6 ms·

A music minimum viable product is much more accessible than a video game. It's just as ruthless to get ahead, but at least getting started isn't so hard. My fri

A music minimum viable product is much more accessible than a video game. It's just as ruthless to get ahead, but at least getting started isn't so hard. My friends who are hobbyist musicians regularly play at pubs or small concerts. Most people who jump into indie development are gamers themselves, and as gamers their product ideas are not always possible even with years of full time solo development. Realistically what one person with 2 years savings can make is very very small. So it is a pipe dream. After spending some years in corporate hating it, thinking about your game designs every night, you have the capital, you have the motivation, you jump, and you sink. It's very sad.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> A music minimum viable product is much more accessible than a video game. I don't think that's true. There are a lot of games out there that are small single-person side projects and are interesting and fun. You don't need to quit your job to make a marketable game unless you're targeting a market with much higher expectations than you're likely to be able to deliver. It's like if you've got a garage band, but instead of playing at house parties and dive bars you mortgage your house for a bunch of expensive lightshow kit and a tour bus or something.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
> A music minimum viable product is much more accessible than a video game. This kind of depends on your expectations. I knew a guy who spent more than a year recording a single song. He poured hundred of hours into this, and he did the entire thing: vocals, every instrument, the mixing, everything. It was a labor of love for him, and the result sounded as good as anything on Spotify, at least to my untrained ear. On the other hand, you have people pumping out soundtracks for their podcast every couple of weeks, using nothing more than GarageBand and a bunch of samples. A lot of these are good enough for people to purchase, too. Same thing with game dev. You can spend years of your life, and/or thousands of dollars, tweaking Unity and developing game assets. On the other hand, Dong Nguyen developed Flappy Birds in three days. > Most people who jump into indie development are gamers themselves, and as gamers their product ideas are not always possible even with years of full time solo development. Business sense trumps passion here. You're right, it's totally unrealistic to expect one guy sitting in his apartment to pump out the next Breath of the Wild. But you could produce a reasonable Candy Crush type game in a few days, and polish it in a few weeks, probably even working nights and weekends.
- munmaek 7y ago
  And yet you're referring to flappy bird by name. Exactly how many flappy birds are there? Most people who make games aren't trying to make connect3-like games, but rather something more fun/interesting. There isn't much point competing with medium to large studios that churn out games like candy crush anyway. Stardew Valley, a 2D pixel art farming rpg-lite, was made over the course of ~4 years, by a solo developer who learned how to program in the process. Undertale, a 2d pixel rpg-like, took ~2.7 years to make according to Toby Fox, the sole developer afaik. Terraria 1.0, a 2d pixel art mining/building/fighting game, was made by a small team over ~4-5 months. After ~7 months, 1.1. After another ~9 months, 1.2. (They were big content updates). Starbound, a 2d pixel art mining/building/fighting game, took ~1.5-2 years and launched in beta, with a small team. Cuphead took 7 years with two brothers and a part time animator iirc, because they were absolute madmen and wanted to make a game with 60fps watercolor animation. Did they end up making a lot of money? probably, but that was quite the gamble. Making games is tough when you consider it can require programming, storywriting, composing music, designing art, etc. And that's not including the business/marketing side. It -is- true that a lot of beginner indie devs spend way too much time polishing their games and end up not publishing them, but that doesn't mean compelling games are necessarily easy to make. It seems to me that the parent comment blithely assumes most indie devs are trying to make games solely to earn income. A lot of indie devs are trying to make games they wish existed or just seem like a cool/fun idea that other people might be interested in, too. SWORDY is one such indie game that doesn't seem like it was thought up purely to earn cash, Gang Beasts* is another, and so on. * Gang Beasts is actually made by Doublefine Studios but it sure feels like an indie game.
  - seventhtiger 7y ago
    No I don't think money is the point. I think money is a resource you need to make more games. I think anyone that truly only wants to get cash can use their skillset in more profitable places. But game devs still need the money to make their dream sustainable and execute on their grander visions. A 20 year studio instead of 2 years as solo.
marcus_holmes 7y ago
But this is the thing that Lean Startup was built to solve. I keep talking to indie game devs about Lean, basically telling them to identify the core hook in their game and develop a minimal version of this that they can test on an audience with, and then grow from there. I point to Minecraft, that did exactly this. They never get it. They always think the game has to be complete and perfect before anyone will like it. They never playtest until they're waaaaay down the line with the game, and then usually get defensive if the testers don't like it or understand it. It's exactly the same as startup. Build an MVP, get it in front of people, adapt it using their feedback, and you have a better chance of building something that people want. Time for the games industry to start doing the same.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> A music minimum viable product is much more accessible than a video game. I don't think that's true. There are a lot of games out there that are small single-person side projects and are interesting and fun. You don't need to quit your job to make a marketable game unless you're targeting a market with much higher expectations than you're likely to be able to deliver. It's like if you've got a garage band, but instead of playing at house parties and dive bars you mortgage your house for a bunch of expensive lightshow kit and a tour bus or something.

