Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Spiderweb Software: Indie PC boom is "not sustainable"

Spiderweb Software: Indie PC boom is "not sustainable"

Thu 22 May 2014 7:58am GMT / 3:58am EDT / 12:58am PDT
PublishingDevelopment

"If you are a green developer, face these facts, or I believe destruction awaits" - Jeff Vogel

Spiderweb Software's Jeff Vogel has warned PC indie developers that the "bubble" in which they have existed is about to burst. The problem: "Too many games."

In a post published on his blog, Vogel, who has operated Spiderweb Software independently for almost 20 years, addressed the issues raised by the enormous number of games that have been added to Steam this year.

In short, the extremely lucrative context in which games like Braid, World of Goo and Castle Crashers made small fortunes prompted an avalanche of new developers to make games, flooding the market and driving the value of games into the ground.

"So what this grumpy old fart is saying is that there are Issues. They should be discussed," Vogel said. "There are new obstacles that should be planned for and forces you may blame for your problems that, in fact, you shouldn't. If you are a green developer, face these facts, or I believe destruction awaits."

"My games have been in a million sales and bundles. It's what you have to do now, and I'm just as at fault as everyone else"

As evidence, Vogel pointed to recent data suggesting that as many as 40 per cent of Steam purchases are never launched at all. The reason for this is simple: the consumer never wanted them in the first place,

"Indies now do a huge chunk (if not most) of their business through sales and bundles, elbowing each other out of the way for the chance to sell their game for a dollar or less," Vogel said.

"Indie gaming started out as games written with passion for people who embraced and loved them. Now too much of it is about churning out giant mounds of decent but undifferentiated product to be bought for pennies by people who don't give a crap either way.

"It's not sustainable."

Vogel is careful to relieve Valve of responsibility for the glut of product on Steam, despite its decision to leave curation in the hands of its users. "If, in 2008, I'd written my dream list of what a publisher could provide to help the little developer, Steam would have done it all, and then some," he said. Valve just made, "calm, rational business decisions," in much the same way that the companies running the now ubiquitous bundles did.

"It just can't last. Bundles used to earn a ton, but they don't anymore. If making pennies a copy selling your games in 12 packs is the main source of a developer's income, that developer is going to disappear. Also, all of the bundles and sales encourage users to expect to pay a price too low to keep us in business. It's just the same race to the bottom as in the iTunes store, except this time we were warned, and we did it anyway.

"And hey, I'm not blameless in this. My games have been in a million sales and bundles. It's what you have to do now, and I'm just as at fault as everyone else."

41 Comments

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
In a post published on his blog,
Incorrect link there. For anyone reading before it gets corrected, it's here:

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-indie-bubble-is-popping.html

Posted:2 months ago

#1

Robin Clarke
Producer

299 684 2.3
Popular Comment
Guh. There are so many assumptions in that post based on received opinion.

There has never been a time when anyone who wants to make games gets a commercial free ride. Thinking that the massive rewards available to early movers on any new platform will continue to be available for everyone is ridiculously entitled and naive.

But there are more opportunities available for developers today than at any time in history. There is no such thing as too many games. You don't have to target a narrow, tech-savvy segment of the audience any more. And players don't have to work hard to filter out what they're not interested in.

Posted:2 months ago

#2
Thanks Morville. That should be fixed now.

Posted:2 months ago

#3

Alfonso Sexto
Lead Tester

779 584 0.7
No bubble is sustainable. Browser F2P games are starting to suffer it. Not to mention what happened with Zynga.

Posted:2 months ago

#4

Ruben Monteiro
Engineer

65 139 2.1
Popular Comment
There is no such thing as too many games.
Unfortunately there is and it's called saturation. And you and me both wishing it would be otherwise won't make it so.

Unless your game is really too bad, success in this industry as indie (or not, for that matter) is going to be more and more about PR than the game itself, more about who you know that can get you game talked about, rather than how good your game is.

