3 ms·

On the other hand, there's a lot of people wealthy enough to buy games on a whim, try them out for an hour or two, and then never launch them again (and don't r

by badpun 4y ago

On the other hand, there's a lot of people wealthy enough to buy games on a whim, try them out for an hour or two, and then never launch them again (and don't refund). So, maybe that helps the situation somewhat? Otherwise, I agree - no one I know is a serial gamer. We all have our favourites which we've been playing for 10+ years. The best game studios can make in such situation is make a game with in-app purchases, or sell a newer, better version every so often.

ajkjk 4y ago
I think the games people are buying on a whim, though, are the games with 10-year staying power that they haven't gotten to yet -- not throwaway projects that aren't good enough to care about.
- izacus 4y ago
  That is absolutely not how the market behaves. None of the big (or small) moneymakers in last few years came close to "10 years" of popularity and probably won't. Where do you get this stuff?
  - KronisLV 4y ago
    > None of the big (or small) moneymakers in last few years came close to "10 years" of popularity and probably won't. I don't think much of the software out there behaves like this either. It might apply somewhat to game or software franchises, though. For example, LibreOffice has had multiple major releases, but has been around for a bit over 12 years, a bit longer if you include the predecessors. Ubuntu LTS is usually supported for around 5 years, but Ubuntu as a whole has been around for almost 20 years. Similarly, Counter-Strike was released over 20 years ago, even if there's been multiple separate games over the years. It's more or less the same story for Battlefield and Call of Duty. That said, that's setting your own goals unrealistically high, since those are the exceptions when compared to any number of unsuccessful games. If you try to compete against games like that, you'll just burn yourself out. Most startups aren't necessarily built for the longevity either, but rather to have a product hit the market within a reasonable time frame and budget. If you want, make games, fail, iterate, fail some more, iterate some more, maybe eventually succeed. Have a look at some grounded experiences from other folks, for example watch this video titled "How to Survive in Gamedev for Eleven Years Without a Hit": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmwbYl6f11c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmwbYl6f11c
  - ajkjk 4y ago
    No need to be so dismissive. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean. Big moneymakers like -- well, not the yearly sports games, but everything else -- are exactly what I'm talking about. Games like Elden Ring, Cyberpunk, etc are big, well-made games that are going to still be played in ten years precisely because they're so big and well-made. Same for small indie hits: they make a bunch of money up front and then will continue to exist for a long time, being played, building communities, etc. I was agreeing with the GP which was saying, you don't plan to make multiple games, you make one good one that has quality/staying power/whatever you want to call it. When I'm on Steam buying games randomly because they're on sale, it's _good_ games, that I've heard of and will continue to hear about, not random cheaply-made garbage (usually).
- antifa 4y ago
  I'd say >50% of the games in my library were cheap/on-sale and I've never opened. If I were wealthy I'd probably engage in buying even more games. I like the idea of supporting indie devs who do something as simple as make a small game in one of my key genres.

by badpun 4y ago

ajkjk 4y ago

I think the games people are buying on a whim, though, are the games with 10-year staying power that they haven't gotten to yet -- not throwaway projects that aren't good enough to care about.

izacus 4y ago
That is absolutely not how the market behaves. None of the big (or small) moneymakers in last few years came close to "10 years" of popularity and probably won't. Where do you get this stuff?
- KronisLV 4y ago
  > None of the big (or small) moneymakers in last few years came close to "10 years" of popularity and probably won't. I don't think much of the software out there behaves like this either. It might apply somewhat to game or software franchises, though. For example, LibreOffice has had multiple major releases, but has been around for a bit over 12 years, a bit longer if you include the predecessors. Ubuntu LTS is usually supported for around 5 years, but Ubuntu as a whole has been around for almost 20 years. Similarly, Counter-Strike was released over 20 years ago, even if there's been multiple separate games over the years. It's more or less the same story for Battlefield and Call of Duty. That said, that's setting your own goals unrealistically high, since those are the exceptions when compared to any number of unsuccessful games. If you try to compete against games like that, you'll just burn yourself out. Most startups aren't necessarily built for the longevity either, but rather to have a product hit the market within a reasonable time frame and budget. If you want, make games, fail, iterate, fail some more, iterate some more, maybe eventually succeed. Have a look at some grounded experiences from other folks, for example watch this video titled "How to Survive in Gamedev for Eleven Years Without a Hit": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmwbYl6f11c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmwbYl6f11c
- ajkjk 4y ago
  No need to be so dismissive. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean. Big moneymakers like -- well, not the yearly sports games, but everything else -- are exactly what I'm talking about. Games like Elden Ring, Cyberpunk, etc are big, well-made games that are going to still be played in ten years precisely because they're so big and well-made. Same for small indie hits: they make a bunch of money up front and then will continue to exist for a long time, being played, building communities, etc. I was agreeing with the GP which was saying, you don't plan to make multiple games, you make one good one that has quality/staying power/whatever you want to call it. When I'm on Steam buying games randomly because they're on sale, it's _good_ games, that I've heard of and will continue to hear about, not random cheaply-made garbage (usually).
antifa 4y ago
I'd say >50% of the games in my library were cheap/on-sale and I've never opened. If I were wealthy I'd probably engage in buying even more games. I like the idea of supporting indie devs who do something as simple as make a small game in one of my key genres.