7 ms·

This article has to be one of the most honest, rational, and clear eyed review of what it takes to be successful, long term (10+ years), as an independent game

This article has to be one of the most honest, rational, and clear eyed review of what it takes to be successful, long term (10+ years), as an independent game developer. While 4-6% of the talented game developers might be able to be successful playing the hit-game increasingly backloaded with more expensive collateral, the other 95%+ would be well advised to read Daniel Cook's article. And then read it again.

sounds 14y ago
I only wish entrepreneurs doing any social/mobile/web app would read it. (I think the lesson, evaluating different sources of income, applies to more than games.)
- 001sky 14y ago
  Agree. its even more general than that. some revenue streams are finite, not perpetual. consfusing the two can be dangerous. musicians and sportsmen are two more examples.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  The ones that think about how closed source software is evil should read it as well. All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it, which is not so easy as many think.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    So it pays a salary, therefore it's moral? Seems a terrible argument to me.
    - pjmlp 14y ago
      So now closed source software is immoral? I really love first world problems.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        That's irrelevant to the quality of your argument.
        thetrumanshow 14y ago
        I think I can be of service here... pjmlp stated "All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it, which is not so easy as many think." .. in which, in context, he likely meant that those who are inclined to look askance at closed-source companies should realize that there is much sustained value to be derived from such activities. Our community tends to frown on people who advocate the Jim Gray[1] closed-source perspective, so pjmlp was naturally inclined to be defensive. icebraining was simply taking issue with the portion that reads "All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it" which, if taken literally, suggests that extreme cases like software that kills kittens is morally good as long as someone makes a buck from it. I am pretty sure that pjmlp did not mean it in exactly this way. [1] http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-exec-open-source-model-endangers-software-economy-582 http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-exec-open-sou...
        pjmlp 14y ago
        My point is that open source software usually only works with types of solutions where you can build consulting services with, or force the clients to use some kind of software as service. In many markets that require packaged software like the desktop, usually only closed source software offers a sustainable business. In the end, if you are able to earn money with closed or open source software depends on the target market of your solution.
        icebraining 14y ago
        What I think you don't understand is that such considerations are irrelevant to someone who considers the distribution of closed source software to be wrong. Let's change your argument: Safe driving advocates should understand that safe driving only works with types of commuting paths are relatively short. In many places where the commuting is rather long, usually only reckless driving offers a way to get to work. In the end, if you are able to maintain a job by driving safely or recklessly depends on your commuting path. Does this offer a valid argument for driving recklessly and putting other people in danger? Of course, I know you find this ridiculous because you don't consider distributing closed source software to be wrong, therefore it's stupid to compare reckless driving to it. But if you're trying to appeal to the people who do find it wrong, that argument simply doesn't make sense.

sounds 14y ago

I only wish entrepreneurs doing any social/mobile/web app would read it. (I think the lesson, evaluating different sources of income, applies to more than games.)

001sky 14y ago
Agree. its even more general than that. some revenue streams are finite, not perpetual. consfusing the two can be dangerous. musicians and sportsmen are two more examples.
pjmlp 14y ago
The ones that think about how closed source software is evil should read it as well. All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it, which is not so easy as many think.
- icebraining 14y ago
  So it pays a salary, therefore it's moral? Seems a terrible argument to me.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    So now closed source software is immoral? I really love first world problems.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      That's irrelevant to the quality of your argument.
      - thetrumanshow 14y ago
        I think I can be of service here... pjmlp stated "All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it, which is not so easy as many think." .. in which, in context, he likely meant that those who are inclined to look askance at closed-source companies should realize that there is much sustained value to be derived from such activities. Our community tends to frown on people who advocate the Jim Gray[1] closed-source perspective, so pjmlp was naturally inclined to be defensive. icebraining was simply taking issue with the portion that reads "All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it" which, if taken literally, suggests that extreme cases like software that kills kittens is morally good as long as someone makes a buck from it. I am pretty sure that pjmlp did not mean it in exactly this way. [1] http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-exec-open-source-model-endangers-software-economy-582 http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-exec-open-sou...
        pjmlp 14y ago
        My point is that open source software usually only works with types of solutions where you can build consulting services with, or force the clients to use some kind of software as service. In many markets that require packaged software like the desktop, usually only closed source software offers a sustainable business. In the end, if you are able to earn money with closed or open source software depends on the target market of your solution.
        icebraining 14y ago
        What I think you don't understand is that such considerations are irrelevant to someone who considers the distribution of closed source software to be wrong. Let's change your argument: Safe driving advocates should understand that safe driving only works with types of commuting paths are relatively short. In many places where the commuting is rather long, usually only reckless driving offers a way to get to work. In the end, if you are able to maintain a job by driving safely or recklessly depends on your commuting path. Does this offer a valid argument for driving recklessly and putting other people in danger? Of course, I know you find this ridiculous because you don't consider distributing closed source software to be wrong, therefore it's stupid to compare reckless driving to it. But if you're trying to appeal to the people who do find it wrong, that argument simply doesn't make sense.