5 ms·

Startups are a gamble with a high upside. If you win you'll be fabulously wealthy and probably never have to work again. "Winning" in the game industry simply

Startups are a gamble with a high upside. If you win you'll be fabulously wealthy and probably never have to work again. "Winning" in the game industry simply means you get to survive to work on the next project. Even high-profile studios with great track records are financially stumbling from one project into the next, and a single failure will sink them. Nobody is getting rich here - best case scenario you make a market wage, worst case scenario you make little to nothing.

benologist 12y ago
Categorically wrong. Winning in games is worth billions of dollars - King, SuperCell, Rovio, EA, Zynga etc. Almost nobody reaches this level however there's many levels of success between bankrupt and billions where the good enough can survive to try again. Exactly like startups and businesses in general.
- eloisant 12y ago
  Well, there are proportionally less successes in games because it's crowded. And you're in competition with people happy to make less than minimum wage, so good luck with that. It's pretty much a rule in business: if you go to the shiny/fun/popular market, you'll have a hundreds of competitors and it will be very hard. If you go to a more "boring" market that competitors ignore, you have a higher chance to get the jackpot.
  - benologist 12y ago
    Your thoughts are pretty closely tied to the number of massively successful games being dwarfed by massively successful startups but they're both extremely rare and they both fight their way through tons of competition to get to the top of their fields. Plus the bit where game developers are happy to make minimum wage while everyone else is more expensive sounds imaginary. YC has funded a ton of companies, very few of which have/will generate huge rewards, one of which was a game company.
    - eloisant 12y ago
      It's true, web or mobile startup are in the "cool/shiny" category with a lot of competition. Still it appears that you find more people willing to put up with horrible conditions and low salary in the game industry. I know most game developers make more than the minimum wage, but I'm talking in reference to the article - that illustrates that these people exist. "I’d like to be able to pay myself a wage of ~$1k/mo (around 2/3 minimum wage) for future projects, to accommodate a similar lifestyle." Later: "Altogether, this is a somewhat exciting success for me. I’m making just barely what I need to keep going, which allows me to stay independent without the burden of success or wealth. Cutting so close to my bare necessities is frightening and unstable, but ultimately it’s an emotional trade-off." That's why there was a race to the bottom in mobile games prices, and that's why you'll find 10 similar games when there should be a market only for one.
      - benologist 12y ago
        This article is about a bootstrapped startup whose product is a game - they have chosen to do this instead of a good salary, in search of a giant payday. They're being paid what they can afford to pay, not what established companies do pay. iOS has barely more than one million apps total. That number gets a lot smaller on other platforms within reach of an indie developer. These guys and many more are not struggling because there's "too much competition" they just haven't made a popular product.
  - declan 12y ago
    >If you go to a more "boring" market that competitors ignore An example in the form of a digression: I live in a town in a relatively rural area of the SF peninsula. I've recently received some bids for a small job involving heavy machinery, and -- at least in this area -- suspect that owning your own business in that "boring" market provides a more reliable source of revenue with a better quality of life than 95% of HN readers who work in cubicles at tech companies. Owner A is a fellow who owns a bay area company that does grading work. He built his own house in the Woodside flatlands, where land costs tend to run in the millions of dollars, and the construction cost including permits of building a new house may be $2M-$3M alone. Neighbors include Larry Ellison and the Steve Jobs ex-Jackling estate. It's true he's driving around a lot for bids, but many folks would prefer that to staring at a screen. It's probably psychologically