Posted:2 months ago

#5

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
There is no such thing as too many games.
There is only so much cash in the pocket, and only so much time in the day. Of course, it doesn't have to be a negative - no-one says there's too many books, too much art, too much music. But if we are going down that route then devs/pubs need to stop complaining about number of titles on Steam, the number of titles unplayed, and the number of titles that don't get placed on the Steam carousel.

I have yet to hear of the band who complain about being placed on the shelf amongst all the other bands in HMV. I have yet to hear about the movie producer or director who complains about all the other movies coming out on his movie's opening weekend. I have yet to hear someone seriously complain about War and Peace being the most unread book bought. Yet it seems a week doesn't pass by when a dev or pub complains about the game they've worked on being largely ignored, either by Valve, or by the customer.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 22nd May 2014 2:45pm

Posted:2 months ago

#6

Christian Keichel
Journalist

620 845 1.4
I have yet to hear of the band who complain about being placed on the shelf amongst all the other bands in HMV.
http://symphonicdistribution.com/following-up-in-the-industry/
I have yet to hear about the movie producer or director who complains about all the other movies coming out on his movie's opening weekend.
"My prediction is that there is going to be a major blood bath. There's an oversaturation of big superhero movies and they are becoming just more of the same. I think this summer is going to be bad for big studios whose movies pile on top of each other. The audience is going to get sick of it." (Ryan Kavanaugh August 2013)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/afm-ryan-kavanaugh-predicts-summer-654680
I have yet to hear someone seriously complain about War and Peace being the most unread book bought.
"It would be a slightly scary household where every single book had been read. That said, there's arguably something suspicious about someone who hasn't read any of the books on their shelves." (bbc.com March 2014)
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26470286

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christian Keichel on 22nd May 2014 3:18pm

Posted:2 months ago

#7

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
I stand corrected. :p

Posted:2 months ago

#8
You beat me to it Christian.

Why exactly does Steam not share some of the blame? The same thing happened on iOS yet they went ahead and opened the floodgates and allowed developers to undercut each other.

If they set a price that games had to be sold at. $1, $5, $10, $20 and $40 dollars and only allowed discounting to the next below after a fixed amount of time then games would live or die on their quality and there would be no race-to-zero and the market would be sustainable.

The answer is that wouldn't be good for consumers and therefore not good for Valve who like Apple make their money on the 30% of everything.

Posted:2 months ago

#9

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
Why exactly does Steam not share some of the blame?... If they set a price that games had to be sold at. $1, $5, $10, $20 and $40 dollars and only allowed discounting to the next below after a fixed amount of time
Who is Valve to say what a game is worth? If a developer or publisher wants their game sold at a lower (or higher) price, who should tell them different? Valve already give guidance on prices, and if devs/pubs ignore that guidance, then it is their choice.

Perhaps, though, you're right. Maybe letting devs/pubs choose their prices is akin to letting kids run a sweet shop - it requires a level of maturity and long-term planning that is beyond them.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 22nd May 2014 4:45pm

Posted:2 months ago

#10
It's Valve's market. If you don't like it then you can use someone else. Like any market authority Valve have a responsibility to regulate that market.

Although I think you see the irony of you making the right-wing free market argument.

Posted:2 months ago

#11

Robin Clarke
Producer

299 684 2.3
@Ruben

A lot of this is the reality of doing business rather than a harbinger of impending doom. No amount of PR will save a bad game. If you are not making something good enough to warrant it being talked about (by the target audience), it's not an overcrowded market that's the problem.

@Morville

Correct, they do need to stop complaining.

I have heard of movies suffering from a glut of releases, but then they are trying to grab the lion's share of a finite amount of box office money and screens. Not every game needs to make millions of dollars on day one.

@John

Because price fixing is illegal.

Posted:2 months ago

#12

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
It's Valve's market. If you don't like it then you can use someone else. Like any market authority Valve have a responsibility to regulate that market.
No, it's Valve's store. Not market.

