that piece.

You just went on about how important dev tools and asset libraries are, and up above I think the first thing I said to you was that I don't doubt how useful they are to developers.

My point was that all of that has nothing to do with whether or not a game is good. Rayman Origins is not good because of the tools used by the dev - it's fun because of its charm, tight controls, clever levels, amount of content, replayability, overall gameplay and beautiful visuals. Similar story for Uncharted 4 but also its story and voice work. Even if nearly every asset used for both games was purchased from some dev marketplace it wouldn't take anything away from them. The creativity of the dev makes the game brilliant, not the assets. Just look at how many lousy games there are to see what I'm saying. The graphics and controls can be good while the game still sucks.

Your implication was that anyone can make a good game. I'm saying no way. People can easily create a piece of junk that resembles a game but isn't fun to play, sure, but it takes skill and creativity to bring all the elements together for a fun game, with or without fancy dev tools and asset libraries.

If you feel so strongly that there are countless games out there that are good purely because of people who produce individual assets for the devs to use, please provide some examples of this.
I think you going to regret that BIG TIME mate :D Like I said mate I have been doing this for a while, I wouldn't be a content creator if developers didn't use content to create games with.

Just some examples.

Cities Skylines
kerbal space program
rust

Made entirely or in majority part using store bought assets to make games, with stand out games are of course rust and cities skylines, with both having quite a large following and mostly positive reviews.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/255710/Cities_Skylines/

https://store.steampowered.com/app/252490/Rust/

AAA games isn't immune either, deep silver, has been using a lot of content from it's previous games in saints row.
ARK and Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds also used store assets.

Epic games released assets from Paragon.

The various assets stores are thriving, with indie and AAA developers using the resources, that helps shorten development time and resources needed for development, and still make good games.
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
13,869
#18
I think you going to regret that BIG TIME mate :D Like I said mate I have been doing this for a while, I wouldn't be a content creator if developers didn't use content to create games with.

Just some examples.

Cities Skylines
kerbal space program
rust

Made entirely or in majority part using store bought assets to make games, with stand out games are of course rust and cities skylines, with both having quite a large following and mostly positive reviews.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/255710/Cities_Skylines/

https://store.steampowered.com/app/252490/Rust/

AAA games isn't immune either, deep silver, has been using a lot of content from it's previous games in saints row.
ARK and Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds also used store assets.

Epic games released assets from Paragon.

The various assets stores are thriving, with indie and AAA developers using the resources, that helps shorten development time and resources needed for development, and still make good games.
I'm struggling to find the point you're trying to make. Or why I would regret a post BIG TIME.

At every stage of our discussion, I've acknowledged how dev tools and asset libraries can assist development. My one and only point is that you can have all the tools and assets in the world and it doesn't automatically make a great game. Having a perfectly modelled and wonderfully controlled player avatar running around meticulously detailed worlds with impactful sound effects and rousing music in the background still does not make a good game. There are countless shooter/strategy/platform games out there that are quite good in most respects but just don't get the experience right and aren't very fun to play, despite years of development from a well-resourced team.

We're only having this discussion because you barged in the thread claiming that thanks to dev tools and asset marketplaces, making games is easy. And my rebuttal this entire time has been that that is absurd. Good games are very difficult to make even if you're getting a lot of help in dealing with the more menial aspects of development. At no point have I claimed that good games should not buy assets or use overly savvy dev tools.

My point should go without making to anyone who actually plays games. A good game is a good game. No one cares how the assets were sourced, and I don't think too many gamers would argue that any particular game was great primarily because the environments and their character were so nicely detailed. If most devs are using asset marketplaces and most games are not good, then I don't see how an argument can be made that making good games is relatively easy thanks to such marketplaces.

Also, you do the Skylines team a disservice by claiming their work is mostly done for them by various asset-making communities. I would hazard a guess that assets are one of the smallest aspects of development for them - things like new buildings, vehicles, transport stuff, textures, trees and whatever else play second fiddle by miles to the work required for major new gameplay changes. And they have an entire team of cool people that regularly post dev diary updates. Those people are legit, skilled and very dedicated to their game. I'm not seeing any other competent city builder games available, so it can't be that easy. And Rust sucks.
 

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
5,024
#19
I'm struggling to find the point you're trying to make. Or why I would regret a post BIG TIME.

At every stage of our discussion, I've acknowledged how dev tools and asset libraries can assist development. My one and only point is that you can have all the tools and assets in the world and it doesn't automatically make a great game. Having a perfectly modelled and wonderfully controlled player avatar running around meticulously detailed worlds with impactful sound effects and rousing music in the background still does not make a good game. There are countless shooter/strategy/platform games out there that are quite good in most respects but just don't get the experience right and aren't very fun to play, despite years of development from a well-resourced team.

We're only having this discussion because you barged in the thread claiming that thanks to dev tools and asset marketplaces, making games is easy. And my rebuttal this entire time has been that that is absurd. Good games are very difficult to make even if you're getting a lot of help in dealing with the more menial aspects of development. At no point have I claimed that good games should not buy assets or use overly savvy dev tools.

My point should go without making to anyone who actually plays games. A good game is a good game. No one cares how the assets were sourced, and I don't think too many gamers would argue that any particular game was great primarily because the environments and their character were so nicely detailed. If most devs are using asset marketplaces and most games are not good, then I don't see how an argument can be made that making good games is relatively easy thanks to such marketplaces.

