8 ms·

Having a foot in the indie game developer community and another in startups, it's fascinating to see the HN comments in response to this post. The indie game d

by GuiA 13y ago

Having a foot in the indie game developer community and another in startups, it's fascinating to see the HN comments in response to this post. The indie game developers care about originality, passion, the sweat and hard months of work, the dedication to the craft. I think the point of Asher's essay is to show how much love and effort went into it, and that they were indeed the first to ship a full, polished game with that concept. That's where their pride and satisfaction comes from. The startup people care about end user experience, how good the PR is, and ultimately how numbers matter more than everything else. I don't think there's a wrong or right vision - it's two very different communities. Indie game devs dream of making amazing games with other talented, inspiring people - and as long as they make enough money to live not too uncomfortably, they're fine. Their biggest dream is to receive an IGF award and see their game on Steam. Maybe make enough money to be able to start a studio with a bunch of their friends, but definitely not to "scale" to EA-size. Startup people dream of growing their company to Facebook size, making billions of dollars, scaling, and being on Techcrunch. It's two very different communities, and it's fun to see the two worlds collide. Addendum: if you feel like this post is vindictive, bitter, etc.- remember: the best way to interpret a view different than yours is to understand that there is a worldview in which those statements are perfectly coherent, logical, and meaningful. Asher, Greg, and all the other people mentioned in this post are successful, highly respected members of the indie game dev community - not a bunch of guys who are angry for whatever silly reason.

zemo 13y ago
craftsmanship is not lean.
- jmduke 13y ago
  Man, I really like this comment. And I realize that sentence alone is pretty pointless, so I'll expand on it a little: One of the huge sources of cognitive dissonance I have in HN and startups in general (and this is coming from someone who is explicitly not a startup/SV person, though I find it a great spectator sport and a wonderful font of knowledge) is the clash of lean against polish. I felt like I've spent the majority of my life indoctrinated to believe that polish above all else is valuable: to spend hour after hour poring over iteration after iteration, to settle with nothing except perfection. This manifests in a few ways: Pixar, for example, calls it something along the lines of 'dusting under the cabinets': making sure each aspect of each scene is absolutely pristine. And then there's sort of the 'great is the enemy of good' / 'fail fast' / etc line of thinking: get something out the door, optimize for value over time, focus on efficacy. Which has seemingly become trendier than ever -- partly because it clearly works, and because of the undeniable numbers that people rarely buy goods and services because of, say, the fonts -- but an annoying little part of me cringes when I see a new service that doesn't even bother to customize the default Bootstrap theme. Most times, Ii's hard for me to reconcile these two seemingly distinct philosophies because they seem at so odds with each other. I'm beginning to suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle: that there's a time and a place for prioritizing growth and validation above everything, and that there's a time and a place for prioritizing perfection over everything. Threes succeeded because of a relentless pursuit of quality -- and because of an addicting core concept that arose from that pursuit. 2048 succeeded because it of its price and accessibility, because it was easily hackable, and because it could spread like wildfire. (But then, it also succeeded because of Threes.)
  - dgreensp 13y ago
    I think "quality" is the key word here, that ineffable property of refinement and aesthetic care that creates beauty in our experience of something. We'd like to live in a world of quality things, but that isn't always where market forces take us, at least in the short term. The most cynical or economically motivated might even discount the importance of quality, but I think most people just want the market to be more aligned with it in the long term to enable more of what's around us to be a work of art.
    - rmc 13y ago
      This reminds me of the philosophical book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which is all about "Quality" and the difference between "artisitic quality", and "technical/mechanical quality"
      - collyw 13y ago
        I seem to remember the follow up "Lila" talking more about quality. Dynamic and static quality form what I remember.
      - dgreensp 13y ago
        Yes, exactly! I didn't reference it inline for fear of sounding pretentious.
  - gbhn 13y ago
    I've played both games. It's definitely true that 2048 appeared in a world where threes was popular. But it isn't the case that a bunch of effort improved threes over the simpler 2048. Yes, it is simpler, easier. Sometimes that's exactly why a game is better. I can appreciate that the threes creators spent months working on their game, presentation, etc. To my taste, the result is poorer than 2048. Another fun factor is that because it's so simple, and open source, 2048 has all these fun variations available. Those explore the game space in a way that a bunch of WIP snapshots from the threes creators just don't. The result is, I think, a more fun, engaging environment.
DanBC 13y ago
They shipped the first version. They then decide to ise the term "rip offs" - even though people developing one of the first very popular rip offs claim to have never seen Threes!
- MBCook 13y ago
  Are you referring to 2048? They said they were based on 1024, and 1024 explicitly launched with an app store description along the lines of "Why waste your money on Threes, we're free". EDIT: Found the quote. Surprise surprise it's no longer in their description. "No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it’s free."
  - kaliblack 13y ago
    Which 2048 are you referring to? The creator of the one that hit it off on HN said that they weren't aware of Threes until after it took off [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927
    - MBCook 13y ago
      He says he wasn't aware of Threes, I have no reason to doubt him. If I saw a simple game and wanted to make my own version, I wouldn't do in-depth research of the original game either. He was cloning 1024 which was explicitly a clone of Threes. I was only pointing out there was a chain there.
      - kaliblack 13y ago
        You seemed to be implying that he must have known that there was a link between 1024 and Threes and therefore the term rip off was suitable.
        Falling3 13y ago
        I think they're implying that the term ripoff is suitable regardless of whether he knew there was a link between 1024 and Threes.
m3mnoch 13y ago
technically speaking? as a fellow dev with feet traditionally in both worlds (indie and startup), i can heartily say "meh" about both the rant and its the whole "ripoff" thing. you are absolutely correct about the indie guys being different from startup guys by wanting: 1) enough money to keep doing what they love. 2) recognition for what they do. the threes guys? in the ios app store, their app was in the top 100 grossing list for a month and are still top 300. they've ranked #1 in downloads in 28 countries. and they're still crushing it on downloads. http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/779157948/rank-history/#vtype=day&countries=US&start=2014-02-06&end=2014-03-27&device=iphone&view=grossing&lm=f http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/779157948/rank-history/... the 1024 guys? their downloads suck. their ratings are a full point worse. they're only lifting to the top 100 in countries that traditionally don't monetize worth beans anyway. http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/823499224/rank-history/#vtype=day&countries=US&start=2014-03-14&end=2014-03-27&device=iphone&view=rank&lm=1f http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/823499224/rank-history/... yeah. i choose data over ranty "you hurt my feelings" stuff every time. and, based on said hard, objective data, the threes guys are doing just fine. *edit - i missed that last '0' on their top grossing stat. whoops.
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  2048 is the #1 free app http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/840919914/rank-history/#vtype=day&countries=US&start=2014-03-19&end=2014-03-27&device=iphone&view=rank&lm=f http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/840919914/rank-history/...
  - m3mnoch 13y ago
    yup. making no money. and, as the threes guys point out, with no longevity. it won't be at the top of the heap for long. then, unlike threes, it will crash out the bottom instead of hanging around. so, again. meh.
    - biot 13y ago
      It has in-game ads, so it makes no money in the same way that Flappy Bird was free and made no money.
vidarh 13y ago
> and that they were indeed the first to ship a full, polished game with that concept. For their very specific take on it, maybe. The concept of "slam blocks into each other to combine them into something new" is many years old. I first ran into it as an example of a game written in Haxe years and years ago.
zyx321 13y ago
>It's two very different communities, and it's fun to see the two worlds collide. ...except sometimes, the collision is a horrible trainwreck like the recent Occulus controversy, which suddenly makes a whole lot more sense in the context of your post.
thedudemabry 13y ago
I completely agree. To borrow a common refrain among my group of coworkers: presume goodwill. It's amazing to see the interactions of a group of very effective developers feeling out the finished product as they venture into interesting territory. I'm incredible happy that they posted this!
jtfrench 13y ago
As someone who has done plenty of indie game development, I understand their gripes, but also I know this is the "Game" we're playing here — anyone who makes any form of success should expect to be cloned. Period. So think about that from the get-go and come to peace with it in your strategy/set expectations accordingly. The second I put any app out there I assume it's out in the general "mindspace" and will probably manifest somewhere in another form at some point or another. The speed at which it manifests usually correlates to the popularity of the idea.

