4 ms·

People have been doing things for the sake of doing them for centuries. Sometimes one person creates something - a painting, sculpture, book, game - that resona

People have been doing things for the sake of doing them for centuries. Sometimes one person creates something - a painting, sculpture, book, game - that resonates with the public and is lucky enough to get noticed. It's a mix of talent and luck, which includes being at the right place at the right time. I believe that the mistake is to expect that you will be rewarded for your efforts just because you created something that resonates with you. It might happen, it might not. On average, I think that game developers make less money than food servers at McDonald's. And it was always like that, someone creating speculative work and trying to probe the market almost always makes less money than someone working on a guaranteed, time-honored market need. The question is - was the trip worth it? Lots of times, it isn't. But let's take someone who spends a year of their life backpacking around Europe or wherever. Was it worth it? Moneywise, it was a huge loss of money, not "profitable". But it could have been personally profitable, it could have been the best thing this person has done in their life and one of those "deathbed joys". If you approach hobbies and game development this way, I think it's much easier to accept a market failure. It must be worth it to YOU, otherwise you're in for very likely disappointment.

yannyu 3y ago
You're not wrong, but is this the way we want art to be created? Should arts be primarily pursued by those who have the means to defer or lose income, or those who have the reputation and connections to nearly guarantee economic success?
- c_crank 3y ago
  It's nice when you can rely on the rich to provide patronage for high quality art. But one could not expect this from the current rich.
- whateveracct 3y ago
  I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. Art can be made by people who wish to make it, and it doesn't have to be some "do art or make money" choice. Plenty of people who aren't filthy rich have leisure time and artistic desires.
- lukas099 3y ago
  This is one argument for universal basic income: that it will lead to an explosive output in the arts. (I don't know enough about the debate than to comment on it further than that.)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
  Let me ask you something: would you value a set of ~5 games that are an imagining of VCS-era console games as envisioned to exist in an alternate timeline where the Soviet Union was the predominant exporter of culture rather than the US? Because that's the kind of thing I come up with and would be making if I had a life situation where I didn't have to sell entirely too much of my time for food, shelter, and health care. So I guess what I'm asking (genuinely) is, is that the kind of art you really want to see a lot more of[0], and filter through, and one way or another pay for? Or is it perhaps better the production of such things is the domain of people who do not require such support? [0] I do, but I'm clearly biased. Count me among the people who want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The number of bands, and increasingly even of huge independently developed games, that started with some guy doing something in their spare time after work is exceedingly high. In times of patronage, even being able to obtain the instruments of your art was a substantial (though even then - not insurmountable) obstacle. Now? You can buy a saxophone for 20-30 minimum wage hours, same for something like an electric guitar + amp. The cost for other arts tend to be downward from there. In modern times programmers have it the easiest. Free IDEs, free libraries, free tutorials, free everything - you just need a computer and you instantly have access to resources that would have cost tens of thousands of dollars, at one time, for free.
- throw10920 3y ago
  In addition to this being a false dichotomy - art is a luxury, not a right. Even if there wasn't already a massive amount of art being created by people who do it for fun in their own spare time (that is - unpaid) - there's no reason for me to pay money for art that I don't want to consume. (under our current system, people pay money for art that they want to consume, and so art that most people don't want to consume doesn't get made very much - but it still gets made)
somenameforme 3y ago
I'd beg to differ here on the typical developer. In nearly all of these accounts, it rarely (if ever?) seems that the developer actually makes a product that resonates with themselves. In this case, the developer ultimately never even made anything at all. The thing I most often see is people being expected to be rewarded for making simply "something" as in you create a product, and it's completely playable as a game - but it's nothing more than that. And I think that era is completely dead, if it ever really existed at all. What I mean is somebody might see a game like the Binding of Isaac sell a zillion copies and think to themselves, 'Wow - I could make that game. I could even make it better!' And they're probably right, but with that game already released to massive popularity, creating a clone just isn't going to resonate with anybody unless it takes it to a whole new level, which clones essentially by definition don't do. You can see this exact attitude in this author with his 3d renderer. He expected people to appreciate it because he spent thousands of hours on it. But people don't care about stuff like that, they care about what's in front of their eyes - and what was probably a few poorly lit textured polygons moving around is not going to inspire fanfare. Ironically low-effort clones also work as an example on this front. Vampire Survivor is another game, technically trivial, which has sold about a zillion copies. And it's little more than a reskin of 'Magic Survival' [1]. But the author clearly saw the potential in that game that nobody else did (including its own author), so he deserves all the credit and reward he's received. It just feels like if we viewed game development as a market, it's full of people buying high, selling low, and then becoming all philosophical when looking for why things didn't turn out as they planned, as if there was some deeper meaning or lesson to be learned. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnM9CIqv8Iw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnM9CIqv8Iw
jckahn 3y ago
I'm the developer of https://www.farmhand.life/ https://www.farmhand.life/, an open source indie game with a modest following. I've seriously explored commercializing Farmhand, but never actually followed through with it (aside from an exploratory spinoff[0] that never even made enough money for Steam to pay out to my partner and I). It became clear that I'd have to fundamentally change Farmhand in ways that cater to monetization opportunities (via in-app purchases or ads) rather than my own interests. And if the game failed commercially (which it almost certainly would, statistically speaking) then I'd be stuck with project that's not fully aligned with my interests and values. I'd almost certainly lose all motivation and the project would die. So, Farmhand just exists as a free open source game that I love making and handful of people enjoy playing. And I hope it continues on like that for the rest of my life. I think I'll reflect positively on that choice on my deathbed. - [0]: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2080880/Farmhand_Go/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/2080880/Farmhand_Go/
- glimshe 3y ago
  Well written! I think you should up the price to 4.99!
  - jckahn 3y ago
    Thank you! I think increasing the price of Farmhand Go from $.99 would pretty much kill all future sales, as we've only sold 85 units since launching in 2022. It's great to know that someone thinks the game is worth more than that though. :)
    - ctenb 3y ago
      A game costing less than one dollar strongly signals it's not worth any money, let alone my time. I'd probably not even look at it for that reason.
      - schemescape 3y ago
        I agree with this. Also, a higher price leaves room for discounts, which might help convert wishlists. Disclaimer: I don’t know what I’m talking about.

