Ask Kotaku

There's no such thing as a silly question! Our community members are a pretty knowledgeable bunch and will most likely have the answer.


    How should the Ouya project encourage developers to develop exclusively for it, or at very least, accommodate the controller?

      I'd be more concerned with getting them to develop for it yet alone exclusively.

    Which monetisation system is best for a free to play game with an expanding roster of characters:

    All characters are free, but all their alternative skins/costumes cost money
    Characters cost money, but come with all costumes unlocked
    Everything can be bought with in-game currency, which can either be earned online, or bought with real money

      The last one. If you play long enough you can unlock everything or if you don't want to wait you can fork out some money and buy the stuff right that instant.

      I like the in-game currency option.
      That way people who want to work to unlock stuff can, but people who are impatient and would rather just pay can do it their way too.

      The only thing is that you have to be careful what you choose to have as unlockable this way. Especially if it's multiplayer. Paying for an advantage isn't as cool as paying for extras.

        Absolutely. Paying for power is never a valid model. Pay for promptness (get basic stuff instantly), of pay to peacock (get cool extras with no gameplay differences) only.

      I think, in terms of succeeding, the LoL model(for lack of a better name) is the most practical, that is, you can unlock anything that alters gameplay with in game currency, but you can spend money to do the same, or to get cosmetic additions.

      However I'd prefer it if you could unlock everything with in game currency, à la your last choice.

      Okay, lets get more specific.
      This is an indie game, so it's not guaranteed a big audience, unlike LoL which had MILLIONS in backing from Angel Investors.

      Now, with that in mind, lets add another option:
      $15 for the game, with frequent FREE DLC skins, and paid DLC character packs ($1-$2 per character, 4-5 characters per pack).

      The last one is the most preferable but it does have one significant issue.

      The developer can make it so that earning the items with in game currency(to be converted to shop currency by whatever method they determine) Is essentially not viable for equal play.I mean if I decide that $5 of instore currency is worth 100 hours of playtime. It's going to take you forever to actually unlock any of that stuff. And will start to feel like a grind.

        This is the issue I have with it as well.
        If you it's too easy to get items this way, the developer makes no money, because nobody would buy money when they can earn it easily.
        If you make it too difficult to earn in game currency (compared to buying it with RL currency), then it feels grindy, and it can detract from the gameplay. Even if you enjoy the game without earning currency, knowing that you are earning pittance for playing can ruin the experience.

        As a developer, it is very difficult to both do right by the consumer on all counts, and ensure you earn enough to stay afloat.

    Deus Ex: Human Revolution, who should play Adam Jensen? Someone mentioned in the article that Christian Bale should, I am assuming because he has that rough voice, which isn't as good (in my opinion) as Elias Toufexis who voiced Adam Jensen.

      Zach Braff.

        I will always see him as JD from Scrubs, not sure if that's a good or bad thing haha.

      I'm a fan of unknown actors assuming key roles, something I loved about Prometheus. I understand that's not exactly practical on the Hollywood/box office gross side.

        Whoa whoa whoa....unknown?...The dude who played Charlie was Trey in the second season of The OC, that's a decent pedigree.

        Sidenote: I did spend the majority of the movie trying to work out what i'd seen him in previously.

      I would support Christian Bale, based on his performance in Equilibrium. Nothing to do with his acting in Batman.

      Keanu Reeves, because that man was born to wear a trench coat. Not sure he could do the voice though.

      Timothy Olyphant

        + 10
        IMHO he would be awesome as Adam!

      Zac Efron. I really feel like he could pull off the gravitas of the Jensen character.

      And the musical numbers would be amazing.

      (Alternately, since I will never get sick of him, Michael Fassbender)

    Has Kotaku ever done polls of their audience? How hardcore are they as gamers? Do they play social games? How much money do they spend on gaming?

    This feeds into my comments about the Simcity Social review, stating that recommending us to play a facebook game is not understanding your readerbase. and is probably just pandering to the new tie in with New York Times.

      Don't forget that Kotaku AU is separate from Kotaku US. The AU site publishes a lot of the US site's content but doesn't create it.

      The US site is very much orientated about getting as many page views as possible, not about retaining readers and the like. Articles about social media games tend to get a lot of page views.

      Kotaku AU and their parent Allure has done a poll like that before. Kotaku AU is not really affiliated with Kotaku US beyond reposting their stuff though, as far as I'm aware. So any results from a Kotaku AU poll would not necessarily be sent to Kotaku US.

        Off topic for one sec, Lady Strange i thought you did an excellent job on Potaku, hope you will be called in again for another esp.
        back on topic. :)

          Oh wow, thank-you. You've just made my day. :D

            I think you've all done great so far, so cool to put a voice to a name -- I think two of the people in the car on Potaku Unplugged blended together into one person though. :P

        Any idea how I might find said poll?

      I wonder what the demographic is for the US site. I've occasionally read their comments and whilst they tend to have different overall opinions than us, they still don't seem that casual...

        The people who go out of their way to post comments are a minority (although a very visible one) of readers of any given site. It's not unbelievable that there are a decent chunk of people who play those casual games that regularly read the site but do not comment.

