"Good isn't good enough"

It doesn't really matter what personal successes can be registered from a developer viewpoint, such as finishing the game, getting it published, or whatever... has nothing to do with how customers view things. All the customer thinks about is 'does it look like something I'd like' 'does it wow me' 'has it got me excited' ... couldn't care less if it took 5 years or 5 days, couldn't care less if they spent 1 million making it or 5 bucks, couldn't care less how many people it took or how long or how hard it was or what it took to make it work or how many bugs had to be fixed or how much sacrifice was required. All they care about is the end result, in a box, in isolation, all by itself, with no-one else around. It's kind of like creating a child or letting your chick out of the nest for the first time, fending for themselves... the game has to fend for itself out in the wild with no-one to protect or guide it.

 

Yes and there are probably a couple more of those kind of gamers out there than people realize. One or two at least.

I haven't even bought it yet because it was Steam only and I just got back on Steam a few months ago. I will check it out this weekend. Looks like a great game. The appeal for games like this comes down to the techniques and game-play mechanics. Having it presented in a near perfect NES retro style is icing on the cake.

 

One of the other issues I think is that developers develop in isolation and think well of their own game and then release it, but they're releasing it into a very large pool of existing games, established genres, expected modes of interaction, competitive pricing, conventions, trends, and all the rest of it.. it has to then compete with all of that tidal wave of everyone else's stuff, and that's a whole different context. Then it just may not stand out at all and simply get lost in the shuffle. I guess as a developer you have to think not just about whether your game seems to have merit on its own, but how the heck is it going to differentiate itself in the marketplace, how is it going to truly capture attention among 100 very similar equally-as-polished games that 100 other developers spent 3 years working on. And the unfortunate thing there is, in order to vie for attention in such a crowd you have to shout louder, and then before long everyone is shouting louder, so you have to shout even louder, and it's basically still another race to the bottom because we only have so much shout in us. We can't all fit on one bus.

 

One of the things that is often talked about with Shovel Knight too is that, while it's made with a retro aesthetic in general, the game itself is remarkably well balanced. The game does its darndest to be fair to the player; when a new mechanic is introduced, it's introduced in a safe way (or, a "training wheels" challenge where the penalty for failure is having to try again.) Then, you have to use it in a more dangerous situation. Then, that more dangerous situation has some mutation applied to it - you might encounter traps or monsters you've encountered before in addition to the mechanic.

The end result is that, while the game is challenging, it's not overwhelmingly so. If you die, it's usually due to a failure of execution that can be amended. Checkpoints are well-placed to make stages challenging, but not impossibly so (unless you break them. You can do that.)

 

@Asvarduil that sounds awesome. The best games are made that way. You don't need tutorials / continual hint popups when you design the levels well. There were a lot of bad NES games. Of course there are a lot of bad modern games unless they are the ones basically cloning each other sticking to a certain formula. The ones we (retro gamers) mainly play are the ones that were designed well. Oh we still like most of the others but mainly from the perspective of what the game could have been. There were many ideas that were executed poorly. There were just plain ole bad ideas too. So I might play some flawed games trying to get my skill to the point where I can overcome the flaws of the games. Maybe it is just a different mindset.

 

A good rundown on the level design.

 

The good part is very much up for debate though. I honestly didn't like the game at all. It's good, but it's not good enough for enough people. It's niche. Not a crime but one does need to adjust one's expectations.

You can make the world's best cube and everyone will agree its nice enough, but it's still a cube. And most people do not want to buy that cube.

As I said earlier, it's about talent and hard work, but people still have to want the result of it. Sometimes a game is just 'born in the wrong year'.

 

This I think is the most important thing to realize. It's something that,for whatever reason, millions of Indies do not seem to understand.

I read another postmortem this morning that a dev put on their Facebook page. They basically rehashed the same things as the game here. They said "just good" wasn't enough. And they mentioned how Flappy Bird had made them and many other people think "wow I can do this too!". That game has probably brought more people into game dev chasing the pot of gold than any other.

Anyway I thought it was interesting that even in his postmortem there was no realization that not everybody can make money from this stuff. Instead he just focused on the game was not good enough. There are a lot of great games out there that nobody or very few people are playing.

 

But who did they make the game for. The casual art style didnt match the hardcore gameplay, it didnt look like it belonged on steam but rather the app store (gating off progress like in a mobile game). The market is over-saturated with platformers -- over 750. The general public is pretty much fatigued by the indie platformer genre and has been for a while now (see any of the platformer videos on youtube). The price point was too high at $10 to interest the already fatigued general public. The unique mechanic didnt seem to have that much depth to it.

