
The Rise and Fall of the Lone Game Developer - putzdown
http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1579
======
ANTSANTS
More like, the iOS app store gold rush ended. The indie dev scene is thriving
on PC. Stop throwing your time and money away developing for a platform
overwhelmingly used by people that don't really care about your games, that
are looking for brief distractions while they wait in the checkout line, and
by and large refuse to pay even a dollar for the privilege. Don't blame the
industry because you avoided the platform used by people that actually buy
games, play them for hours a day, tirelessly promote the good ones on message
boards and amongst their friends, and will actually appreciate the effort you
put into your work.

Also, Donkey Kong was not created by a "lone game developer." Miyamoto may
have designed Donkey Kong by himself, but he had entire team of contract
developers at his disposal.

[http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_hist...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_history_of_donkey_kong.php?print=1)

[http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Company:Ikegami_Tsus...](http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Company:Ikegami_Tsushinki)

~~~
gavanwoolery
The gold rush was almost over before it started on mobile - it did not take
more than a year for things to become extremely competitive. Flash games
suffered a similar fate. Consoles have not generally been indie-friendly but
Playstation is now making a better effort on that front, although they are
still mainly catering to indie devs who have already "made it." Greenlight is
becoming quite competitive (there were 17,000+ active games when I was on
there). Kickstarter seems to have lost a great deal of its enthusiasm (perhaps
rightfully so).

And yet...

There is so much unexplored space in the medium. We might have stripped the
surface, but there is gold down there somewhere. :)

~~~
increment_i
I agree. I think one of the worst things to happen to indie devs on mobile was
the concept of the App Store(s) itself. When I open the App Store, my brain
just...drifts off. Its a bunch of icons with little context. It's like looking
at the rack of magazines and trinkets while you checkout at the grocery store.

While Moore's Law marches on, I'm hoping the days of AAA titles for mobile are
just around the corner. It's true - I suppose I'm not willing to pay even 0.99
for some generic platformer or cutesy puzzle game. I would be willing, however
to pay 20+ dollars if someone could give me something close to say, Fallout 3
for my phone though.

~~~
tvararu
> I would be willing, however to pay 20+ dollars if someone could give me
> something close to say, Fallout 3 for my phone though.

We're already there. You can play, today, on your iPhone and/or Android
device: GTA San Andreas, Bioshock and Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic.
These are complete ports that spare no features from the originals.

However, I found that the experience is not what I sought it out to be. I
realised that these are games that require focus, since they rely on
immersion. The only situation in which I can actually sit down to play them
for any meaningful amount of time is when I'm at home on a weekend; in which
case, why not just use a console or my computer, with vastly superior input
devices and display quality?

------
archagon
Personally, I'd like to think that the good games will still rise to the top.
Monument Valley wasn't a fluke; it's a game based entirely about the art and
the content, rather than stale one-off game mechanics that could be cloned in
an afternoon. It got noticed because it was deep and unique. (Did they even do
any marketing?) I've rarely found a game with that same level of quality that
got no attention[1].

Most of the time, whenever somebody complains about their games getting no
sales and I look at the stuff they've made, I see games that are fun and
clever, but very one-note. Like, you can already see how the rest of the game
is going to go just by looking at a screenshot. That's not a bad thing, but I
don't think it's the kind of stuff that sells anymore. (With obvious viral
exceptions that occur unpredictably every so often.) Whereas with a game like
Monument Valley, you want to get in and explore it because every single level
is _unique_.

Several years back, the developers of Sword and Sworcery talked about how
their business model was entirely about chasing the long tail rather than
aiming for the mass market. It paid off wonderfully for them, and I think — I
hope! — it still makes sense.

[1]: Hey! If you liked Monument Valley, you should totally check out
Windowsill. Short but gorgeous. Listed as an inspiration by MV's developers.
Demo in browser: [http://windosill.com](http://windosill.com)

~~~
jonshariat
One note about Monument Valley though: When they added new levels and charged
for it, there was a big backlash at first. Luckily there was a counter
backlash but it still shows the expectations of most gamers in the apps store.
Especially on Android.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
There's a huge sense of entitlement with respect to iOS and Android apps.
People want the world for free, and $1 means they OWN you.

The race to the bottom with free being the default has spawned this attitude.
And the economics work out so that an indie developer can't really break even
on free; you need 10s of millions of users to produce a reasonable income from
ads. You can be a critically acclaimed indie game and only have a few million
users.