and physically healthier as well. Owner B is a fellow who owns a bay area company that does excavation and sewer work. He owns a house in Portola Valley (another affluent community, for instance home to VC Vinod Khosla, who hosted Obama recently) and a second home in the Sierra foothills. Has a stable of Porsches and eight motorcycles. Is a pillar of the community, and sends his crew out to open roads closed by storms or downed trees when the town or fire department can't get to them quickly enough. They may miss out on the upsides of billion-dollar IPOs, but a precious small percentage of startup founders or employees will get those anyway, especially post-Sarbanes-Oxley. I'm not saying I'm going to quit http://recent.io/ http://recent.io/ to dig septic tanks, but it does put bay area quality of life in perspective.
    - hkmurakami 12y ago
      One company of the same ilk I'm familiar with is a certain tree-cutting company in that area (I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about). They make fantastic money and have a virtual monopoly on the cyclical need of homeowners in the area for trimming branches of the towering trees in their yards, so that high winds will not knock them down onto their homes. Each homeowner needs to spend a few thousand dollars every 3 years or so for this service. However, this family business has been in existence for 60+ years. I don't think that starting a new tree cutting business and going head to head with them will be nearly as profitable if at all, because you wouldn't have the same contacts and good will that they do. Contract work is often a word of mouth and referral business, not dissimilar to the legal world. I totally agree that such small business owners can make great money. I recall from The Millionaire Next Door that many of the "millionaires" profiled in that book have the unsexiest businesses that they'd been working hard at for decades, saving wisely. I do know of an electrical contractor that worked on our house a couple of years ago has a healthy, very profitable business going on. But I think there's more than what immediately meets the eye, and just going into an unsexy business for the sake of going into an unsexy business is not a sufficient condition for financial success in one's business.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Yeah except the developer doesn't reap the rewards.
  - benologist 12y ago
    Employee #toolate at dropbox doesn't get shit either. Even if that person is a precious developer.
    - nemothekid 12y ago
      Employee #toolate at Dropbox most likely isn't making minimum wage though.
      - benologist 12y ago
        That really depends. Is he/she cleaning their office or a developer? http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/03/how-much-do-game-developers-make http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/03/how-much-do-game-deve...
- angersock 12y ago
  Every one of your examples is more a publisher than a developer. Your point is not incorrect, but is being made about the wrong thing. Your parent's post is quite right--you don't get rich making games anymore, least of all because the margins are crazy thin. You get rich publishing games.
  - benologist 12y ago
    Every company I listed either grew from developer to developer + publisher or is still just developing. More importantly I don't think the distinction matters as it's a natural next step if you accumulate enough success - Dropbox didn't start with a product for other businesses either. Specifically Rovio, SuperCell, King, Zynga and Mojang owe all their success to their own games released in the last decade. (Although king used to license/publish little flash games but they pivoted past that years ago).
warfangle 12y ago
It's a sad affair when in order for a publisher to fund a game at a non-publisher studio, the studio has to agree to be acqui-hired (for almost nil) if the game is a success. Basically "okay, you work for us now. But... yeah, we aren't going to pay for your company what it's actually worth. And we'll fuck your dev culture to hell."
sybhn 12y ago
I guess you mean winning at a startup you confounded, haven't been kicked out of, and haven't had to dilute yourself to sub million. Because if you have had to do any of these, your win might turn out to be a decent house downpayment, not the "never have to work again" valley fantasy.