Maybe if the dev had hurried up with the game and brought it out 2 years earlier

 

Game doesn't look very interesting to me except as a free game, certainly not something I would pay for. I downloaded better shareware than that back in the day with more engaging story/players.

I agree with everyone else who says they are not willing to just admit it is an average game although good for a first attempt. Discoverability is not their problem, the game is the problem.

I could see it doing better on something like nintendo wii, I think for mobile the fine grained control scheme would not work with that level of difficulty. It sort of has that ninetendo ish look to it so wouldn't be as out of place there.

 

Dude. You just made my day. If you're ever in Austin, you're getting a beer on me. A good one. If you don't drink beer, it'll be something else that's legal. Point is, I owe you for that.

While it's confiriming what I and some others have said, I think there's a good point in this.

Just because a game idea is novel - or, even semi-novel - it doesn't mean the game itself is a good idea or suitable to the target audience. My favorite example is a wonderful little game called Half-Minute Hero for PSP. It was shown on the inaugural RPG Limit Break speedrun extravaganza.

Now, I own this game on Steam. It's a great game. It's so enjoyable, it's ridiculous. The humor is great. The modes beyond Hero 30, 300, and 3 are excellent - my favorite is Knight 30. It's innovative, it's something that by all rights "should've" done well.

It didn't, and I think the reason why is simple: It's based around the timer mechanic, but the flagship game mode is RPG. I think that sunk that game, because people typically don't go to RPGs for time attacks (outside of speedrunning, of course. I've taken to speedrunning Dragon Warrior I, because I'm a nut.) It's something that people didn't want, because that primary mechanic - Beating a Timer - operates at odds with the rest of the game. As a result, it diminished the game, and while it genuinely is fun, a lot of RPG fans passed on it. The fact that the other modes aren't RPGs probably didn't help.

 

Check out the rest of his levelhead videos, too. They are a lot of "World 1-1" style level deconstructions, and he just started a patreon so he might get around to doing more of them. I'm managing to run into a bunch of youtubers that are in that vein of analysis.

 

Getting back to the whole realistic expectations thing.

Jayenki (Twitter name) of AGameAWeek tweeted (I hate that... are we birds?) earlier today "WOW! Total sales over 140 YEAY" for his latest game. This is for an iPhone game priced at 99 cents.

The point here is this is a person who has made over 300 hundred games and is excited to see sales break 140. That is a very healthy and realistic expectation. The game has also been out 13 weeks which is about 10 weeks longer than when the creator of the Airscape game declared that game "failed". Make sure you got that. He has made over 300 games and is happy to see the latest game reach over 140 sales.

Quick development & realistic expectations =
Long drawn out development & (possibly consequent) unrealistic expectations =

 

It's a platformer that looks like it was made without unifying the theme.

1. Main character is a squid but they give it a Hello Kitty art style. Or maybe it's an octopus. Either way they should have made the main character more traditionally cartoon squid or octopus style and not so simplified that it looks like they modded an existing character from an Asset Store package in a way to be original but avoid anymore work that that.

2. It's a squid/octopus so the character should be in a sea environment with cute or cute 'scary' cartoony sea creatures. When it does come to the surface it should only be on tropical palm beach islands or naval style ships. I know that isn't original and it's stereotypical but sometimes stereotypes are based on documented past and it's hinders to ignore that.

3. The way the character goes from platform section to platform section is very displeasing and looks lazy. It is disorienting and has no connection to a reasonable way to navigate. Also the foreground and background elements are often clashing and the pseudo-iris & pupils in the sky background clash with the mood established by the character game art. It looks lazy.

Whether they bought a lot of advertising or they did a lot of talking to Game Review sites I'd consider 150 sales for this game a failure. If they got 150 sales with no advertising or family and friends (OK, some of them but it's not likely all or most of your family & friends are gamers) purchasing I'd be trying to find out if they actually play the game and what they like about it. I'd consider the game a success then. I guess that's where Unity Analytics & similar packages come to mind. Most games are bought and downloaded and not played.

So success or failure for any of us in game creation comes down to earnings or number of downloads return on advertising spend and like zombiegorilla said even the big studios back away from high advertising spend on a game that looks like a turkey. I'd add to that whether the game is actually played as critical but I've yet to include Unity Analytics to measure such expectations in something I've made but of course that's your primary goal: players playing your game, not total downloads or monetary returns on advertising spend.