There's plenty of digital stores that sell PC games. Within this market, Steam is the largest store. There are, indeed, some stores which do what you want - GOG, for instance. Mike Bithell was told Thomas Was Alone should be priced at 5 bucks by the GOG guys. He went elsewhere - to Valve - and they said "Here's what we think, but it's up to you".
Like any market authority Valve have a responsibility to regulate that market.
No, they do not have the responsibility. Even if they were a market - which they're not - outside regulators exist in many markets to ensure that consumers get a fair deal, whilst allowingproviders to profit.

Also, as Robin says, what you're asking for is tantamount to price-fixing.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 22nd May 2014 5:27pm

Posted:2 months ago

#13

Christian Keichel
Journalist

620 845 1.4
Because price fixing is illegal.
Price fixing isn't illegal, if you own the marketplace, where goods are sold. Apple is completely free to say the minimum price for an iOS App is $0.99, this price is fixed and obviously it's not illegal. Furthermore here in europe it's not uncommon to have several goods with fixed prices. In many european countries books have a fixed price, that a retailer isn't allowed to discount.

Posted:2 months ago

#14

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
@ Christian
Furthermore here in europe it's not uncommon to have several goods with fixed prices
Surely, though, this is MSRP/RRP? In which case, this not only exists on Steam already, but is set by the manufacturer. *frown* Might be different for the UK vs rest-of-Europe?

Edit:

Also, having a giggle at the Wiki for RRP...
Suggested pricing methods may conflict with competition theory, as they allow prices to be set higher than would otherwise be the case,

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 22nd May 2014 5:25pm

Posted:2 months ago

#15
I disagree. If all the stores/developers/publishers that release games banded together to set the same price then I can accept the price-fixing argument but they don't.

In a way you can't use that argument unless you see them as the only market and not a store.

I accept they aren't a market but a store and as a store they can set whatever prices however they want.

Posted:2 months ago

#16

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
I accept they aren't a market but a store and as a store they can set whatever prices however they want.
Again, and I'm not trying to be rude (honestly :) ), but you're giving Valve all the credit/responsibility. No-one forces devs/pubs to put their games on discount. No-one forces devs/pubs to set a certain price. I was a bit sarky above, with my sweet-shop metaphor, but it's also accurate - so many devs/pubs have no clear long-term planning, and Valve can't fix that (not without running economics workshops for alllll the devs).

Here... as an example, look at this:

https://www.indiegala.com/main

11 games. $4. That ain't Valve's fault. Another example:

http://igbwiki.com/wiki/Indie_Game_Bundle_Wiki

Count how many bundles there are. Then tell me that's Valve's fault... It obviously isn't. It's devs/pubs who are desperate, and I feel for them, I do, but they're the ones doing this to themselves.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 22nd May 2014 6:03pm

Posted:2 months ago

#17

Christian Keichel
Journalist

620 845 1.4
Surely, though, this is MSRP/RRP? In which case, this not only exists on Steam already, but is set by the manufacturer. *frown* Might be different for the UK vs rest-of-Europe?
It's something different MSRP/RRP are suggested retail prices, in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and several other countries in europe, the publisher sets a fixed price for a book, that the retailer isn't allowed to undercut.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Christian Keichel on 22nd May 2014 6:10pm

Posted:2 months ago

#18

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
@ Christian

Oh, that's interesting... Hmmm. Do they have offers? Thinking about it, I don't recall the local Waterstones discounting individual books, but they do run "Buy 2, Get 1 Free" and "Buy 1, Get 1 Half Price" offers quite often.

Posted:2 months ago

#19
Morville the devs have no other choice if everyone else is doing it. It's the reason why it's called a race to the bottom. Only the party with the capability to fix prices can do anything about it which is Valve.

Posted:2 months ago

#20

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
Only the party with the capability to fix prices can do anything about it which is Valve.
But that's the thing. Valve might have the ability to fix (though stabilise is a better word) prices on Steam. But can they do anything about Bundles? No, that's all on the devs/pubs. You can't even argue Humble can do anything about the bundles, since Humble have "lost it" lately, and there's so many other bundle sites.

