Read the slides. Seems he applies a systematic approach to express that it takes determination to make a game succesful on steam. And research. Also didn't realize so few games where published a year.
Summary "...why some software projects find an audience and others don’t, with a focus on independent games."
Ok so let's focus on one small area where we've observed a vague semblance of a free market and then extrapolate that to the entire software industry and assume every other area works the same...
That's essentially the definition of survivorship bias.
It's quite ironic to choose the game industry as the proof for this particular conclusion when you consider that it's one of the very few areas of the software industry which doesn't lend itself to total monopolization. People like to play different games, they play for a while, then they want something new; it's difficult to monopolize the market with such novelty-seeking pattern of consumption. Unfortunately, most areas of software have very predictable consumption patterns (especially B2B) with ridiculous lock-in factors.
The only way some of the big software firms would lose their monopolies is if there is total societal collapse.
He is trying to motivate people and give them hope, and he is trying to direct people to a path that is more profitable than just making art and hoping for the best. I think those are good goals, and I think his advice is worthwhile.
It sounds like you disagree with his advice. How would you motivate people to persevere instead? What advice would you give people so that they make enough money to live on?
My advice is; if the system doesn't work for you, stop supporting it... Instead, try to reform it. If you know it's impossible for you to win the game, you need to focus all your energy on changing the game. It probably won't work out, but at least the probability is not 0.
If you're a frog in a boiling pot, the only inspirational thing you need to hear is "Get out of the f*** pot."
That is awfully empty of actual advice though. What does this even mean? Don’t make games for money? Don’t make games at all? Move to a cabin in the woods?
It means all of these things. The worst thing you can do for yourself (and your future happiness) is to support the system which works against you.
The only reason the system appears to work for some people is so that it can use these 'successful' people as a propaganda tool to fool the remaining 99.9999% of the population into supporting the system.
Its too bad some people just don't get it but I don't blame them. There's usually decades of indoctrination that need to be undone for critical thought in some areas.
Its actually refreshing that there are people out there that still tell it how it should be.
Thanks for saving me a read. I was skeptical from the title, and there's so much GPT-based articles out there now that its getting hard to tell ahead of time before time has been wasted.
This is only tangentially relevant: what should I search for to understand whether “everything” is survivorship bias and whether or not causality “actually exists”?
This was one of my favorite talks from Handmade Seattle last year. It’s so refreshing to see someone look critically at a software market and study why things succeed, instead of complaining about luck or an overcrowded market.
Organizer here! I was captivated by Mason's strategic approach to creating profitable indie games, so we aimed to distill insights, and trust they resonated with you if you're nervous about going independent (be it gamedev or anything else.)
It's worth mentioning Handmade Seattle has now merged into Handmade Cities [0] in an exciting expansion to the East Coast, specifically Boston. This new format will serve as a central hub.
10 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 31.3 ms ] threadSummary "...why some software projects find an audience and others don’t, with a focus on independent games."
Ok so let's focus on one small area where we've observed a vague semblance of a free market and then extrapolate that to the entire software industry and assume every other area works the same...
That's essentially the definition of survivorship bias.
It's quite ironic to choose the game industry as the proof for this particular conclusion when you consider that it's one of the very few areas of the software industry which doesn't lend itself to total monopolization. People like to play different games, they play for a while, then they want something new; it's difficult to monopolize the market with such novelty-seeking pattern of consumption. Unfortunately, most areas of software have very predictable consumption patterns (especially B2B) with ridiculous lock-in factors.
The only way some of the big software firms would lose their monopolies is if there is total societal collapse.
It sounds like you disagree with his advice. How would you motivate people to persevere instead? What advice would you give people so that they make enough money to live on?
If you're a frog in a boiling pot, the only inspirational thing you need to hear is "Get out of the f*** pot."
The only reason the system appears to work for some people is so that it can use these 'successful' people as a propaganda tool to fool the remaining 99.9999% of the population into supporting the system.
Its too bad some people just don't get it but I don't blame them. There's usually decades of indoctrination that need to be undone for critical thought in some areas.
Its actually refreshing that there are people out there that still tell it how it should be.
Thanks for saving me a read. I was skeptical from the title, and there's so much GPT-based articles out there now that its getting hard to tell ahead of time before time has been wasted.
It's worth mentioning Handmade Seattle has now merged into Handmade Cities [0] in an exciting expansion to the East Coast, specifically Boston. This new format will serve as a central hub.
[0] https://handmadecities.com