It is not possible to earn money on gamedev. Games are too cheap and too many game developers.

We need to raise game prices to about 100 dollars for indie game and 200 dollars for AAA game.

If one in thousand people are gamedevs and they release their game they developed alone,

then on average only 999 people will buy each game.

Ok but we can say that average person will buy 5 games in his lifetime.

Then game developer will get 5000 sales on his game. It's still very bad.

But game sales are not average. Popular games get millions of sales, while other games get 100-1000 sales.

If you sell a game for 20 dollars, you get net money of 10 dollars. 2000 copies of game multiplied by 10 dollars net = 20000 dollars. You could earn more money in warehouse.

Gamedev is a casino and lottery, few players get millions while most are losers.

Video games are too cheap and there are too many game developers.

You pay 20 dollars for indie game buy you get 20 hours of fun. That's 1 dollar per hour.

If you buy a cinema ticket, you pay 20 dollars and you get 2 hours of fun, 10 dollars per hour.

If you buy UFC, you pay 60 dollars and you get 3 hours of fun.

If you buy a prostitute, you pay 100 dollars and you get half hour. 200 dollars per hour.

Games are too cheap per hour of fun.

Games shouldn't be sold per game, but they should be rented per hour. For each hour you play, you should pay 5 dollars. 10 hours = 50 dollars. 100 hours = 500 dollars.

Also, in current market, there is no point in making long games. It's better to make short game and release DLC or sequels.

Look at Heroes of Might and Magic III. You can play thousands of hours in this game. People still play this game today. But the company that developed and published this game is bankrupt.

This one is just trolling. It's a roughly 200 billion dollar per year industry. You are unlikely to win the lottery, but it is possible to earn a living. Several hundred thousand people are doing exactly that.

frob said:
This one is just trolling.

Agreed, and that's why this was moved to the Lounge.

frob said:
It's a roughly 200 billion dollar per year industry. You are unlikely to win the lottery, but it is possible to earn a living.

Big corporations take 90% of that. Indie developers get nothing.

Also, it is unfair that players pay 1 dollar per hour of playing video game, but they pay 10 dollars per hour of playing video game, but they pay 10perhourofplayingvideogame,buttheypay10 per hour of cinema. The prices should be the same per hour.

Tom Sloper said:
Agreed, and that's why this was moved to the Lounge.

No, move it back where it was.

gamelordofdeath said:
The prices should be the same per hour.

Good luck on that.

gamelordofdeath said:
Big corporations take 90% of that. Indie developers get nothing.

10% of 200 billion dollars is 20 billion dollars. Your math is nonsense.

Yes, it is true that most hobby developers never bring a product to market. Most of those who do never bring in a significant revenue in sales. Their games also generally suck.

You might benefit from this article.​

I've worked with quite a few people who have built their own success stories. Not “win the lottery and rich forever” stories, but starting their own business, getting a few hundred thousand dollars from a set of products, and able to open all kinds of doors in their lives.

I also know several people who have become multi-millionaires. None of it was handed to them. None of it was easy. They had a high risk of failure. But in the end, through lots of iteration and trying again and again through failure after failure, they found something that worked.

You're showing you're in the first category in the article, “The Learner”, that has unrealistic expectations.

The vast, vast, vast majority of indie games that make little to no no money just aren't very good. Pulling from Chris Zukowski's article on the subject, here's a graph showing number of games released, divided into categories by the number of reviews.

The majority of new releases are in the 0-50 review range. Indie developers who create good games are in the 50-400 review range, where the number of games has reached a steady state since 2017. Breakout hits and AAA get >400 reviews. Indie developers who make good games largely compete in the 50 to 400 review range, not with all the 10 gazillion first time developers who make same-y, janky, uninteresting games in the slush pit. That's not to say they shouldn't be making games or releasing them, that's how we improve, but in the hard business world those first few games don't make money.

gamelordofdeath said:
No, move it back where it was.

I don't know why but this made me laugh.

Coil said:
I don't know why but this made me laugh.

It indeed does.

Where it was what, 20 years back? Practically no digital distribution systems, few and rather unused payment processors for online payments, etc.

I mean that would make gamedev definitely more accessible, with just fraction of size of current market. For some reason people think entering that business was easier back then - John Romero had created numerous games before Wolfenstein 3D, most of which was never heard of.

The state of game industry (as well as pretty much any industry, craft, or rather business in general) hasn't changed that much - if you make a good product, along with at least some advertisement and coverage - it will find its place on market. The advertisement and coverage is a lot easier today than what it was 20 or more years back.

As for making a good product it is different, maybe even technologically easier, today. Why? Because unless you have a reason (or just want to), you don't need to primarily focus on technology behind the software you write, and easily license already existing one (or find people to work with - due to how widespread net is these days, it is also much easier than before).

gamelordofdeath said:
prices should be the same per hour.

This logic defeats the entire point of “buying” something. The per hour logic is on the development cost, not the consumer cost. This logic would only work on “renting" a product.

once YOU BUY SOMETHING, it's yours and you can use it as long and how you see fit.

If we used your logic and applied it to anything we bought, it would destroy the concept of “ownership”. your USING SUBSCRIPTION LOGIC.

GeneralJist said:
once YOU BUY SOMETHING, it's yours and you can use it as long and how you see fit.

This is not entirely correct as per Steam and when you “buy” something there. It is definitely not a copy in your ownership.

Your taking this out of context and being contrary.

You could make the same claim about owning any digital content on amazon prime or any other digital streaming service.

some of us remember DVDs CDs Cossette Tapes and the like, where all content needed not only a physical playback device but a physical form factor of storage, WHERE WE COULD “BURN” and share content for free.

The OP is trying to make a point about the payment to fun ratio for games, AND HOW it doesn't line up with basic economics , he fails to understand that ownership and value in this day and age doesn't line up with his string of logic.

Pointing out that ownership of digital assets on steam is different from traditionally ownership of physical goods is a point that doesn't need to be made. And from my perspective adds nothing to the discussion.