The points JB made at around 7:30 are gold. If I had made a game like minecraft it would not had done well, I don't appreciate those kind of games. It's hard to find the balance between what will do well verses what you want to make.
I often see this conversation being had in very binary ways, but I know some studios have kept the lights on and the spark alive by using an alternating cadence. One for us, one for the fans. One for us, one for the fans. And it doesn't have to be that strict, or that ratio, but like... finding a compromise can be very nuanced and very difficult. Because you fundamentally walk this tightrope where passion games are why you do this job, but marketable games are how.
The best thing you can do to increase your chance of monetary success is to make a good game. If your game is thoughtfully designed and polished, it is already ahead of the vast majority of other games, and you have a fighting chance to be successful.
One problem I see with Jonathan Blow and Thomas Brush is that they present a lot of information without any basis for it. They don't present data, statistics or even articles that corroborate their positions. They usually stick to isolated examples, like in this case with Subnautica, generalize them, and ignore games that might contradict what was said. I consider this problematic, especially in the case of Thomas Brush, because he sells courses. In the end, they end up making speeches that talk a lot without saying anything substantial, common sense opinions presented as if they were something new.
"In the end, they end up making speeches that talk a lot without saying anything substantial, common sense opinions presented as if they were something new." I just don't understand what you are getting at but lemme tell you why i find Jon's Views to be important. HE criticizes software and that has led a good decent bunch of programmers to change their ways of make GOOD software which I prefer. I just prefer them. I dunno about you but him criticizing something is good thing for multitude of reasons- also iIts laughable when i see ppl having breakdowns over it lmao, its like why are you accepting shitty products and defending ppl that just want to leech of yr money As YOU say it he just says what is common sense and hammers it home and motivates ppl to make better software "they present a lot of information without any basis for it" I don't even know how you say that lol. He himself says its a isolated example that will work in this specific case and its like literally impossible to give a general solution cuz gamedev is not one-dimensional. And as you say it, he says common sense stuff a lot so you dont really need to give basis for what is common sense "common sense opinions presented as if they were something new." That's the thing common sense is not so common Also circumstances can be problematic as well but he just gives real advice - take it or leave it And Also They aren't presented as something new If you are someone that follows through all of what Jon says(cuz you have common sense) then you are a very small minority Oh and lemme givea basis on why i say common sense is not so common. See the whole West, What is happening is hilarious, yet it is happening on a large scale.
I get the sentiment. I also don't take a lot of their claims seriously because they don't show evidence. But I still get value from these. Now, I'm somewhat of a fan of JB, in spite of disagreeing with a lot of his views on anything not related to his craft. I'm a fan mostly because he cares deeply about quality and improving the world's state of software. Just like any source of information, he says a lot of things that either provide me no value or that I think are bad ideas. But that doesn't change that he does say things that inspire me or help me see context I otherwise wouldn't be exposed to. Not to mention, it is nice to get more reminders that I'm not alone to care about making the (software) world a better place.
@@Muskar2 The only "gamedev" who will talk based on a concrete database is the guy from howtomarketagame, because it's his job to gather this data. The others are talking about their own work and what they have learned in the field so far. There are always people who complain about gamedevs focusing too much on anecdotal evidence, but for those who don't work with research, that's all there is: your own experience and the stories/situations that came to you. It's not realistic to expect these guys to bring data, and it's not reasonable to simply accept everything they say, you need to do your own research based on the situation you're in. However, they are people with years of experience, several projects and who have been making a living from this for a long time. Even without data, valuable knowledge cannot be thrown away like that. I myself have managed to change my life based on some advice from these guys (make a prototype, create a pitch, etc, etc).
Yep, that's also a good analogy for "woke" ideology: All conjecture, no stats except examples which are isolated by comparison to the whole world of identity statistics, which are immediately supposed to be typical despite only representing a fraction of the whole.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "safe game" today. Thomas Brush says "I could make a game that I'm certain it's going to sell" but I think he's underestimating it. Even AAA is failing massively, flushing millions down the toilet by making these "safe games" everyone was sure was going to sell. Look at Sony and Ubisoft collecting Ls by taking that safe route, there truly is no safe route anymore.