So, again, you're placing all the responsibility for averting a race to the bottom on Valve, when all that will do is "fix" Steam. Actual education and long-term planning is what is needed here, and if that were to occur, the issue with Steam prices wouldn't need the interference of Valve - it would be solved at the source, with devs/pubs learning patience and economic thinking.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 22nd May 2014 7:11pm

Posted:2 months ago

#21
Morville you can't have patience if you're struggling to keep the lights on. Offcourse devs are going to discount their games if it keeps them alive for a few more months.

Valve on the otherhand have such a huge market share they could set any restrictions including banning bundles and releasing on other stores for cheaper (amazon did that although for a different reason). Valve don't want to do that because it would give other stores a competitive advantage and that's fair enough however all I'm saying is by doing so they've chosen their own interests over their developers.

Posted:2 months ago

#22

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
they could set any restrictions
No, they couldn't. Ignoring their corporate value system, what you're talking about is wholesale abuse of a monopoly. "Banning bundles"? God. You're asking one company to be the sole arbiter of PC gaming prices. And you think this better than educating developers? I've seen games bundled 2 weeks after Steam release. Were they starving? Maybe, but unlikely.
however all I'm saying is by doing so they've chosen their own interests over their developers.
No. They've chosen to remain within the law. I should think people would be happy.

Posted:2 months ago

#23
I think it's a lot more likely than you think.

They're not abusing any monopolistic position either as they aren't setting prices necessarily high, developers could choose to release for $1 if they see fit. They would just be preventing them to then slash their prices whenever they liked.

Finally the legal argument is rubbish. As Christian said Apple have a set minimum price too and there are other stores both developers and consumers could use.

Posted:2 months ago

#24

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
Minimum price maybe... But not banning bundles, dictating prices or releasing on other stores cheaper. At that point, a company which dominates the market is seen to be using that dominance to, actually, fix prices. Certainly some devs/pubs wouldn't accept, and what then? Some devs/pubs would be tied into anti-competitive agreements with Valve, and others would go to... Humble? Who don't care, because they're getting more licensing agreements.

It's a short-term, non-inclusive situation that harms Valve, and consumers. And all because developers are... Poor? Too poor to not race to the bottom? Then perhaps they need to rethink their business?

Btw, why not just educate developers? Why not ensure they know the financial costs of what they're doing? You seem to have neatly avoided my suggestion. :p

Also: What happens if Origin becomes big... As big as Steam? Unlikely, but then we're just in the same situation, right?

Final edit:

Read the price-fixing Wiki, then tell me if Valve could even try to navigate those waters without breaching the law in some region. Laws vary between countries, remember, and Valve is an international company.

Edited 4 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 22nd May 2014 8:30pm

Posted:2 months ago

#25
I don't think you realize what anti-trust laws are for. A company has every right to dictate to its partners the terms of its partnerships. It just doesn't have the right to use its position to stop others from doing business. As you earlier stated Valve isn't the only store ie the only viable store for consumers to use either so those laws don't apply. But look neither if us are lawyers and I'm sure two lawyers would probably disagree too so forget that side of it.

I didn't avoid your suggestion of mere education. Developers aren't stupid, they understand exactly what they are doing. What I said is that they have no choice due to the fact that it becomes a race to the bottom. But I'll elaborate.

Developers arent blamesless but you can't hold your price high if everyone is discounting and that will happen because there will always be people who will see the advantage of being the first mover as it gives them a competive advantage when perhaps their quality isn't quite there which then starts the race. The problem arrises and is ultimately inevitable due to the nature of selling digital goods where manufacturing and distribution are essentially free.

What you seem to want to say is "Too bad" although you don't actually want to come out and say it. What I'm trying to do is try to offer a solution and yes it might put Valve at a competitive disadvantage but given their market share they could actually cope because unlike the developer who could just say screw you GOG I'm off to Steam it would be a lot harder the other way round.

Again my original comment was just asking the question why exactly do Valve not share any blame.

