Another way to do it is the shareware model. Download the game for free, have access to the hub world and two branches off of it. But the other doors are locked unless you "Purchase Full Game To Continue Exploring the World [Unlock entire world]"

A single purchase unlocks everything. But the player has already downloaded the game for free.

The problem with games as a service model you're about to run smack into is it doesn't fulfil your original objective: Which is to gain increimental revenue to fund future work. Same problem for Servant's method. It requires all the work to be done at time of launch.

The reality is if you don't have a lot of stuff to sell people immediately you can't expect them to still remember playing your game (let alone want to buy more of it) months after their initial purchase. The only way to do that is via strong marketing or sequelization.

People do hope sequels have improvements, but I dont think those improvements have to be massive. I know several games in which the improvements are minor between each game.

If you make a game that has good mechanics people will want more of it. If you make a game with bad mechanics there's no way they're going to want a second.

It's all slightly splitting hairs to be honest. The difference between all of these models is WHERE you market the next sale. Are you releasing a new product? Are you trying to upsell them while still in game? Are you collecting their customer information and marketing it directly? Are you giving away one part in order to sell the next?

What you want to call it - shareware, sequel, episode, Jeff the Monkey, is kinda up to you. What is most important is the decision on how much you can get done before you need a cash injection and where that puts you in terms of which business model works best.

I maintain the best model at the moment are "chunks" that can stand alone and using it to release new sequels (with minor improvements between each). That's my opinion obviously I think the other models are more complex and more confusing to the customer. Regardless of how you do it, the most important part of the puzzle is collecting player data (email, most likely) so you can let them know when its time to pay you again ;)

Edit: I just realized you never said your goal was incrimental revenue. That was an assumption I apparently made :D Still, it's good advice so I'll leave it here in case it is accurate!

The problem with games as a service model you're about to run smack into is it doesn't fulfil your original objective: Which is to gain increimental revenue to fund future work. Same problem for Servant's method. It requires all the work to be done at time of launch.

The reality is if you don't have a lot of stuff to sell people immediately you can't expect them to still remember playing your game (let alone want to buy more of it) months after their initial purchase. The only way to do that is via strong marketing or sequelization.

People do hope sequels have improvements, but I dont think those improvements have to be massive. I know several games in which the improvements are minor between each game.

If you make a game that has good mechanics people will want more of it. If you make a game with bad mechanics there's no way they're going to want a second.

It's all slightly splitting hairs to be honest. The difference between all of these models is WHERE you market the next sale. Are you releasing a new product? Are you trying to upsell them while still in game? Are you collecting their customer information and marketing it directly? Are you giving away one part in order to sell the next?

What you want to call it - shareware, sequel, episode, Jeff the Monkey, is kinda up to you. What is most important is the decision on how much you can get done before you need a cash injection and where that puts you in terms of which business model works best.

I maintain the best model at the moment are "chunks" that can stand alone and using it to release new sequels (with minor improvements between each). That's my opinion obviously I think the other models are more complex and more confusing to the customer. Regardless of how you do it, the most important part of the puzzle is collecting player data (email, most likely) so you can let them know when its time to pay you again ;)

Edit: I just realized you never said your goal was incrimental revenue. That was an assumption I apparently made Still, it's good advice so I'll leave it here in case it is accurate!

I do want revenue from the first part of the game to actually fund future updates of the game. My engine of choice recently allows the packaging of DLCs which can give more chapters.

Here's my general plan...

I plan to release the 1st hub world as a taster and to get cash flows and traction. Then, its updates would be funded by its revenue (including marketing) for more people to buy the game/episode/chapter. Overall, the game has 4 hub worlds and is relatively short but every level has unique assets and a unique score.

So my cash flows from all 4 parts have to serve the loans I take out to fund the game, as well as pay my bills and fund the future updates. Episodic gaming sounds very interesting and I never thought of that - so, thank you very much.

It sounds like I won't have to add an Arcade Mode and instead make a spin-off in the future for social networks and mobiles, which is good because I want each game to excel at something instead of focusing half-heartedly on two things.

In terms of informing about the next chapter, I think I will use a server to inform the player when the next chapter is available, as well as other things.