yannyu 3y ago

You're not wrong, but is this the way we want art to be created? Should arts be primarily pursued by those who have the means to defer or lose income, or those who have the reputation and connections to nearly guarantee economic success?

c_crank 3y ago
It's nice when you can rely on the rich to provide patronage for high quality art. But one could not expect this from the current rich.
whateveracct 3y ago
I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. Art can be made by people who wish to make it, and it doesn't have to be some "do art or make money" choice. Plenty of people who aren't filthy rich have leisure time and artistic desires.
lukas099 3y ago
This is one argument for universal basic income: that it will lead to an explosive output in the arts. (I don't know enough about the debate than to comment on it further than that.)
AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
Let me ask you something: would you value a set of ~5 games that are an imagining of VCS-era console games as envisioned to exist in an alternate timeline where the Soviet Union was the predominant exporter of culture rather than the US? Because that's the kind of thing I come up with and would be making if I had a life situation where I didn't have to sell entirely too much of my time for food, shelter, and health care. So I guess what I'm asking (genuinely) is, is that the kind of art you really want to see a lot more of[0], and filter through, and one way or another pay for? Or is it perhaps better the production of such things is the domain of people who do not require such support? [0] I do, but I'm clearly biased. Count me among the people who want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less.
somenameforme 3y ago
The number of bands, and increasingly even of huge independently developed games, that started with some guy doing something in their spare time after work is exceedingly high. In times of patronage, even being able to obtain the instruments of your art was a substantial (though even then - not insurmountable) obstacle. Now? You can buy a saxophone for 20-30 minimum wage hours, same for something like an electric guitar + amp. The cost for other arts tend to be downward from there. In modern times programmers have it the easiest. Free IDEs, free libraries, free tutorials, free everything - you just need a computer and you instantly have access to resources that would have cost tens of thousands of dollars, at one time, for free.
throw10920 3y ago
In addition to this being a false dichotomy - art is a luxury, not a right. Even if there wasn't already a massive amount of art being created by people who do it for fun in their own spare time (that is - unpaid) - there's no reason for me to pay money for art that I don't want to consume. (under our current system, people pay money for art that they want to consume, and so art that most people don't want to consume doesn't get made very much - but it still gets made)

somenameforme 3y ago

I'd beg to differ here on the typical developer. In nearly all of these accounts, it rarely (if ever?) seems that the developer actually makes a product that resonates with themselves. In this case, the developer ultimately never even made anything at all. The thing I most often see is people being expected to be rewarded for making simply "something" as in you create a product, and it's completely playable as a game - but it's nothing more than that. And I think that era is completely dead, if it ever really existed at all. What I mean is somebody might see a game like the Binding of Isaac sell a zillion copies and think to themselves, 'Wow - I could make that game. I could even make it better!' And they're probably right, but with that game already released to massive popularity, creating a clone just isn't going to resonate with anybody unless it takes it to a whole new level, which clones essentially by definition don't do. You can see this exact attitude in this author with his 3d renderer. He expected people to appreciate it because he spent thousands of hours on it. But people don't care about stuff like that, they care about what's in front of their eyes - and what was probably a few poorly lit textured polygons moving around is not going to inspire fanfare. Ironically low-effort clones also work as an example on this front. Vampire Survivor is another game, technically trivial, which has sold about a zillion copies. And it's little more than a reskin of 'Magic Survival' [1]. But the author clearly saw the potential in that game that nobody else did (including its own author), so he deserves all the credit and reward he's received. It just feels like if we viewed game development as a market, it's full of people buying high, selling low, and then becoming all philosophical when looking for why things didn't turn out as they planned, as if there was some deeper meaning or lesson to be learned. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnM9CIqv8Iw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnM9CIqv8Iw

jckahn 3y ago

I'm the developer of https://www.farmhand.life/ https://www.farmhand.life/, an open source indie game with a modest following. I've seriously explored commercializing Farmhand, but never actually followed through with it (aside from an exploratory spinoff[0] that never even made enough money for Steam to pay out to my partner and I). It became clear that I'd have to fundamentally change Farmhand in ways that cater to monetization opportunities (via in-app purchases or ads) rather than my own interests. And if the game failed commercially (which it almost certainly would, statistically speaking) then I'd be stuck with project that's not fully aligned with my interests and values. I'd almost certainly lose all motivation and the project would die. So, Farmhand just exists as a free open source game that I love making and handful of people enjoy playing. And I hope it continues on like that for the rest of my life. I think I'll reflect positively on that choice on my deathbed. - [0]: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2080880/Farmhand_Go/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/2080880/Farmhand_Go/

glimshe 3y ago
Well written! I think you should up the price to 4.99!
- jckahn 3y ago
  Thank you! I think increasing the price of Farmhand Go from $.99 would pretty much kill all future sales, as we've only sold 85 units since launching in 2022. It's great to know that someone thinks the game is worth more than that though. :)
  - ctenb 3y ago
    A game costing less than one dollar strongly signals it's not worth any money, let alone my time. I'd probably not even look at it for that reason.
    - schemescape 3y ago
      I agree with this. Also, a higher price leaves room for discounts, which might help convert wishlists. Disclaimer: I don’t know what I’m talking about.