Hi,

Just stumbled accross PlanetsCon, a very small event to celebrate a game known as Planets Nu (which itself is a remake from a game that was popular in play-by-mail during the mid/late 90s).

Joshua Perina, principal at Geographical Media Inc was the guest spokesman of the event (and creator of the game). He revealed interesting numbers that I thought I'd share.

I believe that a number of developers have this understanding that building a "good game" is what's important, but business often gets in the way and demands a larger target audience (that's how we generally end up with AAA or Farmville type social games).

It turns out that Planets Nu is actually profitable despite having no more than 1500 Monthly Active users.

Its only monetization is an optional subscription of 3$, without which you're mildly restricted (except in higher level competition matches).

As it turns out, the game became quite popular & profitable despite a failed kickstarter attempt in 2012:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/172779664/vga-planets-nu-the-official-remake

That's refreshing news for an indie that believes in Gameplay first!

I'll just listen to feedback from my games, and end up making what I actually don't consider that fun, and yet others somehow do. Always happens.

It turns out that Planets Nu is actually profitable despite having no more than 1500 Monthly Active users.
Its only monetization is an optional subscription of 3$, without which you're mildly restricted (except in higher level competition matches).

Not clear on what planet a net revenue of $54,000/year counts as 'profitable'?

After taxes, you'd be lucky to afford one developer living in Kansas...

And yet that's about what we pay seniors arouns here.
Plus it is madw in Alberta.
And it is not a fulltime job: most indies divide and conquer. If several games overlap, then it starts to ramp up: having just one game is not enough (and does not take 40h/w especially post launch!)

Lastly some members pay for subscriptions for a year but are not active every month so I anticipate your numbers are conservative.

And yet that's about what we pay seniors arouns here.

Jesus. After taxes that's not much over $40k.

But my point was more that paying a minimal salary to a single developer/proprietor can hardly be described as 'profitable'. Profit tends to assume that the business is putting money in the bank, and can afford to grow.

Well the business has grown as a result, so I guess this counts? But it is true that my post inferred profit meant living off of making games, and not building a corporation.

Still 40k$ is 15% of a nice house around here. I don't make that much after taxes and I am a producer ;)

Such is the games industry I guess: lowers your standards and expectations :)

Still, I would be happily ever after if I did 54k$/y from indie games.
He *did* have a brand to work from, which probably helped a bit, but an obscure game from 20y ago hardly matters in most cases.

That $54k income is for 1 year after the primary development costs have presumably been paid off. So the real question is, how much actual effort and costs are there in maintaining the game as it stands today? If you had to spend 80 hours a year maintaining the game, that's what, $675 an hour?

I'll take that.

Although presumably it needs to cover dev costs for the next game...

Not clear on what planet a net revenue of $54,000/year counts as 'profitable'?

I didn't read the link - does someone spend all his time just working on that game every year? If so, then $54K isn't that great. But if it's just a part-time thing to maintain the game, so you're making that much year after year, then that doesn't sound so bad.

It is 4 years or so after release.
There are an unspecified amount of hours spent maintaining the game and adding new features but these appear to be minimal and sporadic.