 

Funny how people see flappy bird, a game which `looks easy but is actually hard`, and takes it to mean `game development is easy` (when it is actually hard). That just means they fell for the game's deception.

 

300 games.... well that's probably like 10 games a year for 30 years, at least... 1 month per game... can we expect lots of sales for only a few weeks of work?

As to platform games, yes, done to the death, saturated, BUT there is still innovation.... max and the magic marker, rayman legends, ori and the blind forest, etc... it's just that people aren't innovating enough.

 

Sorry, but I don't get this? Why should it of done well? Taking off the dev hat for a moment, if I saw that I'd just say looks like another gamemaker game skip it and look at something like Grandia 2 as it's cheap anyway. I've 10+ RPG's on my mobile with sweet mechanics and awesome plot.

With the amount of options out there, I'd never even get to the mechanics. Plus it doesn't really look anything special from having a quick check up on.. The only reason I'm looking at it is you're posting about it ..

If I felt nostalgic, I'd play the massive stack of awesome retro games I have like Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger etc.

@GarBenjamin

How do you know long drawn out development and unrealistic expectations = ? If I expected to shift 200,000 units I'd do whatever is necessary to make that a reality.

How many long drawn out releases have you made and released to come to this expert conclusion?

 

I think like the site name says this person creates one game every week. Used to anyway. I think they made a lot of games before trying to make money. Over 300 total games made. 39 released on Android. 22 on iPhone So about what maybe 250 games create just for fun and experience to develop and hone game design & dev skills.

 

I have 3 GB of ROMs someone gave me from Denmark when I lived in Switzerland to play on Android MAIM if I feel nostalgic. I probably need to go threw & pare them down to about 100 MB though or look for a remake of Microsoft Arcade. I'm not sure why game making is so big in Denmark. A bit like Finland and cellphones.

 

I have no long drawn out games. I have certainly worked on long drawn out projects at work.

The answer to your question is... common sense. If someone spends 3 years working on a game it is quite likely their expectations for it will be much higher than if they had spent say 3 weeks. I wasn't talking about long time frames equals disappointment in general. I am saying the odds are high that because they spent 3 years (and made a point to mention they had spent that long) that is quite likely why they expected more success upon release.

 

If you want this to become an actual career, not playing around as a novice. At some point you have to start caring about pensions, family, car, house and mortgage etc. You have two choices, because 140 sales @ 99c - taxes isn't going to get you very far.

You can either get another job to support your hobby, then releasing doesn't become an issue. But time and life does, the chances of you rising above the millions of other dev's doing the same thing and releasing small rinse and repeat games like you're saying which will just drown into the rest is infinitesimal.

Or you can go for the other approach, go for it like a professional and take the necessary risks to stand out of the crowd. It costs time and money, plus of course it still has the chance to fall flat on it's face. You have to have high expectations because the alternative is you can't do this as a profession.

End of the day this conversations mute it really doesn't matter what game you make, you have to carefully select your market. Have a water tight design and know how to put together a decent product which can stand out, on top of that have the finances to push it for a return. Which is difficult, time consuming and more than anyone looking to make this a career could ever do in 3 weeks or even 3 months.

Hell don't you believe I wish I could? I'd jump for joy and be all over if it was the case.!

 

Where risk equates to money spend or being socially inappropriate in game content then I'd suggest working what you like as a 9 to 5 job and moonlighting with your games and apps. Otherwise, go for it.

 

Not sure I follow you there?

 

This is exactly right. Success (or failure) is simply an evaluation of whether or not the developer's goals were met. In this case, the developer called it a failure because it did not meet the developer's sales goals.

 

When people speak of risk in a business context they mean how much money you spend although the first risk assessment should always be for customer safety and then customer enjoyment. If they speak of risk in an entertainment context they mean having in the entertainment some behavior that is socially wrong such as war or crime. So that's what they are calling risks. However, if you have no big sums of money to spend on game development and promotion you can't risk it. That leaves the only risk left to take is including socially unacceptable content in your games and with that risk model squatted on for generations now and today controlled by big business interests one best find another way to succeed by taking a bigger risk and leaving the violence and socially shocking behind. It's a real challenge and I'm still stumped at times when faced with the task of making a game

 

If it's any inspiration, look at a game called Offworld Trading Company. It's an RTS...wait for it...without wars or armies. I think the games market is beginning to shift away from using violence as the enabler of gameplay. Heck, there's the Kim Kardashian game, which hate it or not, is functionally identical to an RPG, yet is about getting and staying famous.