I don't think a "safe game" means the same thing for AAA studios and indies. A small, creative game could be a safe bet for an indie if you finish it quickly, release it on as many platforms as possible (including consoles), and have a good plan to sell it in bundles over the long term if it flops. Thinking of your portfolio as a catalog that you build to serve an underserved audience, grow over time, and make money from gradually sounds like a safe bet to me- even if it fails, it will add up to your catalog.
@lh2pn sure but that's not what he said, he said "I'm certain it would sell, and I could make money off it even on a monthly basis". That's not "even if it fails it adds up to your catalog". Especially at their size where they pour a lot of money on their current project and having it bomb could be extremely detrimental to their studio, depending on how badly it bombed.
@@rafaelbordoni516 the example he was giving to receive money on a monthly basis as he works on the game is related to publishing deals, which pay you for every milestone completed, he mentioned it in this or another video. but now that the money dried up, he is trying to figure out what is this safe game when you're working as an independent, and he didn't seem to have an answer for this yet, apart from "make small games"
Well its your opinion that you think he;s underestimating but i dont think he is underestimating it... AAA is totally so big budget that only dedicated fans can't save it while indies have a budget that they can recover from a decent bunch of sales so objectively its easy to do that when you have a decent bunch of followers and when you already have the data on how many ppl are buying courses from you to support you Also he has reached a experience level where he could make a high quality game and that reduces the chance of failure to minimal
@@rafaelbordoni516 Hey to make sure we are on same page... his current game has a bigger budget and he is worrying about it SO for the next game he plans to go solo and on making it with patreon or Early access format to make sure its has a higher chance of success(as he can build an audience around it with his current following and he will attempt on getting more players also) He already has a big enough following so he thinks he can easily do it! I think he is right but even if he is overconfident it is much better than leaving it to luck(i dunno what this clip had but the conclusion of the whole podcast was that this was a better idea)
The points JB made at around 7:30 are gold. If I had made a game like minecraft it would not had done well, I don't appreciate those kind of games. It's hard to find the balance between what will do well verses what you want to make.
I often see this conversation being had in very binary ways, but I know some studios have kept the lights on and the spark alive by using an alternating cadence. One for us, one for the fans. One for us, one for the fans. And it doesn't have to be that strict, or that ratio, but like... finding a compromise can be very nuanced and very difficult. Because you fundamentally walk this tightrope where passion games are why you do this job, but marketable games are how.
The best thing you can do to increase your chance of monetary success is to make a good game. If your game is thoughtfully designed and polished, it is already ahead of the vast majority of other games, and you have a fighting chance to be successful.
How to go from 0.01% to 0.02% chance of success.
One problem I see with Jonathan Blow and Thomas Brush is that they present a lot of information without any basis for it. They don't present data, statistics or even articles that corroborate their positions. They usually stick to isolated examples, like in this case with Subnautica, generalize them, and ignore games that might contradict what was said. I consider this problematic, especially in the case of Thomas Brush, because he sells courses. In the end, they end up making speeches that talk a lot without saying anything substantial, common sense opinions presented as if they were something new.
"In the end, they end up making speeches that talk a lot without saying anything substantial, common sense opinions presented as if they were something new."
I just don't understand what you are getting at but lemme tell you why i find Jon's Views to be important.
HE criticizes software and that has led a good decent bunch of programmers to change their ways of make GOOD software which I prefer. I just prefer them. I dunno about you but him criticizing something is good thing for multitude of reasons- also iIts laughable when i see ppl having breakdowns over it lmao, its like why are you accepting shitty products and defending ppl that just want to leech of yr money
As YOU say it he just says what is common sense and hammers it home and motivates ppl to make better software
"they present a lot of information without any basis for it"
I don't even know how you say that lol. He himself says its a isolated example that will work in this specific case and its like literally impossible to give a general solution cuz gamedev is not one-dimensional. And as you say it, he says common sense stuff a lot so you dont really need to give basis for what is common sense
"common sense opinions presented as if they were something new."