Would the DLC model work for this or would I need to keep each hub world as a separate game and bring over progress Mass Effect style? The DLC system seems simpler and builds on the base of the current game.

I plan to release the 1st hub world as a taster and to get cash flows and traction. Then, its updates would be funded by its revenue (including marketing) for more people to buy the game/episode/chapter. Overall, the game has 4 hub worlds and is relatively short but every level has unique assets and a unique score.

My2Cent:

As already mentioned multiple times above, I would disadvise to release your game in this mode too.

If you want to make money, you need to think like a business man and many gamers who will buy your game will either not like it, will not have the time to play it or will not like it enough. This means, that a large number of people buying your game will not be interested in buying the next installment of your game, but they have already paied for the first one and are too lazy to get their money back.

An other problem is, that the game will be rated as full-featured game. That is, all game-mechanism, art etc. must be in finished and polished state, there will be no

'yes, it lackes this and that, but it is still in early access, so they might fix it later'.

Don't underestimate the different attitude of reviews to 'finished and polished games' vs 'early access/beta games'.

Thought there are many theoretically advantages in releasing a game in multiple parts, you still need to think about the motivation to buy the next part of your game. Story driven games for example deliver a story, the people want to know how the story continues, how the character develops. People buying a story driven game want to get the whole story, so buying the next part is not an option, but already the aim when buying the first part. DLC for example is often only bought by fans of the original game, for people who truly love the game and even real fans often forgo DLC. This is one of the reason F2P games need to aim a really large target audience, because they are only really interested in the true fans, the fans who are willing to invest in the game.

So, making a larger, more expensive game an early access game instead of multiple, less expensive but finished and polished parts will have a higher chance to generate money in my opinion.

But would 25% of the game be enough for Early Access? Because crowdfunding projects usually have 60%+ already done, and with my budget, I can only make 25% max.

My game is going to focus not only on gameplay, but the narrative as well. Just have to make it engaging enough for people who care about the story to buy the next parts.

Edit: The core mechanics will be there for the first episode, but new features which use the current core mechanics will be in future episodes.

I think Ash is correct. I think, maybe, this entire thread is a giant red flag warning to you that your ambition exceeds your means at the moment. From where I am sitting, not risking a penny (lol) - you have the option of releasing a game in a format that is less likely to make you enough money to repay loans OR releasing a game in such an unfinished state that you're unlikely to make the money at all.

Here's my problem. Loans. Games are SO risky. There's really no good reason to invest in making a game, statistically. We do it because we love it, but talk to just about any veteran developer and if you asked them if they ONLY cared about profit would they put 1 million dollars into making a new game or into something else and you'll pretty much get the unanimous decision for the something else. Usually those of us funding our own stuff have either started from a position where we can afford to lose (IE: I have savings enough and am not paying myself a salary) OR doing it via Kickstarter or similar outside funding. Few people take on loans (other than from family) to create a game. It's just too dangerous!

That said, the right way to do this is Kickstarter. That's your no-risk option for getting the money and testing the idea / concept of the game.

I think Ash is correct. I think, maybe, this entire thread is a giant red flag warning to you that your ambition exceeds your means at the moment. From where I am sitting, not risking a penny (lol) - you have the option of releasing a game in a format that is less likely to make you enough money to repay loans OR releasing a game in such an unfinished state that you're unlikely to make the money at all.

Here's my problem. Loans. Games are SO risky. There's really no good reason to invest in making a game, statistically. We do it because we love it, but talk to just about any veteran developer and if you asked them if they ONLY cared about profit would they put 1 million dollars into making a new game or into something else and you'll pretty much get the unanimous decision for the something else. Usually those of us funding our own stuff have either started from a position where we can afford to lose (IE: I have savings enough and am not paying myself a salary) OR doing it via Kickstarter or similar outside funding. Few people take on loans (other than from family) to create a game. It's just too dangerous!

That said, the right way to do this is Kickstarter. That's your no-risk option for getting the money and testing the idea / concept of the game.

Unfortunately, I have exhausted all other options. Kickstarter is very competitive and the games there are mostly done. I really doubt people will crowdfund a 25% made game, and I risk buying PR for a project which may not get funded by Kickstarter.

