6 ms·

"It takes nothing to produce a hot game. You merely need somebody with a computer, a good idea, and the ability to make a game. Making a game is not rocket scie

by pan69 14y ago

"It takes nothing to produce a hot game. You merely need somebody with a computer, a good idea, and the ability to make a game. Making a game is not rocket science." Actually. Making a game that makes money IS rocket science (or at least as close as it can get to it).

incongruity 14y ago
I completely agree that it's a lot harder than the author makes it sound – but is the comparison apt in at least one way? Namely – most rocket science out there requires the work of a reasonably large number of contributors to actually produce a working, reliable end-product... whereas a winning game really can be made by a small number of people (or even one person) who either have the right stroke of genius, luck or skill to pull it all together. That, of course, doesn't mean it's easy, but instead it means that the law of large numbers comes into play and more winning games will be produced because it takes fewer people/resources to make a gaming company than a rocket company. Ergo, gaming is an industry that is inherently much more difficult in which to establish a defensible competitive advantage. Or, maybe the author really is just minimizing it all to make their point...
suby 14y ago
I think it doesn't matter how hard it is. The barrier to entry is very low, and the social game market is already crowded and extremely competitive. You're going to have a varied number of people releasing hits, so the point is that you can't possibly buy out every shop that gets lucky with a hit, nor should you.
jfoutz 14y ago
Making a game is sort of like making music. It's so much fun, people do it for free. It's not a big deal if you have a few dozen programmers making some roguelike. If you have 10k college sophomores making games, chances are pretty good one of them will be pretty fun, and take off. The key here is, they would do it anyway. there is not free carwashing service because someone likes washing cars. there are however tons of free games, because making games is fun.
- forrestthewoods 14y ago
  That statement couldn't possibly be more wrong. The majority of games are created by large teams of highly talented and well paid individuals. There are certain types of games that could be created by a single college sophomore or a teeny tiny team. Most games can not. A team size of 20 is considered quite small. Both your statement and the link's author's is incredibly wrong and incredibly insulting.
  - mdonahoe 14y ago
    Do you work in games? (me too)
  - jbri 14y ago
    There's a difference between the triple-A mass-market games you see at Gamestop, and the social games you see on Facebook. Pointing out that AAA-games are expensive to develop in a discussion about social games is missing the point a little, I think.
    - forrestthewoods 14y ago
      If you think social games are easy or cheap to make then you don't know very much. That goes for both facebook and mobile.
    - mrhyperpenguin 14y ago
      I think forrestthewoods is pointing out that making games, even social games, is hard. Sure it's possible for one person to develop a successful social game. But how many of those people can develop two successful social games? 5? 10+? The only name that comes to my mind is Zynga.
      - jfoutz 14y ago
        That's the issue though. Zynga's whole business model depends on this being false: "Sure it's possible for one person to develop a successful social game." One dedicated guy can soak up some ridiculously large fraction of their 2015 revenue if you believe your own statement is true. Because the popular fall 2015 game will be by That One Guy Studios and not Zynga.

by pan69 14y ago

incongruity 14y ago

I completely agree that it's a lot harder than the author makes it sound – but is the comparison apt in at least one way? Namely – most rocket science out there requires the work of a reasonably large number of contributors to actually produce a working, reliable end-product... whereas a winning game really can be made by a small number of people (or even one person) who either have the right stroke of genius, luck or skill to pull it all together. That, of course, doesn't mean it's easy, but instead it means that the law of large numbers comes into play and more winning games will be produced because it takes fewer people/resources to make a gaming company than a rocket company. Ergo, gaming is an industry that is inherently much more difficult in which to establish a defensible competitive advantage. Or, maybe the author really is just minimizing it all to make their point...

suby 14y ago

I think it doesn't matter how hard it is. The barrier to entry is very low, and the social game market is already crowded and extremely competitive. You're going to have a varied number of people releasing hits, so the point is that you can't possibly buy out every shop that gets lucky with a hit, nor should you.

jfoutz 14y ago

Making a game is sort of like making music. It's so much fun, people do it for free. It's not a big deal if you have a few dozen programmers making some roguelike. If you have 10k college sophomores making games, chances are pretty good one of them will be pretty fun, and take off. The key here is, they would do it anyway. there is not free carwashing service because someone likes washing cars. there are however tons of free games, because making games is fun.

forrestthewoods 14y ago
That statement couldn't possibly be more wrong. The majority of games are created by large teams of highly talented and well paid individuals. There are certain types of games that could be created by a single college sophomore or a teeny tiny team. Most games can not. A team size of 20 is considered quite small. Both your statement and the link's author's is incredibly wrong and incredibly insulting.
- mdonahoe 14y ago
  Do you work in games? (me too)
- jbri 14y ago
  There's a difference between the triple-A mass-market games you see at Gamestop, and the social games you see on Facebook. Pointing out that AAA-games are expensive to develop in a discussion about social games is missing the point a little, I think.
  - forrestthewoods 14y ago
    If you think social games are easy or cheap to make then you don't know very much. That goes for both facebook and mobile.
  - mrhyperpenguin 14y ago
    I think forrestthewoods is pointing out that making games, even social games, is hard. Sure it's possible for one person to develop a successful social game. But how many of those people can develop two successful social games? 5? 10+? The only name that comes to my mind is Zynga.
    - jfoutz 14y ago
      That's the issue though. Zynga's whole business model depends on this being false: "Sure it's possible for one person to develop a successful social game." One dedicated guy can soak up some ridiculously large fraction of their 2015 revenue if you believe your own statement is true. Because the popular fall 2015 game will be by That One Guy Studios and not Zynga.