I can see that I have no rights to talk about revenue since I have yet released anything after so many years being a member of this forum, so I’ll leave it to someone else to talk about stuffs like that
however, my own issue with CoG/HG business model is how they treat their most powerful asset, the Choicescript itself
there are much things lacking in this scripting language, the end product relies heavily on text as a delivering medium but there is literally zero syntax to support text manipulation
there is no headers nor footers to place specific variables that need to be watched constantly, no alignment to divide your texts into parts within a page which would allows more creativity for authors to deliver their texts, or to format their stat pages and showing variables more creatively
and the worst is there is literally no webpages nor articles to explain the ‘best practice’ way to code in choicescript
I can feel the frustration of many authors that have to BUILD everything from scratch for every in-game systems they wish to add for their game, from a simple inventory, a fun mini-games, to an experimental battle system and beyond
I do believe the business model of this company is to support “pure” authors to achieve something that would normally requires a team, or at least a support from a programmer, but here I feel that everyone just left by the company to wander aimlessly and try to write something in choicescript without a proper guidelines or helpful syntaxes
I hope you don’t find this offensive, I really do care and be thankful for what the company been doing so far
It took me years to learn Choicescript and most if it wasn’t from Choice of Games…although it’s a simple coding language that’s simple enough to use after you’re experienced, it has a steep learning curve, and as you said, lacks a lot in instructions and streamlining
Part of the issue here is that these games are designed, at least in part, with phones in mind, and screen real estate is at a premium on those. Something like headers/footers or fancy divided text on pages that would work well on a monitor would be pretty awful to deal with on a phone screen.
I actually started work on a kinda ‘Choicescripts for beginners/dummies’ series of tutorials, years ago, that was concise, simple, used visual aids, and kept very firmly to what I personally consider the best practices. The goal was that going through the tutorial would take the person from point zero to having (and understanding) a skeleton structure for a functional, basic CS game, that incorporated most of the stuff that is expected by the modern readers.
I was planning to put it online as a freely available blog.
Unfortunately, I had to stop because of mental health issues, and I lost all the materials I did make, when my old(er) laptop died.
But it’s something I’d love to revisit one day, if I ever get better again.
Because it is sorely needed.
I think there is a link in the thread that shows that it’s difficult to make a language work for screen readers and other stuff and if one was to make a new one it will eventually converge to ChoiceScript
Well, it’s phone and accessibility. You start getting too fancy with it and you’ll screw one of those up. It’s definitely a shame, and like you can do fancy shit and have it tolerable on a phone and also taking into account accessibility, but by and large sticking with something simple is far easier and more consistent. I like how I can just jump into a Choicescript game without fuss (beyond needing to set background to black and turning off animations [I’m “old” and was reading these before animations and as such I find them jarring]) and it’ll be perfectly readable for my bad severe astigmatism severe myopia protanopia eyes. With twine stuff, I love them and plenty are beautiful, but often they’re pretty rough on phones and have some sort of accessibility problem for me, like backgrounds being too bright or complicated or text blending in, or even simply having too much going on in the borders that makes the amount of text on the screen very small. I think the visual simplicity is a boon. The other stuff, yeah that’s definitely worth being annoyed by. Like it having taken this long to get even a rudimentary checkpoint system, not even a full save system, is kinda rough.
Yeah, for reading “pages” of text I like the similarity to an ebook that ChoiceScript has: I’ve had to give up on a lot of Twine games even on a computer browser because they are so difficult to physically focus on, because of the colours or simply that there’s too much text crammed on a page (and I don’t even have particular issues with my eyes! I’m sure it must be a lot worse for others).
A lot of the issues I see arise from people running into either arise from trying to run before they can walk (I am talking about myself here too), trying to make ChoiceScript do something it’s not designed for (ditto, though for other script systems), or not running QuickTest and RandomTest regularly or at all.
Even as someone who has made some code templates in my time, I am not sure that a “how to make a system for hitpoints/an inventory/a maze puzzle etc” tutorial is as much benefit as getting a solid understanding of the basics: once someone is confident using variables and conditional text, and probably *gosubs plus testing their game to make sure those elements work, doing something like making an inventory or a combat system isn’t so complicated, and that knowledge can be more easily applied to other parts of the game.
All of that said, where features/techniques aren’t covered by the various links above, I would potentially be interested in creating a tutorial or a basic game. But part of the nature of making these games is that people have different approaches that suit them best and different coding feels more or less intuitive. Figuring out what’s right for you individually is something where you just have to… well, do it in order to do it.
I know that if I made one (which I’m not about to do, I hate making tutorials and answering questions about them (mentally shuddering of the thought alone)) it would probably be completely unreadable without understanding the basics (and on the flip side, I don’t see that much of a mechanical difference between the three at all).