Sure you can create a "fremium" game that sucks either time or money from
users (where you basically charge people so that they can play the game less;
addiction is a terrible thing). But if you don't want to be making freemium
games (there's a formula you typically need to follow for them to be
successful), you're stuck charging.

Here's the worst part: If you decide to make a "demo" for your game so that
people can try before they buy, then when they reach the end of the demo, MANY
people will end up leaving a 1-star review "SUX costs money!!!!!". Ratings are
life in the app store: If someone sees an app with less than 3 stars, they're
far less likely to grab it.

So because of poor user behavior, now you're stuck NOT offering a demo for
people to play -- or you have to release your game as "fremium" even if it's
not designed to suck people's wallets dry, which (as I've experienced
firsthand) is a recipe for failure. At least my game has 4+ stars; not that it
helps.

~~~
brownbat
> There's a huge sense of entitlement with respect to iOS and Android apps.
> People want the world for free...

Available substitutes affect the price of goods, and the internet has brought
us endless hours of free distraction. (Also, prices can trend towards the
marginal cost of production over time.)

Supply and demand determine pricing, not the amount of labor that goes into
production.

The labor theory of value is tempting, but flawed. Suppose I pedal a bicycle
all day to generate electricity. Then say I demand you buy my day's single
kilowatt at a price that provides me a living wage. Keep in mind that I live
in California, a mecca for startup bicyclists, and support a family of four.
So I'll be asking $177 per kilowatt. You decline, noting that you can usually
buy a kilowatt for around 16 cents. Is it fair for me to call you "entitled"
because you expect energy at market prices?

If game developers demand that consumers pretend other ways to spend time
don't exist, or claim immunity to fundamental laws of economics, then they're
the ones acting entitled, not their users.

[1]
[http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/bicyclepower.html](http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/bicyclepower.html)
[2] [http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/06](http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/06)
[3]
[https://www.pacificpower.net/about/rr/rpc.html](https://www.pacificpower.net/about/rr/rpc.html)

~~~
tragic
Pedantry Corner: The labour theory of value[0] does not claim anything of the
sort. It is not about the amount of labour time actually invested, in reality,
in creating a commodity ("concrete labour") but the amount of labour necessary
to expend, given the level of technical development in the given society, to
create that commodity ("socially necessary labour time", "abstract labour").

Price, of course, is a different thing from value, but that's another matter
entirely with a vast literature, pro- and anti-LTV.

The LTV is a reasonably good predictor of the behaviour of markets in
commodity goods, with some exceptions (the rent-economy around oil is a good
example). My feeling is that with indie games, niche music and so on, there's
a problem in that some people will make them for the sheer joy of it, which
means wider movement in these small sub-economies do not track things so
closely.

[0] Using Marx's version here, not so well read on Smith, Ricardo and so
forth.

~~~
brownbat
That's a valuable refinement, thanks.

So when someone claims "These people should get paid more because they worked
hard," they're making claims that not even Marx would endorse.

~~~
tragic
Depends on the meaning of "should" there - if you mean according to the laws
of capitalist society, then no, they shouldn't: they should be paid what it
costs to feed and clothe them in all cases, and the rest (surplus value)
should be used to expand production through capital investment (including
productivity-enhancing machinery etc) or hiring on more people. (Skills and so
on complicate the picture.)

If "should" means "in an ideal world", however, Marx and his followers would
argue that the whole point is to enable people not to work so bloody hard
anyway, so the question does not arise.

------
georgeecollins
I have made games for almost twenty years and only one thing has been a
constant: People always say it is a terrible time to make games, and a
terrible time start a game company. I'm not saying it isn't hard now, or the
odds are aren't against you. But its easy to look back on past successes of
twenty years ago and forget that most people were failing then too.

------
ddingus
Retro is where it's at for lone developers.

Systems are small, expectations low, challenges firm.

I very seriously enjoy the retro scene today. It's possible for ordinary
people to participate, even make games others will play and pay for. Homebrew.

Completing that experience was one of those life checklist things. I had a
great time and have learned a lot and was able to explore games on a technical
level in an achievable way.

Personally, I see this being cyclic. The big names and players will always be
there. But little scenes pop up regularly, and those are a treat for those who
go looking.

~~~
simmons
Are there good sites for discovering these sorts of games? In the category of
retro-style games for mobile platforms, it's an enormous chore to find
anything good by just paging through the app stores.

