2023-2024, its really different these days than its typically been, for game devs. It's never been easier to make a good game, with all the great tools available out there, most of them free; but its never been harder to get noticed now, because so many games are getting released, and the minimum bar of quality is higher than its ever been because of that. I love being a solo game dev, making my games (like RoadHouse Manager these days). But if I had to rely on making money from game dev, that'd be a stressful nightmare.
It's not so different, honestly. Games are an entertainment medium, and are now mainstream enough that they're competing with every other form of entertainment & leisure, not just among themselves. It is harder to advertise to ppl now, because magazines and shops have gone away, most don't read news sites & blogs, and folks skip or block ads. But indies generally never paid for ads anyway - they relied on either word-of-mouth or the exclusiveness of their platform to reduce competition. If folks genuinely put the effort in to leverage that now, they can still do okay, with a good game that suits the market tastes.
Good advice, but I think the comparison to "how things were" is a bit off. Feels like ppl mostly anchor their expectations against the days of Steam Greenlight and maybe XBox Live Arcade. But that was a weird anomaly - you always had to market your games 😅 Getting funded off a nice idea or pitch deck was only for ppl who had an established industry track record, with personal connections. Or publishers who just accepted everything, did nothing, and let the market sort it out. I think what we're seeing here is games maturing as a media industry. The real barrier to compete is still money & connections, but anyone can make low-budget games just like any other non-commercial artist. Only difference is that so many ppl in games don't quite understand where they fall on the tier list.
1:08 - You don't need to be "skilled enough" to run into road blocks. It doesn't take skill to write bad code or use things improperly - more like the opposite. It is the law of entropy in action. It is easier to destroy than create. It is easier to do things poorly than to do things well. With that said I agree with the sentiment that you should pick something and run with it. You should just expect to run into a mess that doesn't work well and to find your way through it. It is where the most growth happens. It is just sometimes getting through it could mean cutting losses and reengineering a different solution with different tooling now that you are a bit wiser with hindsight. You cannot win the race if you are constantly third and fourth-guessing each step you take. Commit and only pivot when things truly become unworkable.
he meant skilled enough to run into the road blocks of the engine unless youre trying to make a arpg mmo on like scratch then youll definately see the limits of said engine
I believe starting game development was my biggest mistake. I began two years ago, and now I can't stop thinking about it. I struggle to sleep well, and when I do sleep, I even dream about game development and programming, but mostly about programming. I'm constantly tired, but working on my game after my day job also energizes me... so tomorrow's version of me at work might not be very tired :/
Godot is probably the best for a solo. The Node structure is just so intuitive, it is pretty easy to focus on just code or design, etc; like actual implementation instead of organizing files all day. I've never touched Unity but I've been using Unreal for yrs and one of the big three(ue5, unity, game maker) should definitely be the goal! Saying it's objectively the worse option though is a bit much. To clarify, I understand this is your opinion at the end of the day, but do you genuinely think it's that bad? like I said in my opinion the unique systems in place just mean you have to learn less to make something fun, which is excellent for sustaining motivation(handling burnout) then when you need to go beyond fun to commercial success, you can potential do that, like every other engine. So although the other engines are better, most people can still create their "dream game" while having a much easier time to at least just get over the initial friction of starting, which is objectively the most important thing, when doing anything creative.
I agree don't worry about the engine I like learning the code and I can only keep my attention if I'm really working on the game I want I switched to unreal from unity and yeah learning a new engine is alittle overwhelming and I'm still in thebeginning got character and some skills I put most of my time in into optimizing coolest thing I've done was render 2.5 million meshes of my grass model at 60fps with wind and no LODs or culling on my laptop..
Dont set yourself up to fail. Set yourself up for as much success as you are capable of (which is more than you think if you really try). Don't get into game dev to begin with if you have no grasp on game design principles, as you can always learn to navigate and operate engines and to program, but you cannot get back those countless hours spent learning them if you dont even have good design ideas. Learn design before touching anything else, then brainstorm (and i mean filter out the rubbish until you have sone really special ideas), and only once you are confident should you start you first prototype. PS: if you really want to make proper money from game dev, only start your first prototype once you have an idea that is really unique and will grab a huge amount of attention.