 

What if it really is this way?

What I mean by that is I'd see it very different for you to make a game in 3 months compared to the majority of people simply because you have already put in a ton of time and effort and gained experience that most of the people currently publishing games won't begin to reach until at least several years down the road.

With that in mind, it may be quite possible and realistic for you to make a game within 3 months that is the equivalent of what someone starting from scratch may take 3 years to do. They have a lot to learn. About game design in general. Programming. Graphics. All things you already are experienced in.

You might throw together a game in 3 months put it up on Steam and be Greenlit in a week and go on to make a ton of sales. I get it would not be the kind of game you'd want to make. It would need to be a very focused segment of it. Still...

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I get you, I think today most "risk" as in social acceptance if pretty high due to all that has proceeded before it as long as you receive the correct rating and assessments. I agree, as much as publicity is good an' all I'd tend to shy away from pushing the boat out too far just for the sake of it.

Not worth the risk of it going sour.. I've found some content in AAA push things a bit too far, but that's my personal preference and something I'm not interested in copying.

 

Oh, I don't search for inspiration in the game stores anymore because having to wade through all the violent themes. It's not a productive use of time. I know those non-violent games are out there although I've never heard of Offworld Trading Company. And the only thing I know about Kim Kardashian is people like to make fun of her, and recently that she's somehow related to Bruce Jenner. Please don't tell me more.

My statement was in reference to how much violence and inferred violence is referenced in the video game industry and even in the naming of game resources. Violence is really not a common theme in the board games of my childhood before video games. If you're not an animator it makes it difficult to buy animations that aren't stylized violence. I bought Skele (ever read the example dialogue in Skele? Makes me laugh.) though so I'll see where I can get with that plus there are some non-violent animations I have bought. It's really more a problem of trying to be somewhat original and trying not to compete with the big business squatting on socially inappropriate themes.

 

I know artists who strongly dislike creating art for violent games. I guess most would take any paid work they can get, but if you ask them, they would prefer something else. Having grown up on RPGs and shooters it can be a pain to develop something nonviolent yet interesting enough. Primal urge to destroy seems to be always in fashion for gamers.

 

Thing is I always make some assumptions, whether right or wrong. I assume if you are entering in a professional capacity you already have the skill to make a game, which for all the bad press indie's have gotten as of late. There are many, many skilled developers out there. Beginners and people cashing in aren't my competition or my concern, it's true I could probably make a decent(ish) game in three months..

In fact the original plan was for a six month Diablo style hack n' slash what put me off the idea was just the sheer amount of people who are doing it. Sure I may have a lot more experience and fiscal backing than many of them, but the market is so big (as it's a simpler) game I wasn't confident it'd be enough. Even with Promo the concept wasn't different enough to make it a truly worthy venture.

So I set my sights higher, there really doesn't seem to be much in the way of Mass Effect or Fallout 3 in the Indie segment for many reasons even on a much smaller scale. So the plan was to use them as a rough guideline for an original concept and trilogy..

Which I am fully aware it could drop like a stone, in fact for reputation sake I'm banking on it and planning to work my way up. I do wonder if it was a mistake not to polish the Hack n' Slash, see what happened?

I may overthink things and probably a little prone to risk aversion. But ultimately I get your point, what an experienced dev can do in three months may be the equivalent to a beginner going at it for 2 - 3 years. It might be good and might be a success, but I still believe that there's a lot of skilled people out there so the chances of return are sill stacked against you in simpler segments.

 

The problem as many put it is simply the change from the "glory" days of Steam to the current market condition.

In the old days (Circa 2012) a FAILURE game on Steam would net the developer 30k. Seriously, the WORST selling games would still make 30k. This was because the supply was limited by Valve's ability to review products and put them live (They curated the content).

The result was higher quality games (on average) on Steam and a huge willingness for players to try new things as a result.

Today there are approximately 10-15 launches on Steam per day. Approximately 2 of them (average) make it to the top new releases list, meaning about 80% of the launches on Steam make basically zero. The remaining 20% skew wildly now, with a huge chunk falling still below that old 30k marker and a small part as it always has been - making big bucks.

If I had to guess, I would say 90% now fail to reach that 30k marker that was the previous "You're the worst game to launch this year."

In short- the party is over. Not for indies, just for stability. In the past with steam curating products if you had a great game you'd almost always be recgonized for it (not always, but way more often than not). Today it is possible that even a great game can get lost due to lack of PR and exposure - or just bad luck!