~~~
alacritythief
You can find a lot of retro-style PC indie games on
[http://itch.io/](http://itch.io/), regarding mobile it's probably best to
check out the forums or categories on mobile game review sites like
[http://toucharcade.com/](http://toucharcade.com/) .

~~~
ddingus
Agreed.

I personally prefer retro on the older machines. One can play and code via
emulation, which is quite good these days, or get some older gear and go that
route.

Both work for me. I enjoy the real gear for those machines I am familiar with
and own. (Apple ][, Atari 8 bit, CoCo) Emulation is great for others.

Emulation is good for coding either way. We get modern tools. There is a fun
experience to be had working right on the hardware, but it's hard to put in
the time. Emulation helps a lot with that.

------
d357r0y3r
I had a long stint with game development. Started contributing to MUD
codebases as a teenager, later invested a lot of time in XNA and web games,
although none of that work was particularly successful.

As satisfying as that work was, I get as much satisfaction from writing
Enterprise/B2B apps. The thing about game development is that, when you're
years into it, it's just another app. Video game lovers especially start out
thinking they want to do game dev and game dev only, but a great many of them
would benefit from exploring what are thought of as "boring" areas of
development. It's only boring if you don't like making software.

~~~
TheCraiggers
>It's only boring if you don't like making software

I think that's at least somewhat dependent on personality, and at least as
much dependent on what sort of enterprise apps you're writing.

Personally, there's only so much enjoyment I can extract from writing CRUD
code at work, especially when I'm literally handed a multi-page document
detailing exactly how the program is going to work, right down to pseudocode.

I think a better comparison would be programming as a hobby versus job. I'm
sure many game developers working at development houses like EA get burned out
just like the guy working in the salt mines grinding out CRUD code. In both
scenarios they lack a vested interest because creativity, in various amounts,
is not allowed. Compare that to somebody writing 'boring' apps as a hobby
where they have complete creative control.

For me, programming is an art. It's a creative exercise. I'm much more vested
when I'm allowed to flex that creative muscle. The kind of application doesn't
matter as much as the amount of creativity I'm allowed. Your mileage my indeed
vary though.

~~~
d357r0y3r
Fair points, I'm used to having some flexibility in my day to day. If you're
being handed strict requirements that include implementation details, that
could be a grind.

My greater point would be that there's a lot of creativity that goes into
developing good UIs, even for non-entertainment applications.

------
nshunter
Good Article. I'm actively trying to move out of the industry (or into a
company that has more opportunity connected with non-games) now after almost
10 years in.

I'm fortunate that my skills are way more transferable than the majority of
game developers (I build and lead SaaS teams), but it can be a bit of a slog
to actually shift gears.

Games are a place to be if you're really passionate about it or you feel like
there's another hill to take. In general tho, there are much more meaningful
things you can do with your life (like raise kids). So I'm on the hunt for a
job that lets me continue to build awesome products while have the ability to
see my kid on a regular basis (not just 6 months out of the year).

~~~
mingmecca
I've done what you're attempting to do, and your instincts are right: there
are much more interesting and worthwhile things outside of the game industry,
including kids. It might be arrogant to say, but game developers are ninjas
compared to the rest of the dev world. Doing complex AI/graphics/networking at
60fps is a hell of a lot harder than a typical CRUD app.

I'm glad for my time in the game industry because it sharpened my skills and
made the rest of my life a cake walk. But, I wouldn't want to go back due to
the exploitation I see in it.

------
dirkk0
"For the lone game programmer that day has already arrived.

Twice."

If one sees 'the art of lone game programming' as a genre then this might be
true. One successful lonely game programmer leads to a gold rush of many
lonely game programmers digging the iKlondike for gold.

But I am pretty sure that there is always room for the brilliant idea that no
one can grasp when you pitch it. I personally would have talked Notch out of
the idea for Minecraft with the usual arguments (blocky graphics, not state-
of-the-art, there's no real goal, etc pp). And when I played it, I was like -
omg, I could have done that.

There always will be a lonely (game) programmer doing something extraordinary
that you didn't think of in the first place or even despised. And then there
is the next Notch, and I will again say - omg, not again.

And some of us have big ideas and don't dare to join the art of lonely game
programming.

~~~
sago
Except that the myth of the one-idea-making-a-fortune is mostly that. A myth.
Minecraft, as incredible as it was, wasn't the only game of its kind. People
routinely underestimate the role of luck in these things.

There is room for the one great idea. But the point is that the minimum
production values on the platforms that sell that idea has risen beyond one
person now. As it did in the 16-bit era in the late 80s and early 90s. I
thought it was interesting that Monument Valley made it into the list at the
end. Made by a graphic design agency, not a bedroom coder.