          I don't know. All we are doing is guessing, aren't we? I am making my assumptions based on the following observations:
          2. The majority of articles seem to be driven towards gaming culture, rather than games themselves. Something that wouldn't likely appeal to your average person.
          3. "Kotaku". Not exactly a transparent domain name. Probably not that great for your average SEO either.

      Games are games, though. I'm a huge adventure game fan and go to a site where half the people there will look down on folks who consider the likes of Heavy Rain or Fahrenheit to be an adventure. I've got no problem with covering every thing as long as it doesn't compromize the coverage of stuff I'm actually interested in, that is. :P

        Games are games is actually my point. They're all the same standard and rated in the minds eye of the person playing the game, based on their previous experiences. What is the overall previous experience of the readers of kotaku though? I really do doubt that it is the same as the guy reading the Games and Tech section in SMH.

      I don't see a problem with recommending a facebook game, as long as it's an honest opinion.

        Exactly. And there's also a bigger overlap between perceived "hardcore" and "casual" gamers than you'd think.
        I know a fair few people who mostly play facebook/iOS games but will still play the occasional Mass Effect or other "hardcore" game. And the opposite is also true. People who mostly play console/PC games will still dabble in other more "casual" types of games.

        I agree, but if a review is stating that a game is average in a sub-par genre, then they recommend to play it, then I wonder if the reviewer is really giving their true opinion.

          Well then that's an issue regardless of the genre. Someone could do the same thing involving a 'hardcore' game.

    What are we all thinking about this Penny Arcade thing?

    I don't really understand how the system works but it seems that advertisers pay Penny Arcade to advertise on their website and as a result PA make enough money to support their staff and put out the (what I think is largely boring) comics and whatnot. There is little transparency in the situation. How much money does PA make from advertising per year? It doesn't say - we get the estimates from one of the big wigs there. Where does the money from advertising truly go? It doesn't say. I don't see how anyone would want to support such a cause especially when it ends with "PA will be fine without you guys". It's like saying... well, we've worked out advertising can give us this much over the next year... we have this many unique hits a day... if they all contribute 5 dollars... shit, well our paypackets might be a lot shinier.
    It seems after that fact they realised that they have to give back to the people that support them. Have you seen the rewards? They are nonsensical and essentially useless. They will follow you on twitter or something for a year? What even?

    If Kot AU asked me for money to remove advertising, or better, to remove the US articles I would not even consider it. I love Kot AU, I will come here and read stories every day, I will comment and interact with the community, but why dish out cash for something that I ignore in the first place? If this isn't about removing advertising and about creating more content, why not frame it that way? If Kot AU said can you back a $100,000 dollar kickstarter so we can produce x amount of videos or hire x staff to do this, I wouldn't hesitate. But asking me for money so you can remove ads and afterwards think about making new content, that's ridiculous and self-aggrandizing bullshit.


      Hey man, Serrels has a kid on the way. He has to support it somehow!

        If Serrels starts a kickstarter to buy baby formula, I would support it over PA.

          Golden laced diapers, crystal baby bottle, diamond encrusted pacifier.

            Highest tier gets to name the baby.... :P

              I was thinking more a picture of Serrels in a diaper, but hey that's just me

      Personally I'd prefer it if they had a premium membership that removes ads. Premium members can get exclusive comics and vids in addition to the regular comics/articles with no ads while regular site visitors continue interacting with the site like they normally would.

      I think Giant Bomb does something like that.

        I hate the "premium" membership model for internet sites. I'd rather not visit somewhere than have to pay to see its take on the latest news and stuff.
        That being said, there is a wrong and right way to go about premium memberships of stuff. For example, I think Microsoft do it the wrong way, and Sony do it the right way, with their Live and PS+ models.

        As for the Penny Arcade thing. It's silly whether it's a joke or not. I'm not going to care about it though, because I almost never visit their site anyway.

          It's really the same for me, I never visit it either. Just like to weigh in on stuff I am hardly familiar with. Haha.

          In all honesty, I have sat through a few pages of their comics to try and find something I actually enjoyed. I did not find anything.

          I don't know. I think both MS and Sony models are good. MS gets content earlier, better exclusives so why not pay it if you take advantage of the things they offer. Sony is free, or you can pay for "free" stuff. Depends on people's personal usage I guess. I pay for quite a few StarCraft leagues, because I hate ads during streams, and I like getting the higher quality too. If I didn't use it much, I wouldn't pay for it.

            For me, what Microsoft does wrong is making you pay to play online. That's why I think Sony does it better. You don't have to pay extra for your basic gaming rights.

            I have an issue with paying for 'gold' and still seeing adverts on the dashboard... but they're easily avoidable.

          I should add though, I think for an online publication, people who pay shouldn't get extra content (maybe their own forum or something) but they should really only be paying for privilege of not being bombarded with adverts.

            With things like AdBlock, that doesn't seem like a huge incentive to pay.