by GuiA 13y ago

zemo 13y ago

craftsmanship is not lean.

jmduke 13y ago
Man, I really like this comment. And I realize that sentence alone is pretty pointless, so I'll expand on it a little: One of the huge sources of cognitive dissonance I have in HN and startups in general (and this is coming from someone who is explicitly not a startup/SV person, though I find it a great spectator sport and a wonderful font of knowledge) is the clash of lean against polish. I felt like I've spent the majority of my life indoctrinated to believe that polish above all else is valuable: to spend hour after hour poring over iteration after iteration, to settle with nothing except perfection. This manifests in a few ways: Pixar, for example, calls it something along the lines of 'dusting under the cabinets': making sure each aspect of each scene is absolutely pristine. And then there's sort of the 'great is the enemy of good' / 'fail fast' / etc line of thinking: get something out the door, optimize for value over time, focus on efficacy. Which has seemingly become trendier than ever -- partly because it clearly works, and because of the undeniable numbers that people rarely buy goods and services because of, say, the fonts -- but an annoying little part of me cringes when I see a new service that doesn't even bother to customize the default Bootstrap theme. Most times, Ii's hard for me to reconcile these two seemingly distinct philosophies because they seem at so odds with each other. I'm beginning to suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle: that there's a time and a place for prioritizing growth and validation above everything, and that there's a time and a place for prioritizing perfection over everything. Threes succeeded because of a relentless pursuit of quality -- and because of an addicting core concept that arose from that pursuit. 2048 succeeded because it of its price and accessibility, because it was easily hackable, and because it could spread like wildfire. (But then, it also succeeded because of Threes.)
- dgreensp 13y ago
  I think "quality" is the key word here, that ineffable property of refinement and aesthetic care that creates beauty in our experience of something. We'd like to live in a world of quality things, but that isn't always where market forces take us, at least in the short term. The most cynical or economically motivated might even discount the importance of quality, but I think most people just want the market to be more aligned with it in the long term to enable more of what's around us to be a work of art.
  - rmc 13y ago
    This reminds me of the philosophical book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which is all about "Quality" and the difference between "artisitic quality", and "technical/mechanical quality"
    - collyw 13y ago
      I seem to remember the follow up "Lila" talking more about quality. Dynamic and static quality form what I remember.
    - dgreensp 13y ago
      Yes, exactly! I didn't reference it inline for fear of sounding pretentious.
- gbhn 13y ago
  I've played both games. It's definitely true that 2048 appeared in a world where threes was popular. But it isn't the case that a bunch of effort improved threes over the simpler 2048. Yes, it is simpler, easier. Sometimes that's exactly why a game is better. I can appreciate that the threes creators spent months working on their game, presentation, etc. To my taste, the result is poorer than 2048. Another fun factor is that because it's so simple, and open source, 2048 has all these fun variations available. Those explore the game space in a way that a bunch of WIP snapshots from the threes creators just don't. The result is, I think, a more fun, engaging environment.