~~~
archagon
I disagree. There are no "minimum production values" if your game is good
enough. A ton of popular indie games today (Hotline Miami, Risk of Rain,
Gunpoint, Valdis Story, Terraria, many of Vlambeer's games...) are still made
with pixel art using GameMaker, for example.

Minecraft succeeded not because it was one out of a hundred block-based games
that got lucky, but because it had a perfect mix of simplicity (slick
interface and controls), immediacy (play in your browser), wonder (explore
forever in any direction), and persistance. I guess you could point to
Infiniminer before it, but if you've ever played it, you'll know that it was
slow and clunky in a 90's sim-game kind of way.

~~~
sago
> There are no "minimum production values" if your game is good enough.

Which is just a tautology.

Hotline Miami - 2 core devs + 2 others; Risk of Rain - 2 core devs + others;
Gunpoint - 1 dev (Tom Francis FTW, yay!) Valdis Story - Dunno, but website
says "we" and mentions a few different people in blogs; Terraria - 2 core devs
+ others; Vlambeer - 2 core devs + others.

It is _very_ difficult, almost impossible for a single developer to make a
competitive game now. Not actually impossible, but the dev needs to be almost
preternaturally productive. It is much more common to find programmer + artist
+ others teams, as it became after the transition to 16-bit. Very common to
have programmer + artist for pre-alpha prototyping, contracting additional
programmers + additional artists + sound guys (as for several of the games you
cite) + platform conversion teams + music, etc.

> pixel art using GameMaker, for example.

Pixel art can have high production values. Pixel art was still the main
requirement for 16-bit games, well after the demise of the bedroom coder.

If you think that, say, Risk of Rain doesn't have _many_ person years of
production input, you're deluding yourself. Try making something equivalent
yourself this year.

~~~
archagon
Yeah, if you're looking specifically for 1-person developers, it's hard to
find them. But I think that's because most people aren't comfortable making
the art or music for their own games. (Or choose not to out of time pressure.)
If Derek Yu had chosen to sell the original Spelunky, I think it would have
done well. I think Towerfall might count, since I know Matt Thorson has done
the art and music for most of his games. Nidhogg has been pretty successful
lately, as well as Samurai Gunn.

For the record, I don't think pixel art has to be particularly high quality
for the game to be successful. Right now I'm playing an alpha of Vagante and
having a ton of fun. It's looking like it's gonna be a hit. The graphics are
muddy and kind of NES-looking with lots of cheap rotations — and that's OK.

> _Try making something equivalent yourself this year._

I'm actually planning to do just that. So I guess we'll have to see!

~~~
Coding_Cat
Another great one-man-team is Lucas Pope, creator of Papers Please and
(currently in development, but the demo has already seen great reception) The
Curse of The Obra dinn, as well as a few Ludum Dare games.

~~~
sago
Yup. The first person that came to mind for me was Terry Cavanagh. Also a one-
man phenomenon.

~~~
archagon
I don't think he does the music for most of his games, though.

------
vparikh
Maybe I am being a bit naive, but I don't think many of those games in the
good old days were made with the intention of making huge profits. Most of the
people were hobbyists who just had an itch to create the game they wanted to
play - and they lucked out that a lot of other people wanted to play their
game too.

I think the state of the game market is good -- let the hobbyists of today
create the game they want to play - and maybe it will make them a boat load of
money. Or maybe they will be happy because they had their vision come true.

Now the big corporations -- well they will just push whatever makes them
money.

~~~
smacktoward
_> Maybe I am being a bit naive, but I don't think many of those games in the
good old days were made with the intention of making huge profits._

They weren't -- but the dream people had was that their games would generate
_enough_ profit that they could make a living making them.