            I'd love if a site did fake advertorials (that were genuinely paid for and whatnot) that disappeared for premium members :p

              It's not, really. But as Kermi said below, some things I just like supporting. (I think I still have a Day9 daily subscription, even though I only watch it live 1 or 2 times week, usually always watch the content later)

            See, I'm ok with sponsoring Rooster Teeth for this reason. I'm not even able to take advantage of new Red vs. Blue episodes going up an hour early becuase this happens while I'm at work, I hardly post in the forums so the sponsor forums and the star by my name don't mean jack. The benefit for me, of being a sponsor, means I get to feel good about supporting content I like, even though I could watch it free. I even buy their DVDs. I love their t-shirts.

            I don't have that level of involvement with PA, but I'd still consider a sponsorship of PA to be able to support them, irrespective of advertisements. But instead of taking that route, they're just raising capital. One year in exchange for a starting figure of $250k? I'm sure they'll get it. And everyone benefits regardless. Maybe that's a good thing for their business. But the rewards they're offering? The whole project overview? It just reeks of arrogance. They opened this thing knowing they'd hit their targets. Probably all of them and then some. Consequently, everything they've written has an air of smugness about it. It's revolting.

      Regardless of whether or not one likes their content, it's difficult to not to agree that they manage their brand and run their site extremely well.
      They have probably the most successful webcomic of all time, 2 extremely successful conventions (Pax East and West), and they run a charity which raises millions every year (Child's Play). If a webcomic was to adopt a premium model of any sort, their's is both the most likely to succeed and the most likely to implement it correctly (or as correctly as possible).

      Although it is the lifeblood of all the free internet services we use, people hate advertising. I am the only person I know who deliberately doesn't run an ad-blocker. Giving people the option to pay and make the site ad-free, so long as it is an option, and not mandatory, can only be a good thing.

        Again, I just don't understand the way it is framed. If people want to support the creation of content, then that is a worthy cause. Essentially, you support the things you like by allowing the creators to make more of the things you like. Instead of framing it as an exercise in content-creation, they are framing it as if they just want to be done with advertising without giving their audience the clarity they deserve. Again, where does the money usually go? How much do they make from advertising per year? If they end up getting 1 million dollars and they usually got 500,000, then we have doubled the money they earn with only the promise of extra shit. The rewards that are offered are still ridiculous and for the most part, don't really cost them anything to produce. Needs more transparency - explain a little more how you get more time to create if you have $500,000 in the bank? I just don't get it.

          Remember, something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.
          IF they made $10M from this, where they would usually make $100k in a year, one could interpret that as "We've just paid them 100 times too much", or "They've been paid 1% of what they should have been for all these years", both are equally valid interpretations.

          Whatever the PA fanbase is willing to give them, so long as it's clear what said fanbase get out of it, then that's what they're worth

          I agree with your point about transparency, it would be nice to know that this money isn't going to fund puppy slaughter factories or a massive cocaine-and-hookers parties or whatever.

            All of that being said, people giving money to them would likely do so without the ads being removed. Hell, all of what they're doing re: ads could be equally well accomplished with a bookmarklet or browser extension.
            IMHO, they're expecting to make many of the stretch goals quite easily, and will use it to increase the amount of content that can be published (and the funders might get to see this content earlier than anyone else)

          Oh, I just checked the FAQ... they have a staff of fourteen. Earning 50k each, that's 700k already gone. Take another 100k of for kickstarter (10%), and theres about 200k remaining for company expansions. That seems reasonable

            That's advertising money. They still make money from other sources, you know.

    I have to do a talk infront of 200+ school students tomorrow, any tips?

    And no, "Picture everyone naked" doesn't count.

      School kids can smell a fake from a mile away. Don't try to be cool or try to be straight laced, just be natural.

    Do you guys watch any online video game shows like JonTronShow, The Completionist or Continue? Have you got any other great ones that you'd like to share?

      My favourites are the Angry Video Game Nerd, Zero Punctuation, and Red Letter Media's Game Station 2.0.

    Why is it that when games get famous people to do their voice acting, that fact is hardly ever used in the marketing (at least not prominently)? If you're going to shell out to get Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman to voice your main characters, why not plaster their names on the cover, or at least mention them in the trailers?

      Yeah, I've often wondered about this as well. Especially for new IP. Call of duty is already a brand in itself, so I don't think it needs the celebrity pull. On the other hand for a game like Beyond:two souls I think using the celebrity for TV ads and such would be useful. Something like:

      'Sony computer entertainment presents...A triumph in interactive storytelling, a new way to play your games-Beyond two souls. Starring Ellen Page and Willem Dafoe(rumoured) experience an interactive Journey like never before . Coming soon.'

      Something to that extent.

    Fourth week running with this question but when you gotta know you gotta know.

    Why no sequel to Naruto: Broken Bond?

    I have heard that Ubisofts Naruto license expired, the developers split from Ubisoft and that the Ultimate Ninja Storm series stole their players away when UNS2 was cross-platform but have no confirmation of any of them.

    Does someone, anyone, out there know exactly why or why not?

    Is there any way to sign up for some kind of automatic notifications about XBLA sales? Ideally for specific games? I always forget to check the site, so it'd be great to get an email to tell me when, say, Trials Evolution or Wrecked get discounted.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now