Posted:2 months ago

#26
Games arent going anywhere, the barrier and cost to make them ( aside from AAA) keeps getting lower and lower, meaning more and more people are going to be making them. Now the days of a developer making a game and making his/her living doing so may not be the same as it once was, that I agree with.

The real problem isnt so much too many games, its now that the price point of games in the masses mind is set at FREE. There is your problem.

Posted:2 months ago

#27

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
What you seem to want to say is "Too bad" although you don't actually want to come out and say it.
Well, yes and no. Yes, because if developers can only survive by racing to the bottom (either because their finances aren't great, or because their game isn't as good as the next one), then, yeah... Too bad. Not everyone is cut out to be a dev - financially or creatively - just like not everyone is cut out to be a surgeon or musician. But, equally, No... Because, unlike you, I don't think every developer really understands the full-effect of what they're doing, or the effect it has on sales. Certainly we already expect indie teams to do a lot in terms of coding and presentation, so expecting them to understand economics as well might be pushing it.
Again my original comment was just asking the question why exactly do Valve not share any blame.
For me, because they don't force anyone to do this. A financially secure developer, with a decent game, doesn't have to race to the bottom. Yes, there are devs who aren't financially secure, and who have poor games, and thus do race to the bottom. But I firmly believe that not everyone has to, and the more people who realise this - who are educated about marketing, and occasional sales - the less it will happen.

*shrugs* Agree to disagree. :)

Posted:2 months ago

#28

Anthony Gowland
Lead Designer

172 525 3.1
"Waaaah, I have to do PR for my game"

Posted:2 months ago

#29
Sure but just give the last word :-)

The problem with a race to the bottom is that if you sell a game with 100% quality at 100% the price you will ultimately loose sales to the developer who sells at 90% quality at 10% cost so it will still effect the "good" developers and then they'll have to lower their price. That's the reason why I think the problem can't be solved simply by good developers holding their price which is what you suggest.

This has already played itself out on the App Store and with the exception of perhaps niche products who don't face the same competive pressures now everyone has to sell for "free". Developers have tried and pretty much all who did ended up discounting.

Posted:2 months ago

#30

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
Okay... Genuinely not trying to get the last word (honest. :p ), just a couple of points. :)
The problem with a race to the bottom is that if you sell a game with 100% quality at 100% the price you will ultimately loose sales to the developer who sells at 90% quality at 10% cost so it will still effect the "good" developers and then they'll have to lower their price.
This argument lacks finesse. For mobile, it may very well be true, but PC? I don't know if you can apply it to PC, because there's so many genres, and so many different/competing tastes. For instance... Let's say, Panzer Corps, published by Slitherine. Now, Panzer Corps is an old-style tactical wargame. Slitherine specialise in this type of game, and don't deep-discount. Why? Because the people who buy old-style tactical wargames generally don't care about price. In addition, Slitherine's customer base might also have different genre tastes to people who play puzzle games. So, Slitherine games aren't competing against... Hexcells, say, so they don't need to follow that developer into bundling/racing to the bottom. Same can be said for the customer-bases of Elite: Dangerous, or even something more mainstream, like Dark Souls.

So, you can see why I say your argument lacks finesse, right? You're treating all games as one amorphous blob - regardless of genre and customer base - and using price as the consumer's sole deciding factor in purchase, even in cases where it plainly isn't.

Now, it may be that there's more depth to the situation on mobile than I give credit for, I don't know. But I do think using the mobile/appstore market structure as a basis for interpreting future PC sales/prices can only lead so far before we acknowledge that it does more harm than good. (I'm honestly not sure if we're at that point yet or not. :) )

(Also, ha ha! Last word. :p )

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 22nd May 2014 11:43pm

Posted:2 months ago

#31

Roberto Bruno
Curious Person

104 69 0.7
There's a "simple" way out of over-saturation, and that's to step up your game (pun not intended) as a developer, trying to emerge for the quality of your product, instead of relying on some silly assumption that customers would buy anything that looks "indie enough".