I read the post's message as being that they did, for a while, but those days
have receded due to the collapse in what people are willing to pay for games.
In a world where $0.99 for a game is considered expensive, it's hard to make a
living making games unless you come up with some way to consistently make
absolutely massive hits -- and that's a nut that nobody has ever cracked.

~~~
marincounty
Yea, I will second that. I knew a bunch of young guy's in the 90's who loved
playing games. One of the father's of one of the guys wanted to help out his
kid and set them up in an office and set up the corporation. These guy put out
sone good games, and loved their jobs. Along with not wearing ties, free food
and sodas. They loved going to work. That was until EA bought the company, and
shut them down. I think they each got 500k? I used to wonder why he didn't
include me(we were all lost in the career market) in the company? He knew I
was floundering, but I don't hold it against him--I really didn't like playing
games. I still wonder why he didn't include me though. I included him in every
money making thing I was in? Anyways, it's history, but don't overlook your
true friends when starting a company--especially if they were always taking
money/drinks/etc. from you? It hurts!

------
arvinjoar
A great game developed by a lone programmer I seldom see mentioned is "Haven &
Hearth". It's developed by a (faux) company called "Seatribe", which actually
consists of two people, but only one of them (Fredrik Tolf AKA loftar) does
the programming while Björn Johannessen is responsible for the game assets.

It's pretty cool actually and they'll be releasing a 3D version of it at some
point[1]. It's basically a survival MMO with permadeath, and hence a lot of
cool stuff has emerged, like world wars and geopolitics, complete with player-
run and protected trade hubs and so on. In the game there's no official
carebear zones though, but if you kill another player you leave a scent that
can be tracked, allowing rangers to exact justice. You also leave scents for
vandalizing stuff or stealing things within staked "claims".

No game experience can beat the rush of adrenaline one gets when fighting for
one's life in H&H, where you might irrevocably lose a character you've been
building for a month or more, and where you get to take away that same thing
from the person attacking you. It's amazing.

[1] =
[http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3797...](http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=37974)

~~~
Raphmedia
I'm pretty damn impressed. I clicked that link expecting to see some half
assed runescape copy.

That game actually looks like fun, and the graphics are great... !

------
overgard
You know, I really want a good new game that actually captures my interest. I
mean they happen, I still love those games, but I feel like we're over
supplied with junk, and undersupplied with genuinely interesting games. I'm
hungry and there's a mcdonalds on every corner, but I can't find a restaurant
with a gourmet chef. I have so many unplayed steam games right now. Tossed
some money on a hope, and after a few minutes realized it wasn't going to work
out.

I think the thing that bothers me about this sort of "woah is the small guy"
viewpoint is it's like "oh no the brilliant little artists got crushed by the
corporations and the me-too hacks".

You know what, fuck that bullshit. Most games right now are asinine. And I
mean even the indie wunderkids and the pretentious art games.

Here's the problem: nobody knows how to do this shit very well yet. It'll
happen, eventually. They're learning, but it's not really very good right now.
I mean people try really really hard. They deserve some success. But as far as
the results go, most of them aren't that interesting. I want good games.

------
zinxq
Remove barriers to creating something and the market tends to devolve towards,
well, marketing.

Anyone can write a book now - and get it to market. It's never been easier
technically to write anything including games. And app markets take away much,
if not all, challenges of go to market.

Such markets are destined to get flooded and to (reliably) get noticed in such
a market, you need a marketing budget.

------
jkscm
Tell me if I missed it, but the chance to make a living as an independent game
has increased, didn't? Companies get as big as their market will allow it.
Saying no one can make a living from games anymore because of the big
companies is like saying there can be no more start-ups because of Google and
Facebook.

The gaming market is big and fast. It's fine if you don't want to run anymore
but there are a lot more other people in the race who have a chance of seeing
the finishing line.

------
neovive
There is an interesting documentary on Netflix "Indie Game" that chronicles a
few indie developers. It does a good job showing the emotional struggles and
difficulties in developing and bringing a game to market.

------
jeffreyrogers
Since the article talks about hobby development, I want to plug Handmade Hero
[1], which is a really cool series of youtube videos (still in progress) of a
full, production quality game being built from scratch in C by one person.
This was my first exposure to game programming and its really fun to watch
along with the videos, plus the guy making them is fairly opinionated about
best programming practices, so you pick up so more general skills as well.

It's been featured on HN before, so many people have probably seen it, but if
you haven't, it is definitely worth checking out.

[1]: [http://handmadehero.org/](http://handmadehero.org/)

------
graspee
12 hours until Avernum 2 hits steam.

[http://store.steampowered.com/app/337850/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_...](http://store.steampowered.com/app/337850/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1)

A remake of a remake; all games made by one man.

The second era of the bedroom coder is far from over and you can still make
money from it without resorting to cheap, nasty, free2play tactics.

~~~
HolyHaddock
Jeff Vogel is great, and I've been playing his games for over half my life.
But he's written similarly themed blog posts himself: [http://jeff-
vogel.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-indie-bubble-is...](http://jeff-
vogel.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-indie-bubble-is-popping.html)

Part of the reason he can still do it is that he's been doing it for so long,
and has a loyal long term audience quite happy to buy a new Spiderweb game
because it's a new spiderweb game.

------
Kiro
Have a look at Steam top 100 and you'll see loads of games made by lone
developers. I think it's a great time to be an indie game developer!

