Comment by quadcore | Hacker News Reader

Comment by quadcore | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

what are the basic economics that can make it work?

Ah i was coming here to warn you about that.

Ill brace for downvotes but if i can light a candle for just one person, that would be fantastic.

A big misconception about the economy of games is that they are content - economically-wise. An example of content is music or movies, think spotify or netflix.

This is absolutely not the case. Economically, games work like software: a handful of games are played for years and represents 98% of the playtime / money.

Treat games like a startup: what will make your game still be played 10 years from now?

Dont think "im gonna do one game and then another". Think "ill make one game". You wouldnt think "ill make a startup and then another and then another" even though you could its not really how youd think about this stuff right. Do the same with games.

One game. One startup. One product. Played for years on end. Diverge from that strategy and chances are you wont have a good life as a game developer like millions before you.

That being said, lets say you want to make a "content game", that is, a clone (your 2d platformer with a nice plot and rpg elements). Nothing wrong with that but just understand that on the long run it wont be sustainable economically, even if you take a lucky jump.

I handled taxes for a number of video game companies. The parent comment is wrong. If it were correct, the video game industry as we know it wouldn't exist.

Most games are played heavily within the first year, and thereafter not so much. Indeed, game revenues in general are even more front-loaded than movie revenues; for most games, 80% of the game's lifetime revenue is made in the first 6 months of release, which is why DRM is a thing on new games but usually gets removed in a patch a few months after release: to stop piracy during those crucial first few months. (With movies, excluding blockbusters which live or die by their box office, most of the revenue is made after the film leaves theaters from licensing deals and consumer media sales.)

Excluding subscription games like MMOs, only a tiny handful of games continue making substantial amounts of revenue after 6 months. Games like Minecraft, Terraria, and Stardew Valley are the exception, rather than the norm.

Don't let that dissuade you. As a solo developer, you only need a few thousand in sales to make a good living.

On the other hand, there's a lot of people wealthy enough to buy games on a whim, try them out for an hour or two, and then never launch them again (and don't refund). So, maybe that helps the situation somewhat? Otherwise, I agree - no one I know is a serial gamer. We all have our favourites which we've been playing for 10+ years. The best game studios can make in such situation is make a game with in-app purchases, or sell a newer, better version every so often.

I think the games people are buying on a whim, though, are the games with 10-year staying power that they haven't gotten to yet -- not throwaway projects that aren't good enough to care about.

That is absolutely not how the market behaves. None of the big (or small) moneymakers in last few years came close to "10 years" of popularity and probably won't.

Where do you get this stuff?

> None of the big (or small) moneymakers in last few years came close to "10 years" of popularity and probably won't.

I don't think much of the software out there behaves like this either. It might apply somewhat to game or software franchises, though.

For example, LibreOffice has had multiple major releases, but has been around for a bit over 12 years, a bit longer if you include the predecessors. Ubuntu LTS is usually supported for around 5 years, but Ubuntu as a whole has been around for almost 20 years.

Similarly, Counter-Strike was released over 20 years ago, even if there's been multiple separate games over the years. It's more or less the same story for Battlefield and Call of Duty.

That said, that's setting your own goals unrealistically high, since those are the exceptions when compared to any number of unsuccessful games. If you try to compete against games like that, you'll just burn yourself out. Most startups aren't necessarily built for the longevity either, but rather to have a product hit the market within a reasonable time frame and budget.

If you want, make games, fail, iterate, fail some more, iterate some more, maybe eventually succeed. Have a look at some grounded experiences from other folks, for example watch this video titled "How to Survive in Gamedev for Eleven Years Without a Hit": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmwbYl6f11c

No need to be so dismissive. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean. Big moneymakers like -- well, not the yearly sports games, but everything else -- are exactly what I'm talking about. Games like Elden Ring, Cyberpunk, etc are big, well-made games that are going to still be played in ten years precisely because they're so big and well-made. Same for small indie hits: they make a bunch of money up front and then will continue to exist for a long time, being played, building communities, etc. I was agreeing with the GP which was saying, you don't plan to make multiple games, you make one good one that has quality/staying power/whatever you want to call it. When I'm on Steam buying games randomly because they're on sale, it's _good_ games, that I've heard of and will continue to hear about, not random cheaply-made garbage (usually).

I'd say >50% of the games in my library were cheap/on-sale and I've never opened. If I were wealthy I'd probably engage in buying even more games. I like the idea of supporting indie devs who do something as simple as make a small game in one of my key genres.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com