Make ur own game engine until you know what you are doing. And by engine just get simple thingy GUI library? I am gonna make super simple pygame thing going, but not pygame. IDK lol. I am gonna start with much simpler things. With as few libs as possible.
well...dunno about the "go for any engine", cuz the way I see it with regards of priority is as follows: 1.) FPS: as high as can be 2.) Quality: going *towards* photorealism (assuming non-pixel-art), ideally ray traced instead of rasterized ...and then the rest. (and the "rest" doesn't mean "gameplay goodness" comes later, that is basically always at the top of my list, so it's "implied" xD) And bcs of that, some engines don't quite seem to either utilise GFX APIs well, or it's not quite as "easy" for devs to use it well, as to not fail so hard like Tarkov regarding the framerate. And yeah, as a disclaimer, I am a somewhat academically-affine CS engineer, so...maybe it's easier for me to look at all those "higher level" things, when I already got quite a bit of tech-knowledge. I am one of those "unfortunate" ones that simply CANNOT do art...as in I even fail making a stickman sexy... -_- So that angle is a bit...ugh
Regarding publishers - maybe i'm just clueless but why do they exist/why are they needed? I understand why they USED to be needed, they controlled industry that made the physical game discs, but in 2024 why would anybody need a publisher? Every Steam game ever just has the developer also listed as their own publisher anyway. Edit: talking for the indie space, obviously major publishers like Sony would handle all the marketing needs for the games their studios develop
apparently they have industry connections they can use to give your game more visibility. or they are better at marketing than you are. or they have a great brand recognition. but sometimes they arent that good and you pay them a hefty percentage for almost nothing. the business side of gamedev is very predatory-like.
Publishers only really provide three things for Indie devs: 1. Marketing for the game before/at release (beware of publishers who don't do this, or block the game's release). 2. Funding towards dev/marketing costs. 3. Porting to consoles, and general game play testing.
Publishers in games are similar to books, music (record labels), and TV & movie studios. Main benefit is money - they choose projects that could be profitable, and invest money upfront, in exchange for equity (partial ownership) and revenue (money that's made). Game devs are like authors or musicians - they may have skills, but not enough money to keep going while making their art. Add'l benefits include expertise and connections. This is really important, since you can be good at singing, but still need recording studios, backing musicians, concert venues, and marketing to make money from singing. Doesn't matter if your album is physical or digital, it still needs those things. Same with games - we need access to platform & porting support, access to streamers & games press, localization support plus gov't certification, etc. You or I can't just pick up the phone and get Sony or Geoff Keighley on the phone, and big streamers don't cover random indie games for free generally. Self-publishing is definitely more feasible now than it used to be. You can do okay with games below a certain size & budget on your own, if you have enough cash from job or savings. But decent publishers can massively expand what you're capable of doing, and how far a good game can reach. That is absolutely still the case.
They can give you money up front. An advance is nice if you want to develop the game full time. They also help with marketing and as the other comment said a lot of other things. Localization and porting are the two main reasons I'd consider a publisher. However what I'd really consider is the advance and how much of the revenue they ask for. If they're only giving you 20k advance and want 30% I'd say no. Idk what the actual contracts look like but if it's anything like book publishing I wouldn't even bother.
@D.KRyley-mq1do Book publishing is a different beast these days. They used to be a lot more like game pubs or old-school record labels - identifying new talent, working closely with you through writing & revising your manuscript, introducing your work at book fairs and in review circles, even getting you spots at readings, panels, and in anthologies with major authors in your genre for more visibility. And of course connecting you with top illustrators, back when covers & interior illustrations were works of art in and of themselves. In the US & UK sci-fi and fantasy world, until maybe 20-odd years ago, publishers were nearly as responsible for the success of the finished work as the actual author. Consolidation and corporate culture have mostly destroyed that for all but the absolute top of the profession, the household names who mostly don't need the help anymore.
2023-2024, its really different these days than its typically been, for game devs. It's never been easier to make a good game, with all the great tools available out there, most of them free; but its never been harder to get noticed now, because so many games are getting released, and the minimum bar of quality is higher than its ever been because of that.
I love being a solo game dev, making my games (like RoadHouse Manager these days). But if I had to rely on making money from game dev, that'd be a stressful nightmare.
It's not so different, honestly. Games are an entertainment medium, and are now mainstream enough that they're competing with every other form of entertainment & leisure, not just among themselves. It is harder to advertise to ppl now, because magazines and shops have gone away, most don't read news sites & blogs, and folks skip or block ads.