My government start-up scheme have been lying in terms of which applicants it accepts. From its ads, it is portrayed as a company who helps people go from idea to business. Sucked in by this promise, I went and applied. Turned out they were lying in their ads and their requirements are exactly the same as a VC, but with 500% more hassle. When I asked them about this, their response was that they had their requirements increased but they didn't update the ads.

After getting messed around so much, I just want to release something and get cash flows which are sustainable. Whether that's F2P, Early Access...etc doesn't matter.

I have the means to serve the loans in case things go wrong.

But would 25% of the game be enough for Early Access? Because crowdfunding projects usually have 60%+ already done, and with my budget, I can only make 25% max.

Nobody can tell you. Regardless of using Early Access or crowdfunding or chapter releases, there are other issues which will be a lot harder to overcome. The most prominent issue is, that people will need to notice your game in the first place. There's a reason that markting budget of AAA title are so extremly high, sometimes (or always?) even higher than the development budget.

That is, a good game which will be noticed (either marketing or luck), will perform good regardless of how you release it.

There are some market rules when releasing a game. The following rules are my personal perception by reading post mortems, articles etc., so just my two cents again:

- The first one, especially for AAA title is, that the majority of profit with the game is made in the first week (similar to movies), thought this might not be true for indie games.

- The second rule for indie games is, if you don't sell a PC game on steam, you will most likely not make any profit at all (break even).

- The third rule is, as indie game, you will sell most games during special events (summer sale etc.).

- The forth rule, kickstarter for a indie game is a double edged sword. The real money from a campaign is quite small (provision, gifts, taxes etc.) which is traded for a lot of promises and dependencies.

Personally a game clearly marketed as early access is my favorit, with a price tag which represents the current state. People know what they get, people know, that the game will improve over time and is not finish yet, and you don't dive into some hard dependencies. But I fear that this isn't the best way to get rich

Marketing takes up most of my budget, so that's why I can only make 25% of the game. I understand the importance of marketing and that's a double-edged sword in all honesty. But that's a fact that to attain players, I must have marketing or luck. Now, I'm no gambler so I will enlist a veteran PR firm (got all quotes) to market the Greenlight/Early Access campaign as well as forming a strategy and acting upon it, to ensure that the game gets funded towards the end.

Now for your points:

-1st one, heard that for F2P games in China. So they decide to release many in-game items which in 90% of cases make their development costs within the first 2 weeks. So I believe it is 2 weeks, although your point still stands.

-2nd one, this is why I'm going for a Greenlight campaign if I were to release the game or Early Access if I were to go via alphafunding.

-3rd and 4th ones, true, no doubts about that.

Looking at it now, I think Early Access would be the best way forward. My levels are short because my entire GDD envisions the levels as being small but of higher quality than the levels it's inspired from. I don't think it's ready for a hard release, unless the levels are 1 hour each, and my GDD doesn't take that into account.

Although, it is not open-world. It's linear. I had toyed with it being open world, but looking at past experiences from even AAA veteran developers, if the game were to have a really engaging story, it would need to be linear. But I heard only open world games can get funded on Early Access and not modest, linear and lower-budget 3D platformers?

Although, it is not open-world. It's linear. I had toyed with it being open world, but looking at past experiences from even AAA veteran developers, if the game were to have a really engaging story, it would need to be linear. But I heard only open world games can get funded on Early Access and not modest, linear and lower-budget 3D platformers?

I'm not sure I have ever heard this? Good games make money (usually). Bad games don't. Good and Bad are relative to the existing games on the market. So a good game from 1990 is not always a good game today. Some genres have a larger audience than others, therefore when they make money they make more of it. Slow genres tend to have less competition, therefore the threshold for a "good" game is lower. Some genres are technically more challenging, making the threhold higher.

If you see any trends it is like a mix of those above factors. Certain genres (3d platformers being one of the harder ones I suspect) are just downright difficult to make a lot of money in because the bar to succeed is high (high cost) and the overall genre popularity is low (less return on success).

I decided it's best to make the full game, seeing as it's simple enough. I have a few people who are interested in working for a rev share, when I told them that I need replacement assets. :)