 

Some good stats there, thanks for sharing. The question is, what does an Indie do about it? The ultimate it's all saturated your screwed isn't exactly and ideal situation.

Plus what I don't get, it must annoy the mid tier A and AA segments that their game gets lost if it's not under constant promotion? I'm surprised Valve hasn't taken some flack for it and re-evaluated the situation.

 

It almost makes me want for publishers of old. But most of the titles back then didn't do for much even then. Then there was shareware, distributed with the old BBS systems. It was 99% all pretty small until DOOM came along. I don't believe there ever was a "party free for all".

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Thats the million dollar question. you look at something like compos where devs literally make thousands of games in a single weekend. Some of those games will go on to great things mcpixel (450k at $5 a pop), gods will be watching (100k units at $10 a pop), superhot (not out of beta yet), but most wont.
http://steamspy.com/search.php?s=mcpixel
http://steamspy.com/app/274290

I just think maybe more compos and more press so people arent investing years into games people dont want.

 

The Indie Bubble Revisited

This was an interesting article that addresses the issue at hand.

Basically, what we are dealing with is simply a swing towards equilibrium. A system striving to balance itself. The competition that indie developers are facing is steeper than it was, because it is now easier and cheaper for anyone to get into indie development. This is the price we pay for having a lower barrier to entry. Stiffer competition, higher supply, and reduced demand. The culling that naturally results from this scenario is brutal, but there it is.

This only further highlights something that I've been banging on about for years. Hoping to become a self-sustaining indie developer is going to be a pipe-dream for most people. Sure, there will be some who can swing it, but usually due to some fortuitous circumstances as opposed to pure merit. And even those cases will also have to risk everything and work like dogs to pull it off. It's Ratatouille all over again. Should everyone be free to make games? Yes. Should everyone make games professionally? No.

The publicity surrounding some of the recent success stories has a whole lot of people chasing unrealistic dreams, and tumbling down a rather precipitous rabbit-hole. There's a gold-rush on for indie development, and a lot of people are going to be burned by risking too much for far too little pay-out.

And I worry that creative agency might be one of the biggest sacrifices made. No matter what anyone says, personal motivations for making games affects the designs of those games. When you make games with the intent to sell them, it changes how you design and create those games. There are pages and pages in this thread alone that reinforce this concept. Indie developers go on and on about how to change and alter your games so that it sells across broader demographics, or reaches a wider audiences, or can be monetized more effectively.

There are some games that ought to be made, and can only be made when you DON'T try to craft them to draw in more filthy lucre. The sooner that more people realize that indie game development ISN'T a boundless fountain of riches, the better. Because once more people clue into this, we will see a rise in game development as a hobby, as opposed to an aspiring career. We need more hobbyist game developers, who are just tinkering and experimenting in their free time.

 

That's just a Gamasutra reprint from Jeff Vogel's own blog. I think that got linked on Page 1 or something.

 

And some of the best games were born historically, from hobbyist tinkering.

 

I think Steam needs to split into multiple stores with clear distinctions. I like the fact that a small indie or hobbyist can now distribute their game on a nice well-groomed store like Steam, but I don't think it is fair to anyone to mix them in with wildly varying amounts of quality.

There needs to be a place for well reviewed indie games where they are competing against other well reviewed games, while still not competing with AAA. Really don't understand why this hasn't taken hold yet...

edit: and if it means you have to wait a year and a half to get your indie game reviewed by enough big names and get word of mouth going, I think that is still better than what we have now.

 

Very true. Notch didn't focus-test Minecraft when he was making it. And he didn't gold-rush it either. He wasn't sprinting toward deadlines or trying to make it a professional project. He spent years, quite a few years, with his game in alpha, selling it off of his own website. It didn't get where it eventually got due purely to PR blitzes. It slowly gathered word-of-mouth for quite some time. And he originally made one of the most successful games of our time because he was just tinkering with something that he thought was cool.

There's nothing wrong with hobbyist development. Game creation is a great thing to play around with. And the biggest benefit of having a lower barrier to entry is that anyone can get into game development if they really want to. Anyone who can afford a basic laptop can get everything they need to start developing games. All the necessary tools are now available, you just have to reach out and try. That's not some apocalyptic threat, but an incredibly empowering change.