benologist 12y ago

Categorically wrong. Winning in games is worth billions of dollars - King, SuperCell, Rovio, EA, Zynga etc. Almost nobody reaches this level however there's many levels of success between bankrupt and billions where the good enough can survive to try again. Exactly like startups and businesses in general.

eloisant 12y ago
Well, there are proportionally less successes in games because it's crowded. And you're in competition with people happy to make less than minimum wage, so good luck with that. It's pretty much a rule in business: if you go to the shiny/fun/popular market, you'll have a hundreds of competitors and it will be very hard. If you go to a more "boring" market that competitors ignore, you have a higher chance to get the jackpot.
- benologist 12y ago
  Your thoughts are pretty closely tied to the number of massively successful games being dwarfed by massively successful startups but they're both extremely rare and they both fight their way through tons of competition to get to the top of their fields. Plus the bit where game developers are happy to make minimum wage while everyone else is more expensive sounds imaginary. YC has funded a ton of companies, very few of which have/will generate huge rewards, one of which was a game company.
  - eloisant 12y ago
    It's true, web or mobile startup are in the "cool/shiny" category with a lot of competition. Still it appears that you find more people willing to put up with horrible conditions and low salary in the game industry. I know most game developers make more than the minimum wage, but I'm talking in reference to the article - that illustrates that these people exist. "I’d like to be able to pay myself a wage of ~$1k/mo (around 2/3 minimum wage) for future projects, to accommodate a similar lifestyle." Later: "Altogether, this is a somewhat exciting success for me. I’m making just barely what I need to keep going, which allows me to stay independent without the burden of success or wealth. Cutting so close to my bare necessities is frightening and unstable, but ultimately it’s an emotional trade-off." That's why there was a race to the bottom in mobile games prices, and that's why you'll find 10 similar games when there should be a market only for one.
    - benologist 12y ago
      This article is about a bootstrapped startup whose product is a game - they have chosen to do this instead of a good salary, in search of a giant payday. They're being paid what they can afford to pay, not what established companies do pay. iOS has barely more than one million apps total. That number gets a lot smaller on other platforms within reach of an indie developer. These guys and many more are not struggling because there's "too much competition" they just haven't made a popular product.
- declan 12y ago
  >If you go to a more "boring" market that competitors ignore An example in the form of a digression: I live in a town in a relatively rural area of the SF peninsula. I've recently received some bids for a small job involving heavy machinery, and -- at least in this area -- suspect that owning your own business in that "boring" market provides a more reliable source of revenue with a better quality of life than 95% of HN readers who work in cubicles at tech companies. Owner A is a fellow who owns a bay area company that does grading work. He built his own house in the Woodside flatlands, where land costs tend to run in the millions of dollars, and the construction cost including permits of building a new house may be $2M-$3M alone. Neighbors include Larry Ellison and the Steve Jobs ex-Jackling estate. It's true he's driving around a lot for bids, but many folks would prefer that to staring at a screen. It's probably psychologically and physically healthier as well. Owner B is a fellow who owns a bay area company that does excavation and sewer work. He owns a house in Portola Valley (another affluent community, for instance home to VC Vinod Khosla, who hosted Obama recently) and a second home in the Sierra foothills. Has a stable of Porsches and eight motorcycles. Is a pillar of the community, and sends his crew out to open roads closed by storms or downed trees when the town or fire department can't get to them quickly enough. They may miss out on the upsides of billion-dollar IPOs, but a precious small percentage of startup founders or employees will get those anyway, especially post-Sarbanes-Oxley. I'm not saying I'm going to quit http://recent.io/ http://recent.io/ to dig septic tanks, but it does put bay area quality of life in perspective.
  - hkmurakami 12y ago
    One company of the same ilk I'm familiar with is a certain tree-cutting company in that area (I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about). They make fantastic money and have a virtual monopoly on the cyclical need of homeowners in the area for trimming branches of the towering trees in their yards, so that high winds will not knock them down onto their homes. Each homeowner needs to spend a few thousand dollars every 3 years or so for this service. However, this family business has been in existence for 60+ years. I don't think that starting a new tree cutting business and going head to head with them will be nearly as profitable if at all, because you wouldn't have the same contacts and good will that they do. Contract work is often a word of mouth and referral business, not dissimilar to the legal world. I totally agree that such small business owners can make great money. I recall from The Millionaire Next Door that many of the "millionaires" profiled in that book have the unsexiest businesses that they'd been working hard at for decades, saving wisely. I do know of an electrical contractor that worked on our house a couple of years ago has a healthy, very profitable business going on. But I think there's more than what immediately meets the eye, and just going into an unsexy business for the sake of going into an unsexy business is not a sufficient condition for financial success in one's business.
bitJericho 12y ago
Yeah except the developer doesn't reap the rewards.
- benologist 12y ago
  Employee #toolate at dropbox doesn't get shit either. Even if that person is a precious developer.
  - nemothekid 12y ago
    Employee #toolate at Dropbox most likely isn't making minimum wage though.
    - benologist 12y ago
      That really depends. Is he/she cleaning their office or a developer? http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/03/how-much-do-game-developers-make http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/03/how-much-do-game-deve...
angersock 12y ago
Every one of your examples is more a publisher than a developer. Your point is not incorrect, but is being made about the wrong thing. Your parent's post is quite right--you don't get rich making games anymore, least of all because the margins are crazy thin. You get rich publishing games.
- benologist 12y ago
  Every company I listed either grew from developer to developer + publisher or is still just developing. More importantly I don't think the distinction matters as it's a natural next step if you accumulate enough success - Dropbox didn't start with a product for other businesses either. Specifically Rovio, SuperCell, King, Zynga and Mojang owe all their success to their own games released in the last decade. (Although king used to license/publish little flash games but they pivoted past that years ago).

warfangle 12y ago

It's a sad affair when in order for a publisher to fund a game at a non-publisher studio, the studio has to agree to be acqui-hired (for almost nil) if the game is a success. Basically "okay, you work for us now. But... yeah, we aren't going to pay for your company what it's actually worth. And we'll fuck your dev culture to hell."

sybhn 12y ago

I guess you mean winning at a startup you confounded, haven't been kicked out of, and haven't had to dilute yourself to sub million. Because if you have had to do any of these, your win might turn out to be a decent house downpayment, not the "never have to work again" valley fantasy.