thomascgalvin 7y ago

> A music minimum viable product is much more accessible than a video game. This kind of depends on your expectations. I knew a guy who spent more than a year recording a single song. He poured hundred of hours into this, and he did the entire thing: vocals, every instrument, the mixing, everything. It was a labor of love for him, and the result sounded as good as anything on Spotify, at least to my untrained ear. On the other hand, you have people pumping out soundtracks for their podcast every couple of weeks, using nothing more than GarageBand and a bunch of samples. A lot of these are good enough for people to purchase, too. Same thing with game dev. You can spend years of your life, and/or thousands of dollars, tweaking Unity and developing game assets. On the other hand, Dong Nguyen developed Flappy Birds in three days. > Most people who jump into indie development are gamers themselves, and as gamers their product ideas are not always possible even with years of full time solo development. Business sense trumps passion here. You're right, it's totally unrealistic to expect one guy sitting in his apartment to pump out the next Breath of the Wild. But you could produce a reasonable Candy Crush type game in a few days, and polish it in a few weeks, probably even working nights and weekends.

munmaek 7y ago
And yet you're referring to flappy bird by name. Exactly how many flappy birds are there? Most people who make games aren't trying to make connect3-like games, but rather something more fun/interesting. There isn't much point competing with medium to large studios that churn out games like candy crush anyway. Stardew Valley, a 2D pixel art farming rpg-lite, was made over the course of ~4 years, by a solo developer who learned how to program in the process. Undertale, a 2d pixel rpg-like, took ~2.7 years to make according to Toby Fox, the sole developer afaik. Terraria 1.0, a 2d pixel art mining/building/fighting game, was made by a small team over ~4-5 months. After ~7 months, 1.1. After another ~9 months, 1.2. (They were big content updates). Starbound, a 2d pixel art mining/building/fighting game, took ~1.5-2 years and launched in beta, with a small team. Cuphead took 7 years with two brothers and a part time animator iirc, because they were absolute madmen and wanted to make a game with 60fps watercolor animation. Did they end up making a lot of money? probably, but that was quite the gamble. Making games is tough when you consider it can require programming, storywriting, composing music, designing art, etc. And that's not including the business/marketing side. It -is- true that a lot of beginner indie devs spend way too much time polishing their games and end up not publishing them, but that doesn't mean compelling games are necessarily easy to make. It seems to me that the parent comment blithely assumes most indie devs are trying to make games solely to earn income. A lot of indie devs are trying to make games they wish existed or just seem like a cool/fun idea that other people might be interested in, too. SWORDY is one such indie game that doesn't seem like it was thought up purely to earn cash, Gang Beasts* is another, and so on. * Gang Beasts is actually made by Doublefine Studios but it sure feels like an indie game.
- seventhtiger 7y ago
  No I don't think money is the point. I think money is a resource you need to make more games. I think anyone that truly only wants to get cash can use their skillset in more profitable places. But game devs still need the money to make their dream sustainable and execute on their grander visions. A 20 year studio instead of 2 years as solo.

marcus_holmes 7y ago

But this is the thing that Lean Startup was built to solve. I keep talking to indie game devs about Lean, basically telling them to identify the core hook in their game and develop a minimal version of this that they can test on an audience with, and then grow from there. I point to Minecraft, that did exactly this. They never get it. They always think the game has to be complete and perfect before anyone will like it. They never playtest until they're waaaaay down the line with the game, and then usually get defensive if the testers don't like it or understand it. It's exactly the same as startup. Build an MVP, get it in front of people, adapt it using their feedback, and you have a better chance of building something that people want. Time for the games industry to start doing the same.