On a side note, that's something Jeff Vogel needs to learn as well, considering he's releasing what's virtually the same game for 20 years at this point, with barely any effort to step up production value, presentation, design or what else.

P.S. Of course as a customer I'm going to ignore most of the indie games released on Steam these days. The majority of them look like worthless shovelware of the kind you used to play for free on sites like Kongregate... And I didn't bother with them even back then.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Roberto Bruno on 23rd May 2014 1:43am

Posted:2 months ago

#32
Ok Morville I will have the last word. At least mine.

People said the same thing you are now saying on iOS when I was making the same arguments, you may even have been one of them. I can't remember but what I will guarantee is that I am 100% convinced the same will happen if it already hasn't. The days of releasing anything for more than a dollar or so other than AAA or niche is over. We'll just have to see if I'm right.

I didn't say all games where the same. I deliberately left out niche (as well as AAA) but they have their own risks. There's a reason Elite Dangerous never found funding (including by Braben himself) before kickstarter made it possible. They selling to a limited audience which makes the risk/reward equation more difficult to justify without having a lot of money upfront. Maybe kick-starter will take in more and more importantance but it would seem it will get riskier and riskier to count on revenue after release.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by John Owens on 23rd May 2014 9:18am

Posted:2 months ago

#33

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
Fair fair. We should maybe bookmark this page and revisit it in a year, see how things have panned out. :)

(Lasssssssssssssssssst wooooooooooooooooooooord. *cough* Sorry. :) )

Posted:2 months ago

#34

Brian Lewis
Operations Manager

127 79 0.6
Steam does have the ability to fix prices... and have done so in the past. It is only recently (past few years) that they have opened up the options, and allowed prices to fall all the way to zero. At this time you can now obtain Free to Play games on Steam, for absolutely nothing. I, personally, fought with Steam for over 5 years just to get them to allow this to happen.

Steam, and the online PC Download business, is most definately following the trend of the Apple/Google mobile stores. It is doing so for good commercial reasons. We should not be trying to fight it, we should be fighting to make it happen faster/sooner.

Change does not just happen 'because'. It happens because there is an overwhelming need. In business the inertia is for stability, not change. Once things are established, it is very difficult for change to take place. However, once there is enough need/demand, change is forced, and should in fact be assisted. The faster the changes happen, the sooner the new 'stable' can be established, and this is where everyone can be comfortable.

The race to the bottom has begun, and things will only stabilize once it is reached. The longer people try to fight it off, the longer it will be before everyone can move on. There is going to be a clear separation in pricing, with most products being offered for free (with paid services), while products that will not work with this model will charge a premium for their uniqueness. However, with all the confusion, it is not clear to the customer which products actually justify the premium... so they assume that none do.

Posted:2 months ago

#35

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,508 1,283 0.9
Related to pricing, I just came across this, and thought people reading the comment thread might be interested. It's setting a maximum price, not minimum like discussed above, but still... :)
( http://impromptugames.com/?p=483 )

Posted:2 months ago

#36
@Morville

See there are struggling developers. :-)

Edited 1 times. Last edit by John Owens on 25th May 2014 4:59pm

Posted:2 months ago

#37

James Podesta
Programmer

4 6 1.5
The whole pricing thing is a bit of a pointless argument now. With multiple stores and things like Humble Bundle and App Store, every store would have needed to combine to fix the price. Valve expedited the process with its sales which it used to grab market share in the first place, but it was inevitable anyway, so no point getting to hung up on who's fault.

The fact is there are just a LOT of people making games - more than ever before. People complain their games aren't getting noticed because of all the noise, but I say that just means your game is camouflaging too well with the noise.

Times are great for some people and bad for others. I'm sure those that used to have it good but now are doing it tough will think things are worse, and others of us who can now get our games out there and make some money think times are great.

Posted:2 months ago

#38

Eyal Teler
Programmer

77 77 1.0
Thanks for the link, Morville, it was an interesting read.

Posted:2 months ago

#39

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now