~~~
teamonkey
It's definitely a great time to be _those_ indie game developers.

~~~
Kiro
I'm not one of them and I'm having a great time.

------
drawkbox
I think the lone developer, or lone lead developer as it truly is now, is
still viable. It is probably better this thinking is out there though. Most
games are a small team or require assets of many developers nowadays. The land
rush is over but gaming is still the biggest draw.

Most projects we work on are in house or contract and they have a couple or
few people on teams. Sponsored games and advergames were also the money makers
with flash gaming and will be with WebGL and more. Internal IP or titles also
help pad revenues and transitions. Gaming is big in agency promotions. Gaming
is bigger still in mobile.

It is very difficult no doubt but even a single developer is more like a team
now with things like Unity/Unreal/Cocos2d-x/etc as the engine team, asset
stores for many things, contractors for art/audio/design/development and
plenty of markets to get into. The age of the from scratch lone developer is
over, but there is just as much opportunity as ever for teams of 1-5 or so.

------
VLM
OP mentions the rush of the 48 hour competition, I think OP might also like:

[http://www.onegameamonth.com/](http://www.onegameamonth.com/)

My new years resolution was to participate this year. Naturally, its the 13th
and I haven't even started for this month. But I'll try, maybe this weekend.

------
danmaz74
I'm floored that this post got so few upvotes. It's interesting and
beautifully crafted.

~~~
archagon
I feel that I see these types of posts come up every few months.

~~~
danmaz74
Yes the "argument" is not new at all, but the story is well told with good
visuals. I just thought it deserved more :)

------
omg_ketchup
We're rising again. We're just building VR software instead of mobile games.

~~~
sago
One person dev will rise every time there is a new viable games platform.
Because such platforms will initially have low market penetration, small
customer bases, and be high risk for larger developers. But as soon as those
platforms are established, one person teams will be eaten alive by others.

VR is primed to be a game tech. You can maybe do some interesting stuff now,
when the only hardware out there is a few hundred thousand dev-kits. But if
the Oculus launch goes okay, the production values needed to compete will very
quickly take it out of one-person territory.

Of course, there are always new tech. But for every platform that turns into
money, there are many that are dead ends. Many single person devs who crash
and burn because they are early to a party that never starts. I developed WAP
games. I know this :)

------
33W
I believe that the niche of the lone game developer is in the bleeding edge.
The two examples given show this: a mode of computing was created, individuals
made games, then were pushed out. The individual proves the viability for the
larger groups who do not want to commit the time or treasure to a venture that
will not survive.

------
taeric
It is odd to read this just after checking for updates on
[http://blog.thimbleweedpark.com/](http://blog.thimbleweedpark.com/).

Otherwise, this is no different than any other medium, is it? Content curation
is hard. Pretty much period.

------
DaveSapien
Excellent article! Though I'd say, somewhat, that it's still as difficult to
make an engaging game as it's ever been. Just the bar has been lowered so much
that poorer games are made by people with less ability. I like that anyone can
make games now, some cool stuff has been made because of that...but yeah, as I
said it is hard. I'm a pro and I've been made homeless because of lack of work
(and a moral stance against predatory IAP's). I'm a damn fine developer, but
that don't save you from the bottom line of what makes money.

------
zanny
This reminds me - that developer shortage that the big SF companies keep going
on about, needing h1b indentured servants working a third under market value
to fill positions - ever consider how there are a billion iOS games made every
day in a hugely saturated market? You know, thousands of developers and dev
companies not making any money. Probably good at what they do if they are
upstarting their own projects like that. Might consider working for you if you
aren't fixing wages for a decade.

------
programminggeek
The lone game developer may or may not be a myth, but like many creative
pursuits, over time there might very well be 1,000 little game developers
blooming, some of which will be quite lovely and people will appreciate, but
most will just be ignored. That's not all bad either. Not everyone should make
a AAA game.

Some of my fondest memories of games are of the NES games I played as a child.
They are still some of the most basic and fun games to play.

------
fluffheadsr
funny i learned to program as a kid in highschool so that I could one day make
games. I'm now a full time software developer completely self taught, no
overhead of a expensive CS degree i didn't need, and I've never even made
pong. The closest I came was building tic tac toe. Somewhere along the lines I
got hooked on stealing shit from people on AOL and just got pulled away from
the thought of games and never looked back.

Ultima Online in my opinion was the climax of online MMO's. Someone needs to
build a true sandbox fantasy MMO. CCP has proven that a sandbox done properly
will bring in the crowd and keep the doors open.

Someone do it!!

