3 ms·

That post is also full of pre-indieapocalypse charm. It assumes that a decent, finished game will get its author the recognition

esotericsean 4y ago
That is still true today. This is going to sound a bit harsh but the market really is flooded with bad to mediocre games and people who think they’ve created a masterpiece. If you take a look at /r/gamedev it’s full of people sharing their games and asking why they weren’t successful. It’s easy to see by looking at any of those games exactly why. They don’t look good. Games that are actually good do get the recognition they deserve. I struggle to find evidence proving this wrong.
- MattRix 4y ago
  This is just not true. There are tons of good games that don’t get anywhere near the attention and sales that they would have during the early 2010s. In fact the only way this is true is if your definition of “good game” is “commercially successful game”. Easy examples to point out are things like Tumbleseed: https://store.steampowered.com/app/457890/TumbleSeed/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/457890/TumbleSeed/ or Mushroom 11: https://store.steampowered.com/app/243160/Mushroom_11/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/243160/Mushroom_11/ And those are both 5 years old and things have only gotten harder since then!
  - armchairhacker 4y ago
    Idk how much attention and sales you're talking about, but Mushroom 11 seemed to be successful. I actually heard of it before because it got featured on the App Store, and on the Steam page IGN gave it a 9/10.
    - MattRix 4y ago
      That’s kind of the thing. It got the featuring and critical attention but still not many sales. Especially considering that it was under development by two people for many years. If it had released in 2012 it would have sold way more copies.
  - Termitiono 4y ago
    Tumbleweed is known I think but the genre is not very big
omginternets 4y ago
What’s the indieapocalypse? I googled it but all the results are commentary pieces that assume you already know what it is.
- erik 4y ago
  There was a window, from about 2007 to 2013, where basically any decently well made indie game that came to market would be financially successful. But the trick was, to get your game to market you had to establish a relationship with Microsoft, Valve, or whoever controlled the platform you were targeting. Around 10 years ago the platforms started to open up and it got a lot easier to get a game into the marketplace. Seeing the success of the previous wave of Indie games and lower barriers to entry, people started to make a lot more indie games. Competition got more intense and finding financial success became less certain. The worry of the "Indiepocalypse" is that as this trend continues, it will become harder and harder to make indie game development a viable, sustainable business. Which isn't suggesting that people will stop making indie games, it's suggesting that they will mostly be made at a loss and it won't be a viable business for the vast majority of developers. The degree to which this worry has come to pass over the years is debatable.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    Thanks for the explanation. I payed a bit of attention to the indie gaming scene years ago (must have been circa 2012 ... has it been 10 years already?!), so it's always nice to hear stories from that little corner of the internet. :)
  - MattRix 4y ago
    Yep this all checks out. The thing to keep in mind is that there will still be just as many indie successes per year (maybe even a few more or a few larger ones). The issue is that the larger number of participants means the odds of any indie dev finding success are much lower. The standards for what kind of game will be successful have gone waaaay up.
archagon 4y ago
As a reminder, the original Game Maker Spelunky was a genre-defining smash hit in the indie scene. So Derek had nothing to worry about on that front.

esotericsean 4y ago

That is still true today. This is going to sound a bit harsh but the market really is flooded with bad to mediocre games and people who think they’ve created a masterpiece. If you take a look at /r/gamedev it’s full of people sharing their games and asking why they weren’t successful. It’s easy to see by looking at any of those games exactly why. They don’t look good. Games that are actually good do get the recognition they deserve. I struggle to find evidence proving this wrong.

MattRix 4y ago
This is just not true. There are tons of good games that don’t get anywhere near the attention and sales that they would have during the early 2010s. In fact the only way this is true is if your definition of “good game” is “commercially successful game”. Easy examples to point out are things like Tumbleseed: https://store.steampowered.com/app/457890/TumbleSeed/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/457890/TumbleSeed/ or Mushroom 11: https://store.steampowered.com/app/243160/Mushroom_11/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/243160/Mushroom_11/ And those are both 5 years old and things have only gotten harder since then!
- armchairhacker 4y ago
  Idk how much attention and sales you're talking about, but Mushroom 11 seemed to be successful. I actually heard of it before because it got featured on the App Store, and on the Steam page IGN gave it a 9/10.
  - MattRix 4y ago
    That’s kind of the thing. It got the featuring and critical attention but still not many sales. Especially considering that it was under development by two people for many years. If it had released in 2012 it would have sold way more copies.
- Termitiono 4y ago
  Tumbleweed is known I think but the genre is not very big

omginternets 4y ago

What’s the indieapocalypse? I googled it but all the results are commentary pieces that assume you already know what it is.

erik 4y ago
There was a window, from about 2007 to 2013, where basically any decently well made indie game that came to market would be financially successful. But the trick was, to get your game to market you had to establish a relationship with Microsoft, Valve, or whoever controlled the platform you were targeting. Around 10 years ago the platforms started to open up and it got a lot easier to get a game into the marketplace. Seeing the success of the previous wave of Indie games and lower barriers to entry, people started to make a lot more indie games. Competition got more intense and finding financial success became less certain. The worry of the "Indiepocalypse" is that as this trend continues, it will become harder and harder to make indie game development a viable, sustainable business. Which isn't suggesting that people will stop making indie games, it's suggesting that they will mostly be made at a loss and it won't be a viable business for the vast majority of developers. The degree to which this worry has come to pass over the years is debatable.
- omginternets 4y ago
  Thanks for the explanation. I payed a bit of attention to the indie gaming scene years ago (must have been circa 2012 ... has it been 10 years already?!), so it's always nice to hear stories from that little corner of the internet. :)
- MattRix 4y ago
  Yep this all checks out. The thing to keep in mind is that there will still be just as many indie successes per year (maybe even a few more or a few larger ones). The issue is that the larger number of participants means the odds of any indie dev finding success are much lower. The standards for what kind of game will be successful have gone waaaay up.

archagon 4y ago

As a reminder, the original Game Maker Spelunky was a genre-defining smash hit in the indie scene. So Derek had nothing to worry about on that front.