But indies generally never paid for ads anyway - they relied on either word-of-mouth or the exclusiveness of their platform to reduce competition. If folks genuinely put the effort in to leverage that now, they can still do okay, with a good game that suits the market tastes.
Good advice, but I think the comparison to "how things were" is a bit off. Feels like ppl mostly anchor their expectations against the days of Steam Greenlight and maybe XBox Live Arcade. But that was a weird anomaly - you always had to market your games 😅 Getting funded off a nice idea or pitch deck was only for ppl who had an established industry track record, with personal connections. Or publishers who just accepted everything, did nothing, and let the market sort it out.
I think what we're seeing here is games maturing as a media industry. The real barrier to compete is still money & connections, but anyone can make low-budget games just like any other non-commercial artist. Only difference is that so many ppl in games don't quite understand where they fall on the tier list.
1:08 - You don't need to be "skilled enough" to run into road blocks. It doesn't take skill to write bad code or use things improperly - more like the opposite. It is the law of entropy in action. It is easier to destroy than create. It is easier to do things poorly than to do things well.
With that said I agree with the sentiment that you should pick something and run with it. You should just expect to run into a mess that doesn't work well and to find your way through it. It is where the most growth happens. It is just sometimes getting through it could mean cutting losses and reengineering a different solution with different tooling now that you are a bit wiser with hindsight. You cannot win the race if you are constantly third and fourth-guessing each step you take. Commit and only pivot when things truly become unworkable.
he meant skilled enough to run into the road blocks of the engine
unless youre trying to make a arpg mmo on like scratch then youll definately see the limits of said engine
I believe starting game development was my biggest mistake. I began two years ago, and now I can't stop thinking about it. I struggle to sleep well, and when I do sleep, I even dream about game development and programming, but mostly about programming. I'm constantly tired, but working on my game after my day job also energizes me... so tomorrow's version of me at work might not be very tired :/
But when do I get rich quick? I want my first game to be Hollow Knight.
Rob a bank or get into politics.
@@mortadelaok Do a simulator with that: Candaitate Simulator a combination of 4x Hearts Of Iron + Payday game lol
You need your first game to be world of warcraft
all the good points in the video aside,
there is a game about Bobr
Really nice advice, most of these things are easily overlooked
Godot is probably the best for a solo. The Node structure is just so intuitive, it is pretty easy to focus on just code or design, etc; like actual implementation instead of organizing files all day. I've never touched Unity but I've been using Unreal for yrs and one of the big three(ue5, unity, game maker) should definitely be the goal! Saying it's objectively the worse option though is a bit much.
To clarify, I understand this is your opinion at the end of the day, but do you genuinely think it's that bad? like I said in my opinion the unique systems in place just mean you have to learn less to make something fun, which is excellent for sustaining motivation(handling burnout) then when you need to go beyond fun to commercial success, you can potential do that, like every other engine.
So although the other engines are better, most people can still create their "dream game" while having a much easier time to at least just get over the initial friction of starting, which is objectively the most important thing, when doing anything creative.
Its engagement bait.
Using godot is an idiotic decision. Its followers use it because it's FOSS, not because it's good (it isn't good).
It's not that deep. -M
It's a running joke here, don't sweat it
Godot is good for 2d platforms, but they don't sell on steam
I agree don't worry about the engine I like learning the code and I can only keep my attention if I'm really working on the game I want I switched to unreal from unity and yeah learning a new engine is alittle overwhelming and I'm still in thebeginning got character and some skills I put most of my time in into optimizing coolest thing I've done was render 2.5 million meshes of my grass model at 60fps with wind and no LODs or culling on my laptop..
Some brutal truths there lol.
I think they are important ones to understand though.
Dont set yourself up to fail. Set yourself up for as much success as you are capable of (which is more than you think if you really try).
Don't get into game dev to begin with if you have no grasp on game design principles, as you can always learn to navigate and operate engines and to program, but you cannot get back those countless hours spent learning them if you dont even have good design ideas. Learn design before touching anything else, then brainstorm (and i mean filter out the rubbish until you have sone really special ideas), and only once you are confident should you start you first prototype.
PS: if you really want to make proper money from game dev, only start your first prototype once you have an idea that is really unique and will grab a huge amount of attention.
For marketing best, don't rely on anything other than hire Google to use their puppets like Markiplier , like how fidget spinners got popular.