DanBC 13y ago

They shipped the first version. They then decide to ise the term "rip offs" - even though people developing one of the first very popular rip offs claim to have never seen Threes!

MBCook 13y ago
Are you referring to 2048? They said they were based on 1024, and 1024 explicitly launched with an app store description along the lines of "Why waste your money on Threes, we're free". EDIT: Found the quote. Surprise surprise it's no longer in their description. "No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it’s free."
- kaliblack 13y ago
  Which 2048 are you referring to? The creator of the one that hit it off on HN said that they weren't aware of Threes until after it took off [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927
  - MBCook 13y ago
    He says he wasn't aware of Threes, I have no reason to doubt him. If I saw a simple game and wanted to make my own version, I wouldn't do in-depth research of the original game either. He was cloning 1024 which was explicitly a clone of Threes. I was only pointing out there was a chain there.
    - kaliblack 13y ago
      You seemed to be implying that he must have known that there was a link between 1024 and Threes and therefore the term rip off was suitable.
      - Falling3 13y ago
        I think they're implying that the term ripoff is suitable regardless of whether he knew there was a link between 1024 and Threes.

m3mnoch 13y ago

technically speaking? as a fellow dev with feet traditionally in both worlds (indie and startup), i can heartily say "meh" about both the rant and its the whole "ripoff" thing. you are absolutely correct about the indie guys being different from startup guys by wanting: 1) enough money to keep doing what they love. 2) recognition for what they do. the threes guys? in the ios app store, their app was in the top 100 grossing list for a month and are still top 300. they've ranked #1 in downloads in 28 countries. and they're still crushing it on downloads. http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/779157948/rank-history/#vtype=day&countries=US&start=2014-02-06&end=2014-03-27&device=iphone&view=grossing&lm=f http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/779157948/rank-history/... the 1024 guys? their downloads suck. their ratings are a full point worse. they're only lifting to the top 100 in countries that traditionally don't monetize worth beans anyway. http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/823499224/rank-history/#vtype=day&countries=US&start=2014-03-14&end=2014-03-27&device=iphone&view=rank&lm=1f http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/823499224/rank-history/... yeah. i choose data over ranty "you hurt my feelings" stuff every time. and, based on said hard, objective data, the threes guys are doing just fine. *edit - i missed that last '0' on their top grossing stat. whoops.

forrestthewoods 13y ago
2048 is the #1 free app http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/840919914/rank-history/#vtype=day&countries=US&start=2014-03-19&end=2014-03-27&device=iphone&view=rank&lm=f http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/840919914/rank-history/...
- m3mnoch 13y ago
  yup. making no money. and, as the threes guys point out, with no longevity. it won't be at the top of the heap for long. then, unlike threes, it will crash out the bottom instead of hanging around. so, again. meh.
  - biot 13y ago
    It has in-game ads, so it makes no money in the same way that Flappy Bird was free and made no money.

vidarh 13y ago

> and that they were indeed the first to ship a full, polished game with that concept. For their very specific take on it, maybe. The concept of "slam blocks into each other to combine them into something new" is many years old. I first ran into it as an example of a game written in Haxe years and years ago.

zyx321 13y ago

>It's two very different communities, and it's fun to see the two worlds collide. ...except sometimes, the collision is a horrible trainwreck like the recent Occulus controversy, which suddenly makes a whole lot more sense in the context of your post.

thedudemabry 13y ago

I completely agree. To borrow a common refrain among my group of coworkers: presume goodwill. It's amazing to see the interactions of a group of very effective developers feeling out the finished product as they venture into interesting territory. I'm incredible happy that they posted this!

jtfrench 13y ago

As someone who has done plenty of indie game development, I understand their gripes, but also I know this is the "Game" we're playing here — anyone who makes any form of success should expect to be cloned. Period. So think about that from the get-go and come to peace with it in your strategy/set expectations accordingly. The second I put any app out there I assume it's out in the general "mindspace" and will probably manifest somewhere in another form at some point or another. The speed at which it manifests usually correlates to the popularity of the idea.