How much work is needed to make a dollars worth of game?

Or what is a game worth and how do we work out a games price or value, is it based on the amount of work put into it?

 

It's not related at all. I've become so skeptical of the correlation between dollar value and effort that I've almost become convinced that laboring under this delusion is the main reason why the poor stay poor.

 

Are you talking about a game that earn total of one dollar in sales? That wouldn't be very hard to do.

No. Not on the amount.
Be at the right time, at the right place, doing the right thing in the right and smart way and then you'll have a chance of earning decent amount of cash. Something like that. I think.

 

Depends entirely on what work is being done and the exact position of Mercury.

Many people through time have made basically nothing except vaporware. Smoke n mirrors. Yet they built up a large amount of support people eager to spend their money.

Many other people work extremely hard and are very skilled yet only manage a meager existence despite being very skilled and living a life of hard work.

TLDR: Hard work and labor skill (such as development) are not the key to fame & fortune.

 

I know a guy who has a helicopter and a jet, and all he sells are little metal rods that are used in oil wells. They're made in China and drop-shipped to the buyers. He never sees them, never meets the buyers, and three or four years ago he lived in a mobile home and had nothing.

I don't quite believe that it's all luck but his story sometimes makes me wonder.

 

Oh Arowx, you've done it again.

 

I don't believe it is always luck. I think sometimes it definitely is luck.

A lot of people buy lottery tickets. A tiny amount win.

You save the life of a random stranger... something that happens daily... yet in this case the person just happened to be a member of an extremely wealthy family who reward you with a large sum of money.

You submit your game to a site where it sits alongside 1,000 others. An employee of a big game website just happens to browse the site at the moment when your game is prominently displayed in New Releases and they write an article on it. A popular YouTuber hears about the article and he makes a video about it. Another magazine not wanting to be the one that dropped the ball also decides to cover it. A viral effect happens.

Things of this nature we can attribute to luck / timing. Things beyond our control. And they generally account for the super success stories that happen.

Then there is created success. And that is a whole different ball game.

 

...and the next day you learn that the money they gave you was stolen from yakuza who are now after you.

 

Ha ha. Possibly!

 

This is how it happens 99% of the time, I'm convinced.

"Created success" is when someone learns how to manipulate the above process (maybe they know a prominent Youtuber, or have figured out the best time to have their Greenlight entry go live, etc).

 

Could be a million hours or 1 hour.

 

It's actually very simple. It's based on how much you think you can get away with, how skilled your public relations teams (especially marketing) are, how desperate your target audience is for the title, etc. Just look at No Man's Sky. That game is very much indie yet they were able to charge AAA prices for it because they hyped it like crazy and the audience had nothing else similar to play. Some people even bought the Collector's Edition that still hasn't shipped.

 

This is a very valid question if you are looking at games as a commercial venture. A game studio must pay for three things

• The cost of actual production of the game. Everyone needs a wage. Licenses need to be brought. Marketing needs to be paid for, and so on.
• A profit margin. Noone will invest in games just for fun.
• A generous R&D margin to cover projects that get canned or fail. Game dev is risky, and even the best studios frequently kill projects

That money must come out of the sales revenue of business. Which is dependent on the number of sales and the revenue per sale.

So if you can cover all three items with the revenue, you project is commercially viable. Otherwise its not.

 

Yes, and lets all watch how much they can sell their second game for.

I don´t think there is any hard and fast rule for pricing. But I think two things need to be combined. Something like this

How likely is a person to like the first couple hours x How many hours of reasonable game play is there.

If you can make a game that has like a 75% or above chance to be liked by players, and that game offers 20 or more hours of game play, then charge like $40. If you make a good game that only has a few hours of game time without much quality replay-ability, then just charge $5.

And this is where honest marketing comes into play. The more honestly you market your game and accurately describe the game play, the more likely you are to end up with fairly satisfied players which means you can probably charge slightly more per hour of game play. Imagine two games with 10 hours of game play, one uses false advertising and one uses honest advertising. The second game can probably charge $15 while the first can charge $10 and both would get similar fan reviews.

I am taking the approach of not worry what I can sell my first game for, but instead using that first game to build good-will, so I can increase the price of my second game... kinda an inverted No Man´s Sky.

 

I'm not sure if there will be a second game.