I've tried multiple times however to build/find a team to work with and the
team is never dedicated enough to complete even the most simplest of things.

~~~
outworlder
> Someone needs to build a true sandbox fantasy MMO. CCP has proven that a
> sandbox done properly will bring in the crowd and keep the doors open.

This is why I had high hopes for World of Darkness.

~~~
fluffheadsr
wasnt that done by funcom though or one of those companies? They've shit the
bed with all of their latest MMO's.. Age of Conan was suppose to be amazing
too and was a true snooze fest. All these games have become a grind fest..
kill 8 rats, yadda yadda.. i want a real sandbox to build a castle whereever i
want..

I had huge expectations for darkfall too, but Aventurine is a joke of a
company.

------
MrBra
Am I the only one seeing a bit of delusional attitude in this article?
Kickstart your ass off with a great game idea and you'll get paid what you
deserve while still working by your passion. But wait I am not going to
believe the author doesn't know about Kickstarter...

------
knappador
I dunno about the fall part. I went into the market headlong with a stripped
down concept called Reduce on the Play Store and came out with a job before I
could even complete feature additions =D It never fails to pay to build
something.

------
InfiniteRand
It's hard to get people to give you money for something you are willing to do
for free. Enjoyable creative pursuits tend to be like that for those who are
not superstars

------
laex
What do game devs think about gamejolt.com, where ad-revenue is shared amongst
the developers ?

------
NateG
What is true is if you chased the mobile game craze there was a small window
where little indie games had traction. A well developed indie game (I would
call it an exception at this point) can still gain traction in today's app
stores but it is rare. It is true that with the increased supply of games
three things have happened. First, the amount of terrible games one must slog
through to find a gem has increased. Second the number of gems has also
increased which in turn keeps raising the bar of what a "gem" is. Third a race
to the bottom began and player's expectations changed and what they are
willing to pay with it. The real culprit and difference than the days or yore
or even just five years ago is exposure and marketing costs.

I run a small indie studio and our game Pit of War[1] is a _very_ niche game
(a PvP, character building, gladiatorial strategy game with text and still
images. You don't get much more niche than that!) and we've found great
success by managing our resources well and not chasing the latest craze be it
flash, facebook, mobile, or what have you. We chose to keep the game on the
web and keep full control over it instead of having to pass a judgment
committee, or handing over 30% of our revenue to some platform. I found a
niche that I enjoyed and had little competition and then built a game and a
community around it. That last part is critical these days. I'm sure many of
you have heard about "A 1000 true fans"[2], and it very much applies here. If
you are using a F2P business model it is your bread and butter.

In 2010-2012 everything was awesome and then something happened in late 2012,
early 2013. The user acquisition costs skyrocketed. In the last five years
I've seen CPA costs increase 300%-600%. I spent time in Japan and knew some
people at an ad agency there that mainly caters to mobile game companies and
the CPA on those networks was averaging 700-800 yen (about $7-$8), with peak
prices hitting 5,000 yen ($50) when Japanese companies paid out the yearly
bonuses to their employees. Five years earlier CPAs were around $1.50 and
less. The price increases on their networks have mainly been fueled by four or
five companies like Supercell, GREE, DeNA etc. This is where the fairytale
ended for a lot of indies and small studios hoping to make a living. It is a
rare game that can pay those kinds of marketing costs and remain profitable.

My recommendation to anyone looking to get into indie game development would
be to find a niche you enjoy and be the best in it. Build a community around
it. Learn how to utilize an ethical F2P business model and last but certainly
not least, have fun.

[1] If you are curious about what can be accomplished with a web based niche
game you can check it out here:
[http://www.pitofwar.com](http://www.pitofwar.com)

[2] [http://kk.org/thetechnium/2008/03/1000-true-
fans/](http://kk.org/thetechnium/2008/03/1000-true-fans/)

------
zackmorris
I dabbled in shareware games for roughly 20 years. I had high hopes for making
a revolutionary game and my ship coming in like Notch, but what I found was
that making a game was never the difficult part. It was always about funding -
making rent each month, affording food, etc. It was also about telling people
no, because the closest people around me were often the most demanding of my
time and energy, even going as far as telling me what I should be working on.
I failed utterly on both fronts.

I found (and still find) most games deeply underwhelming, especially when they
get high praise for their creative gameplay or plot, because those are the
easy parts. Very few games also have solid engineering like Minecraft. That
solid engineering is so elusive, so expensive, that it’s effectively out of
reach on an indie budget. The only thing left is cookie cutter games like
Angry Birds, which I categorize as the first thing that would come out of any
medium. So if all you have is eggs you make an omelet, if all you have is
leaves you rake them, if all you have is a physics engine you throw things.
It’s no wonder that the profit for something anyone can make either rapidly
approaches zero or goes into the stratosphere on its own fame like Paris
Hilton, creating the illusion of value for an industry that would otherwise
have none.

