Going Commercial

[admin]

[img src="../pictures/features/goingcomm-index.gif"]

Tell us what you think! You can read and leave comments about this [a href="../featuredetail.php?action=view&featureid=37&showpage=1"]feature[/a] below:

[Kejero]

Interesting stuff!

This part is a bit confusing though :

....at a price of

[Steve Ince]

I think this is way too simplistic.  Going down the traditional publisher/retail route, if you were able to end up with a fiver in your pocket for every game sold you'd be doing well, which would mean that 4,000 copies sold over two years would only give you 10,000 a year.  Before Tax.  And when you take into account development costs, website/internet costs, etc. you're not going to be left with very much at all.

If you can afford to complete the game yourself without external funding then you can probably reach the four thousand mark from download sales alone if you market well.  You wouldn't have to charge 40 pounds for the game, either, which would help sales.  If you only charged 15 pounds, because there is no middle man, you could probably clear up to 10 pounds a copy (maybe more).  And if you work hard and put out one game a year you could be on 40K a year.  

I know, this is even more simplistic, but there are fewer middle men, costs are more straightforward and more people all the time are proving that download sales are a way to make a living.

[Erwin_Br]

I see you point Steve, but I agree with the author that you need a publisher to gain some trust. This probably won't apply to veteran game designers who are already known, though

I also agree that the article is a bit on the optimistic side.

--Erwin

[tolworthy]

re: dollars and pounds

Sorry for the dollar / pound typo! And the exchange rate was a rough estimate based on the last ten years. But since games sell for less in the US, it didn't seem worth getting the precise figure. Ballpark figures are what we need.

re: optimistic figures

I agree that as a sole income these figures are very optimistic. But for a two-income household I think they are realistic. I should probably explain: this article was based on research for my own game and my own unique circumstances. I live in a remote, rural area where jobs are hard to find. We live here because my wife has a well paying job here, but my job is kind of rubbish. It seems realistic to me that I can make the same money by making games. It won't be enough to support a family, but it will be enough to replace my current job. That was why I had the part about a two income family. Two income families are quite common.

Even if the low figure was my only income, in Britain we have fairly generous government welfare. In Britain, and some European countries, you could survive as a starving artist in a tiny apartment, topped up by government benefits.  I don't know if the same is true for the USA. It's not a great life, but if games are your passion it's realistic. History if full of starving artists living their dream, and you, yes you, could be one of them! Though if you really want money, investment banking is probably a better career option.

Of course, the Holy Grail is that one of your games will take off. If you work full time on games, your skills will increase, and the odds start to move in your favor. You may never become a millionaire, but your chances of a comfortable life are better than just doing the lottery.  

[ad7venture]

I think this kind of thing is a bit unrealistic.  Don't quit your day job.  Everyone has the idea that they're going to make money off they're passion.  It just doesn't happen that often.  I think it's better to make money by studying the best way to make money, then use your free time for your passion.  Most people don't have money because they waste it, don't save it, and don't have a clue how to invest it. I can't remember who said it but it still holds truth "A fool and his money are soon parted."  I'm not trying to discourage entrepeneurs, just be realistic about your odds.  

[tolworthy]

I think this kind of thing is a bit unrealistic.  Don't quit your day job.  Everyone has the idea that they're going to make money off they're passion.  It just doesn't happen that often.  I think it's better to make money by studying the best way to make money, then use your free time for your passion.  Most people don't have money because they waste it, don't save it, and don't have a clue how to invest it. I can't remember who said it but it still holds truth "A fool and his money are soon parted."  I'm not trying to discourage entrepeneurs, just be realistic about your odds.

I agree. If money is your objective, games are a bad choice. And nobody should quit a full time job in the hope of fantasy riches. However, if you have a part time job that pays badly, and your game income already pays more, I think quitting the part time job to focus on the more lucrative hobby is a realistic idea.  

[ad7venture]

Yeah, that's a little different.  I think it's great if someone can make money that way.  A lot of people assume that a niche market like adventure games is a lost cause, but actually it's just the opposite.  People are more inclined to buy independent games in a niche market area because they have less high investment alternatives.  I'm glad it's not a requirement for me, though.  Judging by the number of posts on this site, it looks like a person wouldn't have too much competition anyway.

[Kickaha]

This forum could be busier true.

Is that if say you use AGS you'll frequent the AGS forums and the like?

Or everyone's so busy working in their attic they haven't got time to post?

I'm glad I don't make games to put bread on the table too.

[ad7venture]

Is that if say you use AGS you'll frequent the AGS forums and the like?

I guess so, although there used to be more people posting here so something is changing.  The one problem with using the Blender engine is that there are so few other people using the engine for an adventure.  There is at least one I know about.  I think interest is fading as time goes on, however.  I wonder if I should haunt the AGS site and pretend I'm using the engine.  There's a program around somewhere that let's you play AGS games on linux.  I should pick it up again.  

[Kickaha]

I wonder if everyone's gone off blogging - like Squinky.

I might hang around some of the indie development sites but they have a commercial focus (and I don't think anyone's going to pay to play my games!)

[ad7venture]

Blogs have killed the internet as far as I'm concerned.  The whole focus has turned inward.  It used to be people had forums for things they had in common, now it's just -- hey, look at me.  It's like people walking around talking on cell phones and barely having a clue what's going on around them.  There are really two types of social interaction --  cooperative accomplishment, which is good, and interaction for the sake of interaction, which is most of the time harmful.  Parties are an example of the latter.  No one learns anything or grows in any way, they just hang around each other and get high. I consider  myspace, instant messaging, and blogging to also be in the latter category.

[JohnPaters]

Nice philosophic mind!!! I like it.

[Erwin_Br]

I agree.

For example, I've read a few very interesting articles on some blogs I stumbled upon, and based on the amount of user comments on their site I think the authors could've reached far more people when they'd published it on a big community website.

Information is getting very fragmented and hard to find this way.

--Erwin

[ad7venture]

I should have used a lot more qualifiers, of course.  It's just that, taken together, they reflect an internet turning inward.  None of them are bad in themselves, and there's nothing wrong with having a blog, instant messaging, etc. It's only when those things become excessive and cooperative sites lose grounds that they're bad.  The real exception to that is the open source movement, which I consider one of the most benifical grass roots movements of the time.