1,469 karma · joined November 30, 2007
Sounds like outstanding advice. I hope we can follow in your footsteps! (and thanks for the kind and comprehensive answer)
1) If you didn't need a salary or marketing help, would you still have signed a publishing deal? My sense is most of the publisher value lies in getting paid before the game launches, and with marketing around launch, but curious if those are wrong assumptions?
2) Early Access vs. Straight Launch - any insights about why you chose to do a full launch vs. an early access beforehand? Was it something you and the publisher discussed in detail?
3) Outside of Steam's ecosystem, how much marketing, promotion, social media, YouTube, Discord, etc. stuff did you (or the publisher) do? Do you think that pre-launch work had a sizable impact on the launch and post-launch success? Or would you say it's mostly the Steam algo making the game more visible to the right buyers as the positive reviews rolled in?
Truly kind of you to share so openly here. Already sent some of your other replies to our game team
Here are a few people my startups have worked with that I can vouch for:
Asia Orangio of DemandMaven - customer research and SaaS product positioning, feature prioritization, and product strategy
Talia Wolf - conversion rate optimization
Seer Interactive - PPC and SEO
I'll try to add more as I dig through my list.
Pick any software business - productivity tools, marketing, data providers, security, UX, medical/healthcare - and the reality is always that 1-5 big companies dominate, while 100s or 1000s of smaller companies, many that fit with the ideas of the "calm company" philosophy, are profitable and even growing (albeit more slowly).
The "winner take all" mentality isn't even true in the sectors where it's supposed to be a hard and fast rule. Social media platforms have a half dozen dominant players, and another 40-50 businesses that are successful by the calm definition. Search engines - Google dominates, but another half dozen and a few hundred vertical search engines (in travel, B2B data, real estate, ecommerce of every kind, etc.) have 10s to 100s of millions in revenue.
Until I see an economy-wide analysis of this "winner takes all" rule, with massive numbers of sectors where no small/calm companies are surviving, will I believe this is true. Seems to me like the "riches in the niches" saying is actually the rule, but it doesn't fit with the unicorn-or-bust returns model of large venture funds.
The grow-fast-or-die-trying approach that Silicon Valley (and YCombinator) promoted in tech world the last quarter century leads to millions of miserable folks (employees, customers, and founders) and a few very rich ones. After trying that approach for a long time, it just doesn't bring me motivation or joy.
Really sad that Indie.vc's LPs weren't willing to even wait the usual judging period that venture funds get (often 5-7yrs, sometimes more) before determining that they "didn't want to exposure to those types of assets."
Search for "woodworking" and we'll uncover several thousand profiles that talk about woodworking online, then show you the podcasts, websites, social accounts, and YouTube channels those profiles interact-with most.
Feedback welcome; hope the data proves useful to some of y'all for your own projects.
That said, there's lots of very important metrics to understand if you're trying to do a comparison - rate of growth, margins, churn, etc. - all of these figure prominently into the health of a SaaS business.