If the concern is authors shooting themselves in the foot, wouldn’t a simple solution be to have a sliding scale of royalties payout? Steam for example takes a smaller cut the more copies a game sells. Thus authors who have published with you before and have proven to be able to draw a large audience get a larger share as their book sells more copies, giving them a bigger slice of the pie but it’s not incentivizing potential COG authors to chose HG and hurt themselves if their book does poorly? To further de-incentivize that you could still match that sliding scale in the COG deal as well. Giving authors who’s books sell well and have assuredly payed off publishing costs a larger portion of the revenue their work brings in, without increasing risk to authors or to COG.
Alternatively would having a third deal option specifically for authors who have published with you before and sold well and would prefer a larger share of royalties (whether a flat increase or a sliding increase with copies sold) over any sort of advance not work? Again new authors are prevented from inadvertently harming themselves but authors with a proven track record get better compensation given the revenue they bring in.
The logic in pinning HG royalties to COG does make some sense for new authors but authors who have valid evidence and cause to believe their books will sell well being given an additional option for those higher royalties would seem a fair way of alleviating at least some of the concerns authors have no? That’s not rhetorical to be clear, it’s like 5 am and my tired brain could be missing something obvious here. So, genuinely am I missing something here? Because while it maybe doesn’t address every concern it would address some of the concerns while adhering to the stated goals of COG. This is of course ignoring that it may simply not be financial viable to do such a thing, but given COG is a private company and thus doesn’t have public SEC filings speculating on that feels pointless.
I’ve just read (in one sitting) every word of what’s been posted over the past few days in this thread since it was reborn. I’m a longtime choicegame reader, someone who works for an hourly wage, and also someone who buys and pays for stuff i like or want. At the risk of dabbling and speculating (and hopefully not straying from the topic thread or retreading discussions i haven’t already read), I would like to pitch in regarding some other aspects of the economic model of these companies (and the authors who do business with them). I’m genuinely trying to contribute to the conversation.
The thing that strikes me here is that it seems there’s not that much money to divide for any given game. I don’t mean to detract from conversations about the fairness of that division; that’s definitely still important. As someone who appreciates the result of all this creative work, i want everyone who contributes to be treated fairly at the very least. Still, I ask myself if there’s not room for cooperation with the aim of increasing revenue across the board, and if that’s not a more fruitful pursuit.
The numbers of copies sold of even the bestselling games seem surprisingly low compared to the numbers of people in the world i imagine might be interested and able to buy something like a particular interactive fiction game. And the prices for the games seem low on average for the value that i derive from them as a consumer/patron (i don’t buy every release, but every time a game comes out that i want to play, i feel like i’m underpaying, especially when the games are released at a discount).
I don’t have any insight into how the prices are set or how the games are marketed (i’ve never seen an advertisement for any of the games apart from the email newsletter i’m subscribed to). I found choicegames by digging through the GPS for role-playing games without microtransactions as a bored teen with too much time on my hands. To me it seems like the biggest barrier to greater revenue for both authors and publishers is getting people to know that these games (some of which are in my estimation really excellent works of art) exist at all. Is there a better way for these works to be publicized to new readers? Are there ways for CoG/HG authors to work together with the publishers for their mutual interest there? Are there ways to move the active readers (people like forum regulars) to action in an organized way to bring new people in? Is there the collective will to do something like that?
I’m not trying to presume that people aren’t working really hard to market and sell games. I’m not trying to tell people what to do. All of these things are easier said than done.
I would also pay more for games and take more chances on games i’m not sure about if they had endorsements/blurbs in the game description (where the story and features are described) from other authors, critics, or reviewers whose work i admire. there seems to me to be value in some genuinely positive, thoughtful, and honest editorialism. i know that’s a bit of extra work, but it seems at least some authors active in the community play the games and write their opinions eventually. I like the medium, but I don’t assume that i’m going to enjoy or even be interested in a game just because is published by CoG/HG.
I don’t know if this is insightful at all, much less helpful. I appreciate the work everyone does, and I want the best for all of you. good luck
HG authors get zero advances. Only COG authors get those. The only income HG authors get are from sales. IMO anticipating sales and giving authors more money before the game is out there is probably not a good move either. Although some are a sure thing (like wayhaven sequels), other games from known authors can do well or under perform, while others can be unexpected successes from new authors.
I didn’t say HG authors get advances, my understanding is that an author who publishes under HG with a book which does well would be able to apply for and likely get COG publishing (ie advances could be in play then) for their next game if they want it, is that not correct?
IMO anticipating sales and giving authors more money before the game is out there is probably not a good move either.
As for anticipating sales, I wasn’t suggesting larger advances, I was suggesting that an established author who has been published successfully before has enough experience to make the choice of whether a potential third deal with higher royalties but no advance is worth the risk, because yeah there will always be some risk. But particularly (circling back to that first point) if they are going from publishing with HG (ie used to no advance already) to COG the author should have a reasonable understanding of if that is a risk they are okay with. Which for clarity since you have published with HG before and thus could provide insight I don’t have, it’s my understand that the intention is that HG is for people new to writing or otherwise unproven writers, whereas once you get published and show you can write quality books that do well or if you are already established as writer you should be under the COG banner. Is that understanding wrong?
while others can be unexpected successes from new authors.
