4 ms·

I agree, games are the same. The problem is that solo indie doesn't work well in any medium. Everything worth doing benefits from having team members. I think

I agree, games are the same. The problem is that solo indie doesn't work well in any medium. Everything worth doing benefits from having team members. I think novelists are the closest to still doing things solo, but they still have publishers, editors, beta readers, proofreaders, sensitivity readers, people who check their research if they care about historical accuracy, etc. I think there was a slow-motion bubble from maybe the 1980s until the 2010s where solo indie game dev worked because: - Video games were hard to make - Computers were hard to use - The tools sucked - Almost nobody knew how to program So if you were a smart person who could program half-decently, you had the makings of a game. Now the world is better, and the solo style is left behind. I don't know much about music, but I speculate musicians would say the same. You might be able to play a bunch of instruments, do your own mixing, publish yourself on Bandcamp and whatever, but dollar for dollar most of the industry is singers who don't write their own songs, backup dancers with no names, and session musicians who are in the studio when the recording is done. Calling it "clone culture" misses the point: Games are easy to make now. Indie dev is probably never going to be as hip as when Braid came out. And even Jon Blow didn't do it solo, he bought the music and I think contracted an artist for Braid. Specialization works, scale works.

wincy 5y ago
As a counterpoint, there is Stardew Valley. Stardew Valley came entirely out of left field, ConcernedApe released a pixel graphics farming sim of all things, made $35 million dollars because he’d literally done it all himself, even the game engine, and the niche (farming games) he was competing with, including games like Harvest Moon which has teams of developers pumping out absolute crap compared to what he made. Then again he wasn’t necessarily doing it to make money in the first place, it uses “timeless” pixel art, and he spent 6 or so years making the game with no actual time limit to when he could release it (as he had a day job and wasn’t going to run out of money). And the game just has a soul that makes it feel great to play and be in. I just got around to playing it this year and absolutely love it.
- city41 5y ago
  Are there any other examples of successful games made by one person? I was going to say Fez, but two people created it. Successful single dev games are exceptionally rare
  - adenozine 5y ago
    Minecraft, in the early days. I think single-dev games start, similarly to startups, and gradually pick up small teams as they go. Minecraft fits that bill to a tee, I'm sure there are younger, more informed people here who could point to other examples. The totality of direction that one solo person has over a project isn't actually all that important, in reality. Having one or two or three team members to rely on, delegate to, bounce ideas off, is way more effective towards getting things done, and especially on a schedule.
    - ido 5y ago
      Yeah there are a bunch of 1 person (or more useful, less than 5 people) teams who find a good amount of success still. I personally prefer “band-sized” teams (mid single-digit) over solo, I find it a lot easier to stay motivated and easier to achieve high productivity due to more chances for specializations while still being small enough to maintain an “indie feel”. I believe supercell (hardly an indie) maintain game teams at around 8 during dev and increase up to 17 when live, which is also sorta similar to the size you see in indie teams(f2p/GaaS need a lot more manpower for liveops). They just have a lot of such teams.
  - telchior 5y ago
    Depends on your definition of success. Personally, I think if the developer is making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, that's a yes; but I've met people who think if the game isn't a household name, it's not really successful. Anyway, most people have this mental model of the video game industry where there's a measurable, comprehensible number of games, but the actual volume of released games is insane. Anecdotally, one of the most impressive devs I've ever talked with had a full time day job and did solo dev on mobile games on the side. He released 3-4 games within 2 years, 2016-2018 and they all earned around $200k+. But again, you never would have heard of any of these games, just like you don't hear about whatever current hypercasual game has 20 million players (unless you're an addict or monitor App Annie / Steamcharts / whatever else on a daily basis).

wincy 5y ago

As a counterpoint, there is Stardew Valley. Stardew Valley came entirely out of left field, ConcernedApe released a pixel graphics farming sim of all things, made $35 million dollars because he’d literally done it all himself, even the game engine, and the niche (farming games) he was competing with, including games like Harvest Moon which has teams of developers pumping out absolute crap compared to what he made. Then again he wasn’t necessarily doing it to make money in the first place, it uses “timeless” pixel art, and he spent 6 or so years making the game with no actual time limit to when he could release it (as he had a day job and wasn’t going to run out of money). And the game just has a soul that makes it feel great to play and be in. I just got around to playing it this year and absolutely love it.

city41 5y ago
Are there any other examples of successful games made by one person? I was going to say Fez, but two people created it. Successful single dev games are exceptionally rare
- adenozine 5y ago
  Minecraft, in the early days. I think single-dev games start, similarly to startups, and gradually pick up small teams as they go. Minecraft fits that bill to a tee, I'm sure there are younger, more informed people here who could point to other examples. The totality of direction that one solo person has over a project isn't actually all that important, in reality. Having one or two or three team members to rely on, delegate to, bounce ideas off, is way more effective towards getting things done, and especially on a schedule.
  - ido 5y ago
    Yeah there are a bunch of 1 person (or more useful, less than 5 people) teams who find a good amount of success still. I personally prefer “band-sized” teams (mid single-digit) over solo, I find it a lot easier to stay motivated and easier to achieve high productivity due to more chances for specializations while still being small enough to maintain an “indie feel”. I believe supercell (hardly an indie) maintain game teams at around 8 during dev and increase up to 17 when live, which is also sorta similar to the size you see in indie teams(f2p/GaaS need a lot more manpower for liveops). They just have a lot of such teams.
- telchior 5y ago
  Depends on your definition of success. Personally, I think if the developer is making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, that's a yes; but I've met people who think if the game isn't a household name, it's not really successful. Anyway, most people have this mental model of the video game industry where there's a measurable, comprehensible number of games, but the actual volume of released games is insane. Anecdotally, one of the most impressive devs I've ever talked with had a full time day job and did solo dev on mobile games on the side. He released 3-4 games within 2 years, 2016-2018 and they all earned around $200k+. But again, you never would have heard of any of these games, just like you don't hear about whatever current hypercasual game has 20 million players (unless you're an addict or monitor App Annie / Steamcharts / whatever else on a daily basis).