That's the thing common sense is not so common
Also circumstances can be problematic as well but he just gives real advice - take it or leave it
And Also They aren't presented as something new
If you are someone that follows through all of what Jon says(cuz you have common sense) then you are a very small minority
Oh and lemme givea basis on why i say common sense is not so common. See the whole West, What is happening is hilarious, yet it is happening on a large scale.
I get the sentiment. I also don't take a lot of their claims seriously because they don't show evidence. But I still get value from these. Now, I'm somewhat of a fan of JB, in spite of disagreeing with a lot of his views on anything not related to his craft. I'm a fan mostly because he cares deeply about quality and improving the world's state of software. Just like any source of information, he says a lot of things that either provide me no value or that I think are bad ideas. But that doesn't change that he does say things that inspire me or help me see context I otherwise wouldn't be exposed to. Not to mention, it is nice to get more reminders that I'm not alone to care about making the (software) world a better place.
@@Muskar2 The only "gamedev" who will talk based on a concrete database is the guy from howtomarketagame, because it's his job to gather this data. The others are talking about their own work and what they have learned in the field so far. There are always people who complain about gamedevs focusing too much on anecdotal evidence, but for those who don't work with research, that's all there is: your own experience and the stories/situations that came to you. It's not realistic to expect these guys to bring data, and it's not reasonable to simply accept everything they say, you need to do your own research based on the situation you're in. However, they are people with years of experience, several projects and who have been making a living from this for a long time. Even without data, valuable knowledge cannot be thrown away like that. I myself have managed to change my life based on some advice from these guys (make a prototype, create a pitch, etc, etc).
Yep, that's also a good analogy for "woke" ideology: All conjecture, no stats except examples which are isolated by comparison to the whole world of identity statistics, which are immediately supposed to be typical despite only representing a fraction of the whole.
@@vapourmile hahahaha incredible how you took a bad take and made it even worse lol.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "safe game" today. Thomas Brush says "I could make a game that I'm certain it's going to sell" but I think he's underestimating it. Even AAA is failing massively, flushing millions down the toilet by making these "safe games" everyone was sure was going to sell. Look at Sony and Ubisoft collecting Ls by taking that safe route, there truly is no safe route anymore.
I don't think a "safe game" means the same thing for AAA studios and indies. A small, creative game could be a safe bet for an indie if you finish it quickly, release it on as many platforms as possible (including consoles), and have a good plan to sell it in bundles over the long term if it flops. Thinking of your portfolio as a catalog that you build to serve an underserved audience, grow over time, and make money from gradually sounds like a safe bet to me- even if it fails, it will add up to your catalog.
@lh2pn sure but that's not what he said, he said "I'm certain it would sell, and I could make money off it even on a monthly basis". That's not "even if it fails it adds up to your catalog". Especially at their size where they pour a lot of money on their current project and having it bomb could be extremely detrimental to their studio, depending on how badly it bombed.
@@rafaelbordoni516 the example he was giving to receive money on a monthly basis as he works on the game is related to publishing deals, which pay you for every milestone completed, he mentioned it in this or another video. but now that the money dried up, he is trying to figure out what is this safe game when you're working as an independent, and he didn't seem to have an answer for this yet, apart from "make small games"
Well its your opinion that you think he;s underestimating but i dont think he is underestimating it... AAA is totally so big budget that only dedicated fans can't save it while indies have a budget that they can recover from a decent bunch of sales so objectively its easy to do that when you have a decent bunch of followers and when you already have the data on how many ppl are buying courses from you to support you
Also he has reached a experience level where he could make a high quality game and that reduces the chance of failure to minimal
@@rafaelbordoni516 Hey to make sure we are on same page... his current game has a bigger budget and he is worrying about it
SO for the next game he plans to go solo and on making it with patreon or Early access format to make sure its has a higher chance of success(as he can build an audience around it with his current following and he will attempt on getting more players also)
He already has a big enough following so he thinks he can easily do it!
I think he is right but even if he is overconfident it is much better than leaving it to luck(i dunno what this clip had but the conclusion of the whole podcast was that this was a better idea)