Then I watched a talk by (as I recall) Jason Fried of 37 Signals, who made the
rather astounding point that the way to earn a profit is to make something
people want and sell it for money. This was after the dot bomb when people
were still chasing eyeballs, I wish I could find the video. It was one of the
prime motivators that got me to quit my soul-sucking job and flip broken
computers for a year, and then get into contracting. It finally hit me that
people make money doing all kinds of things because people want them, and I
didn’t have to suffer the grind in my life any longer, because to work so hard
at something people aren’t willing to pay for is the very definition of
futile.

Sooo.. I may make another game. I may sell it at the exorbitant price of $5,
$10 even $20. I may not even give away a free demo. All of the other free, ad-
based, casual, social games of the world can keep playing house, and bless
them for doing so. But people will always want the real games, and I know that
because I would be willing to pay for one, should one come along. I’m thinking
that in this case, if Apple and other companies have really created a race to
the bottom economy for games and other apps, then nature will “find a way” and
create more of an egalitarian way for developers to earn an income, perhaps
from crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter, but more likely from guilds, co-ops
and to be quite frank a collective approach that takes the enormous wealth
produced by the industry and uses it for something more productive than the
hypervaluation of startups. As far as I can tell, we’re on the verge of total
blah just like in 2000 and if everyone doesn’t wake up, history is about to
repeat itself. If we glorify success and ignore wasted potential, the next
thing we sell that people are willing to pay for could very well be a side of
fries.

~~~
fluffheadsr
See, I disagree with your "budget".. all it takes is a computer and a dream to
build whatever you want. It doesn't take budgets.. Can you do it in the same
time a team with 30 million in funding? Hell no, but with the right group of
people and a lot of persistance you can make anything happen.. see SWG Emu
[http://www.swgemu.com/forums/index.php](http://www.swgemu.com/forums/index.php)

it's taken years, and years, but with determination and $0 budget they've
pretty much reverse engineered an entire game. It doesn't have to be done
today. Start it, don't stop, keep going, and while doing that for fun(because
that's why I started and still write code today.. for me its fun as hell.)
find something that pays the bills like a day job.

I'm working on a project, all by myself right now.. I put in my day job, and
then if I'm up to it, put in a couple hours on my side project. When its done,
its done.. or it may never be done, but i make a little progress any chance I
get.

~~~
zackmorris
Ya what you say is true, it's definitely possible to make a game as a side
project while working a day job. The only problem is that it’s difficult to
know if/when to throw in the towel. My old partner and I ended up spending 11
years on a game that way. That was before Kickstarter, although I'm not sure
anyone would fund the style of game we were making because it was just a 2D
platformer sequel.

It’s also true that there are few or no expenses in programming other than
labor, but even living a subsistence lifestyle adds up. I think we each
averaged over 500 hours per year, call it 10,000 total to be conservative. So
we could have made the game over about 2 years if we could have raised $70,000
and paid ourselves minimum wage (which just barely makes ends meet for a
single person where we live in Idaho). Instead we worked a bunch of dead end
jobs, I ended up moving furniture for 3 years and my partner got sucked into
computer repair rather than programming. We would work seasonally and then be
on call at home during slow parts of the year and spend what money we’d saved
on rent and food while we hacked on the game for days on end. Struggling with
burnout and destitution for so many years set our careers and personal lives
back so far that we still haven’t started families and we’re pushing 40.

What I learned from all of this is that if you want to raise money, you need
to earn an order of magnitude more, somewhere between 2 and 10 times as much
as you think, because of life’s expenses (mainly debts in this era). It works
just like time where even tripling your estimate is sometimes not enough. As
far as I can tell, there is nothing like an artist guild for indie
programmers, no support structure to lend any dignity to the lifestyle through
grants, commissioned work or the attention of benefactors. There’s just the
starving artist mentality, which grows more unpalatable with age. I don’t view
this as anything close to sustainable, so it’s no wonder that the overall
quality of indie games has fallen to amateur levels (and eventually apps as
their prices race to the bottom). It’s going to follow the same trend as
books. I’m hopeful though that maybe something like a basic income might come
along and rescue art from slow decline. Art is synonymous with culture so I
guess that’s why I get so worked up about all of this, because I feel it’s
intimately tied to whatever technological future we would like to see for
ourselves and future generations.