Also, you do the Skylines team a disservice by claiming their work is mostly done for them by various asset-making communities. I would hazard a guess that assets are one of the smallest aspects of development for them - things like new buildings, vehicles, transport stuff, textures, trees and whatever else play second fiddle by miles to the work required for major new gameplay changes. And they have an entire team of cool people that regularly post dev diary updates. Those people are legit, skilled and very dedicated to their game. I'm not seeing any other competent city builder games available, so it can't be that easy. And Rust sucks.
Also, you do the Skylines team a disservice by claiming their work is mostly done for them by various asset-making communitiesThe base game includes vast majority of store assets even before the modding community got it involved get your facts, straight mate.
http://www.gamespresso.com/2015/07/unity-talks-about-asset-flipping/

The final point, as I am not going to argue with some one that doesn't have the faintest idea what it all entails, is you are making a 360 on your argument.First it was no good game can be made from using store assets, pointed out a couple of games that did it, even AAA games.Now I am dissing the developers, now now......
This developer used my content quite extensively, in particular level building assets, should I go about dissing him for using the the content :D From about 6 minutes in it almost exclusively my level building kits :)
[video=youtube_share;0b2K5Lz80vY]https://youtu.be/0b2K5Lz80vY[/video]

This developer is releasing a steam game with my content
This content to be precise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4AU_onBCA&t=8s

https://store.steampowered.com/app/608610/Into_the_Ice_Nazis_of_Neuschwabenland/

This from a indie game studio
https://store.steampowered.com/developer/HGG


How about sticking with an argument, and not throwing random comments at the wall and see what sticks :)
You main argument that games that use all original libraries, content ect, are better games, then those that make use of others work.Do you even know how many games actually purchased Foley sounds and music used in their games, there are 100's of websites dedicated to just game music you can use in commercial projects, royalty free.

Seriously dude whatever ;)
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
13,869
#20
Also, you do the Skylines team a disservice by claiming their work is mostly done for them by various asset-making communitiesThe base game includes vast majority of store assets even before the modding community got it involved get your facts, straight mate.
http://www.gamespresso.com/2015/07/unity-talks-about-asset-flipping/

The final point, as I am not going to argue with some one that doesn't have the faintest idea what it all entails, is you are making a 360 on your argument.First it was no good game can be made from using store assets, pointed out a couple of games that did it, even AAA games.Now I am dissing the developers, now now......
This developer used my content quite extensively, in particular level building assets, should I go about dissing him for using the the content :D From about 6 minutes in it almost exclusively my level building kits :)
[video=youtube_share;0b2K5Lz80vY]https://youtu.be/0b2K5Lz80vY[/video]

This developer is releasing a steam game with my content
This content to be precise

https://store.steampowered.com/app/608610/Into_the_Ice_Nazis_of_Neuschwabenland/

This from a indie game studio
https://store.steampowered.com/developer/HGG


How about sticking with an argument, and not throwing random comments at the wall and see what sticks :)
You main argument that games that use all original libraries, content ect, are better games, then those that make use of others work.Do you even know how many games actually purchased Foley sounds and music used in their games, there are 100's of websites dedicated to just game music you can use in commercial projects, royalty free.

Seriously dude whatever ;)
I have never claimed that good games don't use pre-made assets but rather than pre-made assets do not make it easy to make a good game. It's a pretty crucial distinction.

Right off the bat you're making more statements that don't address the point I made. I don't care that Skylines uses marketplace assets. The game isn't good because of its assets - it's good because the gameplay is amazing. Without the availability of the assets the game certainly may have looked worse and/or required much more development time due to increased costs, but that's irrelevant.

And yeah, you are dissing game devs pretty heavily by implying that games are little more than the assets they use. If that were the case, Steam would be drowning in 'Overwhelmingly Positive' reviewed games. But it's not, and everyone knows that good games are a real achievement.

The end of your post again repeats something I haven't said, haven't implied and have outright said the opposite of: that good games utilise all-original asset creation and do not resort to asset marketplaces.

Let's see what I've said in this thread on the matter:

Not hating on tools or asset marketplaces:
I don't care what tools are used - I care about the finished product.
My first post reflects my view that all-original development isn't necessary for a game to be good:
If you consider how many games with all original development suck, it's clearly not an approach that guarantees success.
Repeating my point:
I'm not doubting that video game development has much better tools and asset libraries available these days.
Me reiterating the same missed point over and over:
Pre-made assets and some sophisticated development tools barely scratch the surface of what constitutes a great time. And the last thing on any gamer's mind while they're playing a fantastic game is whether or not the developers made their own lives easier through cutting-edge dev tools and asset libraries.
You just went on about how important dev tools and asset libraries are, and up above I think the first thing I said to you was that I don't doubt how useful they are to developers.
Your implication was that anyone can make a good game. I'm saying no way. People can easily create a piece of junk that resembles a game but isn't fun to play, sure, but it takes skill and creativity to bring all the elements together for a fun game, with or without fancy dev tools and asset libraries.
At every stage of our discussion, I've acknowledged how dev tools and asset libraries can assist development. My one and only point is that you can have all the tools and assets in the world and it doesn't automatically make a great game.
I really don't know how else I can make the same point I've been making the whole time. It is obvious the dev tools and pre-made assets are valuable to game development. It is also obvious that assets are not what make games good - the overall gameplay experience is. Regardless of whether pre-made assets have been utilised, any good game is a fantastic achievement.

How about sticking with an argument, and not throwing random comments at the wall and see what sticks :)
This point is insane. Read the thread man. I've been repeating myself over and over and you keep interpreting a simple point as meaning no decent game should ever resort to pre-made assets. Something I haven't only not said, but have confirmed above as not being a position I hold.
 
Top