Yeah that does happen and it’s why HG having a sliding royalty scale where an authors cut increases (from whatever the baseline cut is) the more copies they sell could be another way to address some of the complaints and even the disparity between HB and COG without pushing potential COG authors to HG (which from what Dan said above is something they don’t want to do).
That is correct, although from an outside perspective, it seems less important for an HG author to have done well, and more that they need to work with the CoG house style (which I assume is part of why a lot of HG authors prefer to continue with HG, because they have established their own way of structuring things - their own internal house style).
(I partly say this because of my own experience applying to write for CoG, where I had sold interactive short stories to an online magazine but hadn’t written anything that readers paid for, so I wouldn’t have been able to make any claims about my writing “doing well” in the way that a novelist or someone selling self-published IF direct to players could.)
Good for you, I guess. In my country with my currency, they are not inexpensive at all. I want to play plenty of games, but they cost R$60+ and I’m not willing to pay that amount.
I don’t remember where I read it, but I read about a market research that showed most people do not consider awards or endorsements from other authors, even if they like those authors, when buying books. The three things that most influenced people to buy a book were, in this order iirc, cover art (petty I know, but true), book blurb and word of mouth.
The Choice of Games label is edited by employees of the company, and they have specific structures and elements that are encouraged to be included in those titles. The common consensus is that this gives those games a higher uniform quality than HG, but can also give them a ‘same-y’ sort of feel. The best and worst of HG in many cases would not be possible if those titles were published as CoG ones.
Someone correct me if im wrong but i remember they once shared these documents about the outline and guidelines to write FOR A COG GAME (its been a long time ago and they might not be up to date)
It’s less of a prose or plot style, and more how the mechanics work. The 2016 ones have been updated a bit but not hugely changed in general - mostly it’s that there are more detailed/varied examples. In the most recent document I have access to, which was from 2022, the highlights are:
Players must be able to play as male, female, or nonbinary, and games should have an equally fulfilling story regardless of gender, race, orientation etc of the player character (this does not mean that discrimination cannot be written about, but a female PC shouldn’t be excluded from participating in any way in a war, for example, by virtue of gender)
Games shouldn’t endorse real-world bigotry (this doesn’t mean it can’t be included, but if it is, it should be explored thoughtfully)
Romance is not mandatory but is an encouraged element; ROs should have other functions on top of being a romance; if romanceable characters have set orientations and/or genders, there should be at least one character able to be romanced by a PC regardless of the PC’s gender/orientation
There should be a variety of goals to pursue, varied paths through the game, and lots of different states in which the PC ends up at when completing the game, and all the endings should be dramatic and satisfying (even if they’re tragic or bittersweet)
Choice options shouldn’t be obviously better or worse (“do you want £1000 or a sandwich?”), should be reasonably informed (“go right/go left” when left puts you in a crocodile pit without any clues before hand), and should affect stats, lead to interesting flavour, and/or lead to a markedly different result.
Failure should still enable the plot to move forward
Use skills or personality stats, whether opposed or 1-100, to enable players to build their character mechanically (in Royal Affairs these are the Eloquent/Authoritative/etc and Planner-Improviser etc). No one stat should be more powerful or easy to increase than the rest, and they should be widely applicable to resolve problems. These are internal aspects of the PC.
Use secondary stats to represent the environment, narrative goals, reputations, problems to avoid etc. In Creme de la Creme these are Virtue, Grades, etc. These are external to the PC and go up or down based on choices that test skills. In Creme, you can use high Wit to make a cutting remark and increase Popularity. Popularity can be used later in the game to leverage people to listen to you in a fraught situation.
There is a bunch of other stuff about different kinds of choice structure and game balance, but those are the headlines. In general, it’s about how successes and failures are determined, and providing enough branching that players can have varied experiences through the game.
These are all great questions that I don’t have answers to. The hardest thing as an author (in my experience) is letting people know your work exists. As someone who has self-published novels, working with Heart’s Choice/Choice of Games as a publisher has been a great experience because they have an audience and a marketing team. Could more be done? I’m sure it could. How? I really don’t know.
As someone who comes from a background in novel writing, I don’t know where to find the readers who are interested in interactive fiction. I feel like a large majority of readers don’t even know what interactive fiction is. I do my best with the reach I have (on Twitter, FB, and discord), but it seems like a drop in the bucket. From what I’ve seen, most successful authors are finding their readers through TikTok and paid advertising. TikTok feels like a huge time drain and I honestly feel like it’s sucking out my soul when I try to participate on that platform. I’d much rather focus my efforts on writing so I can produce more games for people to play.
I’d love to hear more suggestions about marketing and where to find readers for our games. I agree that a lot of the content people are writing for CoG is exceptional art that deserves more viewers. Where do we find people who would enjoy this medium of storytelling? How do we reach them?
Perhaps this subject deserves its own thread. Thoughts, anyone?
There is some low-level marketing advice on the choicescript wiki, but hearing directly from authors who have done the thing and done it well would be fantastic.
I’d much rather focus my efforts on writing so I can produce more games for people to play.