 

While that's a generally good idea, and allows for sufficiently talented indies to be 'elevated', it fails to stop the primary problem here: market saturation. Even if Steam implemented this idea tomorrow, there's so many games coming out, no one could reasonably hope to pick through the 'Small Fry' listing to find even one hidden gem. This is why the 'Extinction Event', '#indiepocalypse', 'Market Correction', whatever you want to call it isn't just being talked about, but in a way has to happen.

To put it in a biology metaphor: when organisms reproduce enough, they consume all of their biosphere's resources and begin dying out, not only due to starvation but due to too much waste material. That's exactly the problem we have now.

EDIT: To continue the idea, not only does the playing field have to thin out a bit, people have to stop coming at this for money. The truly great games aren't ones made to earn a quick or big buck, they're the ones created for love of the game (of creating games, of course.) Going back to Shovel Knight, it's great because it's a love letter to old games - it takes their mechanics, but structures things in a way that really makes them good and empowering, and enriching, to the player. So far, I see a lot of devs who only want to enrich themselves. You enrich no one by going that route.

 

I agree there are too many games coming out with low standards for them to curate them all but we need to start punishing people for uploading amateur stuff so that curation can be effective.

Ideas:

1. require registered company
2. upload stuff that is really bad get blacklisted for future uploads
3. upload stuff that is bad but not obviously intentional(asset flips etc.) then +1 year before next upload

Eventually you will start to discourage people from uploading their first amateur attempt to Steam/whatever store. Then curation can be effective because volume will be lower. If I know my game is not polished I am not going to risk being shut out for another year, I'll work on it some more first.

 

@RichardKain you've hit on something I stongly agree with. I am a HGD myself and have asked the questions before why aren't people doing this just for the fun of it. For a hobby? For enjoyment, passion whatever. It actually puts me off in a big way to see so much focus placed on money. Sometimes it seems like the only thing people really care about. Where to promote it. How to get the word out. How to monetize it. It has pushed me to head to other older forums in recent months just to be able to "hang out" with people who actually have some passion for the craft itself instead of passion for a fat bank account.

I dunno I guess it just surprises me so many people's interest in this stuff seems to be driven by money. Just seems odd to me. Because it is such an awesome time to be able to get into it as a hobby and do things that even 10 years ago were not possible at least not for the average person sitting in their home.

 

The problem is that stores logarithm to choose what's shown to consumer, sucks. This is not the first time this have been said, but the problem is still growing.

Proof of this for me, is that to this day I still enter Google Play, and I'm being offered "Pou", and "My Talking Tom".

And I say this strictly as a consumer, I wish that stuff was weeded out. I understand they're popular. But I'm saying this as a gamer, it ruins the gamer experience.

I would like a human made list, of games that are not necessarily popular, or even huge, but well made, handpicked stuff.

And for a perfect world, they could have several categories. So if your game isn't in the best list, at least it has a chance on secondary lists, of games that aren't the best, but still deserve attention. But that's already thinking in our best interest as indie developers.

And only then, below, in the corner, I want access to games sorted by "popularity", in case I want to download Pou, Flappy Birds, or whatever.

 

@GarBenjamin because some people want to make games you can't really do without a budget and/or a very big time commitment, meaning this has to be your primary job, which means if you get nothing back, you can't do the games you want to do any more.

 

I guess I don't understand what you mean. If a person has a computer they have all they need. Of course, they need electric. Maybe a beer, coffee or water. Compared to many hobbies (I am into knives & swords collecting and enjoy archery) this is incredibly cheap. In this hobby all you need is time, passion and some creativity. Actually not even creativity that will likely develop as they work on stuff.

 

They need this really good music track, that they can write themselves, but they kinda want to have real sounding strings, they can't hire an orchestra but maybe a half decent strings library will do. That costs money. (and this is just an example)

And they need to do so much stuff, that if they have another job there just isn't enough hours in the day to do what they want.

(also, why do you keep calling gamedev a hobby?)

 

Lol because it is one of my hobbies. Probably has been my main hobby for 30 years now. Just about every month there is some project I am working on until it is finished or I get bored with it or just as often figure out a better way to do it so throw it all out and start fresh on another project.

I've just always enjoyed making a level or trying out an idea for a game mechanic or whatever. Just for the challenge and fun of it. Same with music creation and graphics. I used to spend a lot of time in 3d modeling just to learn it and have fun making things.

And that is what @RichardKain was talking about in his post. More people doing it as a hobby instead of trying to make money from it.

So my question back to you is why do you see it as something that cannot/would not/should not be a hobby?

 

Some people want to make more than hobbyist games. They want to do something big and bold and grand, and hobby development time doesn't work for that.