this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2026
271 points (98.9% liked)
PC Gaming
15714 readers
786 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don't let them take the overhand. Showcase your game for the fans. There will always be people copying or pirating your work. Keep doing the stuff you do and it will pay off (hopefully). Look at Zelda, its copied so often, yet it does not matter for the original. There are so many racing games, each of them is like a copy from another. Same for fighting games. Yet fans are fans of the originals and games are still good.
I don't think its a good idea to not showcase your game, because someone can copy it.
Sadly, their investors do not seem to share your confidence. 🥲
I don't think that was a decision by their investors.
What gives you that impression?
What I see is that demos help games succeed, ergo investors're happy. You're suggesting that he was so resolute in his stance that he pitched it to them, knowing that he was trying to sell them on a high risk play to what, send a message? 🤓
The question is, what gives you the impression that investors control the project? Unless proven, I don't think your previous claim is true. I'm not in the position to provide evidence for not doing something, its the other way round.
I'm questioning your logic, not your sources. Thanks, though. Nice dodge.
You made the claim. And I don't believe you are right, unless you can prove it. I'm not the making the claim that investors control the demo to be cancelled. Do you have any prove for your claim?
You're the one making the claim the investors didn't have a play in this. Shouldn't the most obvious/common case be what we default to?
No no, you stated the investors made the decision. I say, I don't believe it without evidence. Until then it didn't happen.
Also BTW, isn't this an indie company without investors at all? So I don't know what you talking about. I do not believe investors cancelled the demo of the game. If you cannot prove it, then I don't believe you.
I made the claim that your hypothesis is irrational and lacking support, and followed up with why. Double down all you like. 🤷🏼♂️
You made the claim that their investors made the choice to take the demo away. I asked for evidence, which you still lack and talk like fluff only. I don't believe your claim until you prove it.
That isn't how hypotheses work at all, and to state that I made "a claim" is disingenuous at best. Of the two, yours is the less rational one. Not a judgment of your person, at least initially. 😑
On what basis do you have a hyptheses? Does the indie company even have investors??? You ignored my previous questions questioning your statement, that is untrue until proven or bringing arguments. You made a baseless claim and now you attack anyone who does not believe your random thoughts without justification.
jesuschrist. Go outside with this bullshit. Or, ya know: scroll up and read a little. Don't forget to breathe deep. 🤣🖕🏼
See how you dodge the most basic questions, but attack on a personal level. I ask again: Does the indie company have investors or are you pulling nonsense from your asshole and attack people who question your questionable statements?
this is a bad idea imo. until it hits the market and it's ready to be paid for, someone with more resources WILL take your unique idea
I don't think die-hard fans that trade off of established names are carrying direct profits. Especially for a franchise/studio as young as Moonlighter.
Die-hard fans keep the game's community alive, which can eventually lead to new people finding it, but I'd be surprised if even 50% of a game's revenue is supported by people that would pick the game out of a line up of all the game they play in a year. And that other, indifferent 50% could realistically be snapped up by someone who shits out a cheap clone with a similar enough aesthestic.
When I said "fans", I didn't mean literal die hard fans. It was a word as an attempt to distinguish between who doesn't care in any capacity, for lack of terms. Let's take Vampire Survivors as an example. There are many copycats of this game, but most people don't care about them. Most people want to play Vampire Survivors. Or all the Mario Kart clones. Well yes, they are not identical clones, but that's the thing. Those games have an identity and quality "fans" (or just "gamers") enjoy, that they don't get from the clones. The community are playing the main games, and are part of the fun for many. I don't think that we are currently in an especially broken situation of copycats, that dictates the entire industry. We had copycat games since the 80s. Don't get me wrong, it is an issue, but its not a big issue. Now its easy for me to say, because I'm not a small indie developer.
People are playing Vampire Survivors because it's Vampire Survivors. No one can say whether it would be the Flagship of its genre if genAI let someone create a passable knock-off in a week. Yeah, we've always had knock-offs but those required some modicum of effort to produce. And that effort took time, time where the original could become entrenched with people that like what it innovated on.
We can't talk numbers because nobody has them, but I'm pessimistic that the majority of Vampire Survivors (or any game that has reached "mainstream") players are engaging with the game in a way to interfaces with what makes it unique. They would get the same enjoyment out of a shallow rip-off. They're only going with VS or any mainstream because other people have vetted it as "not a waste of money" or out of FOMO. Idk how old you are but I absolutely "enjoyed" N64 shovelware games that were objectively 6 out of 10s because they were good enough. And I have a more discerning palate now, but that's because I'm a fan of the industry. Most people are just consuming content, like watching basic TV. The "fans" you describe are people in these comments. And they are indisputably in the minority when it comes to volume of product sales.
Maybe I am too optimistic, but copycats are also kind of free advertisement for the original.
The core gameplay of Vampire Survivors was directly inspired by a South Korean mobile game called Magic Survival, developed by an indie creator named LEME and released on Android in late 2019.
That's not what it means to be a copycat. No one talks about games being inspired.
Magic Survival looks like a copycat of Vampire Survivors. Try it on Android phone and let me know if you still think "copycat" is incorrect. Smash TV from the 1990s could be called "inspiration", also recommend playing that :)
A game from same genre or being inspire by is not a copycat. A copycat is basically the same game. But Magic Survival is not. You have probably a different definition than me, for the word "copycat".