Think it's the advice to make even more noise and make the market worse. Lets all bring out crappy games
hey whats that game at 9.04?
Murky Divers -M
1:15 damn ok i see how it is 😂
Make ur own game engine until you know what you are doing. And by engine just get simple thingy GUI library? I am gonna make super simple pygame thing going, but not pygame. IDK lol. I am gonna start with much simpler things. With as few libs as possible.
Honestly, the hate performance part of Unreal Engine is kinda true, but the love loading screens idk what you meant, cuz I have no loading screens?
well...dunno about the "go for any engine", cuz the way I see it with regards of priority is as follows:
1.) FPS: as high as can be
2.) Quality: going *towards* photorealism (assuming non-pixel-art), ideally ray traced instead of rasterized
...and then the rest. (and the "rest" doesn't mean "gameplay goodness" comes later, that is basically always at the top of my list, so it's "implied" xD)
And bcs of that, some engines don't quite seem to either utilise GFX APIs well, or it's not quite as "easy" for devs to use it well, as to not fail so hard like Tarkov regarding the framerate.
And yeah, as a disclaimer, I am a somewhat academically-affine CS engineer, so...maybe it's easier for me to look at all those "higher level" things, when I already got quite a bit of tech-knowledge.
I am one of those "unfortunate" ones that simply CANNOT do art...as in I even fail making a stickman sexy... -_- So that angle is a bit...ugh
I love unreal
But I hate unreal lmao
1:15 "do you wannd use godot? which is objectively the wrong choice" EXCUSE ME
Don't take everything so serious my dude... -M
Regarding publishers - maybe i'm just clueless but why do they exist/why are they needed? I understand why they USED to be needed, they controlled industry that made the physical game discs, but in 2024 why would anybody need a publisher? Every Steam game ever just has the developer also listed as their own publisher anyway. Edit: talking for the indie space, obviously major publishers like Sony would handle all the marketing needs for the games their studios develop
apparently they have industry connections they can use to give your game more visibility. or they are better at marketing than you are. or they have a great brand recognition.
but sometimes they arent that good and you pay them a hefty percentage for almost nothing. the business side of gamedev is very predatory-like.
Publishers only really provide three things for Indie devs:
1. Marketing for the game before/at release (beware of publishers who don't do this, or block the game's release).
2. Funding towards dev/marketing costs.
3. Porting to consoles, and general game play testing.
Publishers in games are similar to books, music (record labels), and TV & movie studios. Main benefit is money - they choose projects that could be profitable, and invest money upfront, in exchange for equity (partial ownership) and revenue (money that's made). Game devs are like authors or musicians - they may have skills, but not enough money to keep going while making their art.
Add'l benefits include expertise and connections. This is really important, since you can be good at singing, but still need recording studios, backing musicians, concert venues, and marketing to make money from singing. Doesn't matter if your album is physical or digital, it still needs those things.
Same with games - we need access to platform & porting support, access to streamers & games press, localization support plus gov't certification, etc. You or I can't just pick up the phone and get Sony or Geoff Keighley on the phone, and big streamers don't cover random indie games for free generally.
Self-publishing is definitely more feasible now than it used to be. You can do okay with games below a certain size & budget on your own, if you have enough cash from job or savings. But decent publishers can massively expand what you're capable of doing, and how far a good game can reach. That is absolutely still the case.
They can give you money up front. An advance is nice if you want to develop the game full time.
They also help with marketing and as the other comment said a lot of other things. Localization and porting are the two main reasons I'd consider a publisher.
However what I'd really consider is the advance and how much of the revenue they ask for. If they're only giving you 20k advance and want 30% I'd say no. Idk what the actual contracts look like but if it's anything like book publishing I wouldn't even bother.
@D.KRyley-mq1do Book publishing is a different beast these days. They used to be a lot more like game pubs or old-school record labels - identifying new talent, working closely with you through writing & revising your manuscript, introducing your work at book fairs and in review circles, even getting you spots at readings, panels, and in anthologies with major authors in your genre for more visibility. And of course connecting you with top illustrators, back when covers & interior illustrations were works of art in and of themselves.
In the US & UK sci-fi and fantasy world, until maybe 20-odd years ago, publishers were nearly as responsible for the success of the finished work as the actual author. Consolidation and corporate culture have mostly destroyed that for all but the absolute top of the profession, the household names who mostly don't need the help anymore.