3 ms·

The thing that indie devs don't recognize about gaming is that it's a hits business, just like film and music. _Success of your franchise is not an endorsement_

The thing that indie devs don't recognize about gaming is that it's a hits business, just like film and music. _Success of your franchise is not an endorsement_. People consume hits and toss them away for the next big thing all the time. The reasons independent game companies make these mistakes is that they conflate the mass appeal of their creation with a personal endorsement and assume anything they do in the future will be well-received. That's rarely the case. To be a successful player in the hits business, you have to be putting out new, formulaic stuff constantly, aware that some percentage of it will never make back its money, some may break even, and some will make a lot of money. This is what movie studios, record companies, and the successful game conglomerates do. As much as it may get tiresome to see the bi-annual CoD release break records, it matches the expected behavior perfectly. But I digress. The direct answer to your question is pretty similar to what it always is: don't grow too fast, don't let it go to your head, and diversify. Personally, if I was in that situation, I think selling out to Activision or EA, who already have a functional hits apparatus, would be a path warranting serious consideration. A lot of game developers are eventually forced into that position anyway after they make the erroneous assumptions discussed in this comment and become financially distressed.

the_af 11y ago
What do you mean, indie devs don't recognize this? Maybe some (or many!) of them do, but aren't interested in "putting out new, formulaic stuff constantly". Some indie devs may be trying to get acquired by Activision or EA, the kind of indies who would grow to have 800 employees, and some may just be trying to do their thing in an environment that allows them to explore different gameplay and/or artistic choices. Not everyone's goal must be necessarily to sell thousands of copies at whatever personal cost.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  >What do you mean, indie devs don't recognize this? I mean hiring hundreds of people because one game became popular is a bad decision. It happens a lot, and the result is almost always layoffs and eventual bankruptcy, when a conglomerate like EA takes the opportunity to snatch them up. If indie devs want to keep plugging away for personal fulfillment regardless of the popularity, that's great, but don't drag 300+ people into it unless you're going to be serious about making a successful business, which, in games, means churning out a lot of formulaic content.

the_af 11y ago

What do you mean, indie devs don't recognize this? Maybe some (or many!) of them do, but aren't interested in "putting out new, formulaic stuff constantly". Some indie devs may be trying to get acquired by Activision or EA, the kind of indies who would grow to have 800 employees, and some may just be trying to do their thing in an environment that allows them to explore different gameplay and/or artistic choices. Not everyone's goal must be necessarily to sell thousands of copies at whatever personal cost.

cookiecaper 11y ago
>What do you mean, indie devs don't recognize this? I mean hiring hundreds of people because one game became popular is a bad decision. It happens a lot, and the result is almost always layoffs and eventual bankruptcy, when a conglomerate like EA takes the opportunity to snatch them up. If indie devs want to keep plugging away for personal fulfillment regardless of the popularity, that's great, but don't drag 300+ people into it unless you're going to be serious about making a successful business, which, in games, means churning out a lot of formulaic content.