They could try the same stunt as elite dangerous: statr making expansion packs.

 

So we've been making platformers and maze games since the 1980's, FPS games since the 1990's and no one has done a time and motion study on making games?

Do we need a Henry Ford (production lines/time and motion studies) for the games industry?

 

I once worked at a large company that blew vast amounts of money trying to implement Six Sigma for software development. Six Sigma is a manufacturing process meant to be applied to cranking out widgets assembly-line-style, so applying it to custom-built software is painful at best.

It's several orders of magnitude more comprehensive than time-and-motion studies, but if you really think there are efficiencies to be discovered watching somebody type and move a mouse around, well, somebody probably still sells Dvorak keyboards on Amazon, go build the next Model T of video games.

More relevantly, when I ran a shop of 30 devs building fairly high-volume multimedia training titles (20-30 titles per year), the second best process-improvement step we took was hosting detailed post-mortems (the first, by a long shot, was a massive expansion of QA, both in manpower and scheduling). That company might be the closest I've seen software come to industrial-style manufacturing, come to think of it. And it still involved a very large creativity component.

 

Just found one from 1987. Used the MIDI port for networking. Up to sixteen players.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI_Maze

It's based off this one from 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze_War

 

But isn't Unity the equivalent to Fords production line, some things are made on other tools but the assembly line is Unity?

Actually is Unity and Game Engines like it the game development equivalent of the production line?

 

Now we are into my area of expertise! Henry Ford's techniques are pretty old school now.

Modern manufacturing is lean/six sigma. Six sigma makes absolutely no sense for production of games. It's all about reducing defects and improving product quality. Don't make much sense for an industry that only pushes out a product every few years.

Six sigma thinking and tools do make sense for analytics. Six sigma is very powerful for analysing large amounts of data and figuring out the relationships. So for something like difficulty curves of mobile games, or pricing of IAP to maximise revenue would be perfect for six sigma.

Lean makes more sense for game production. I believe much of agile is based on adapted lean principles for software. Lean is all about reducing waste, from the perspective of the customer. The idea is that you only ever do work that the customer is willing to pay for. It's a powerful philosophy.

 

Not really. Assembly lines are based on producing large quantities of identical product. The basic idea of an assembly line is you can use a very low skilled labourer and train them up on one job. They do that job over and over again all day, every day. Manufacturing systems are about making that guys job as easy as possible (or eliminating it altogether).

Games are a totally different beast. You are typically producing one product with many highly skilled labourers over a long period of time. The labourers aren't meant to repeat the same task endlessly, they need to be creative.

 

Define identical, as last time I checked all cars have a massive range of options. And Unity is a flexible adaptable production line tool or game engine designed to make it easy to assemble games.

Look at the torrent of games made from little more than a few asset store prefabs appearing on steam. Or how easy it is to make a prototype physics game in Unity (especially using the learn section).

Unity provides you with a WYSIWYG editor, API, tools and asset store to quickly make a game.

But cars and anything on a production line initially needs skilled labour to design/test and make the parts and subsystems, like the asset store, the low skilled labour is the assembly line or Unity.

Of course some games will need skilled labour the same way a super high performance Car (F1, Rocket Car) or a bespoke Pimp My Ride vehicle does, when a game needs to push the boundaries but if you're just making another Genre X, Theme Y game how much of that needs to be bespoke.

Now factor in the addition of a visual scripting tool to make Unique aspects or tweak the game your way and we really have democratised or lowered the entry bar of games development.

Therefore have not game engines reduced the work needed to make a dollars worth of game and are they not therefore the assembly/production line of games developers.

 

Optional features in a car are often relatively minor changes. Regardless of whether you choose a leather interior, a black paint job, or heated seating the major aspects of the car like the chassis are going to be the same. It isn't like optionals aren't part of the assemble line though. There are going to be a certain number of cars made for each combination possible.

Just look at how poorly received those games are though.

Prototyping is a relatively minor aspect compared to the stages where you create and polish the actual game.

Of course they have. What they have not done though is eliminate the part where you make a good game. Just look at that thread where @GarBenjamin compared the various artwork assets and how poorly they mesh together. Are you telling me that the Asset Store can cover all your art needs? You have to be joking if you believe

 

What about the different models all made on the same production line with common sub assemblies (even across brands) or how WW2 production lines were converted to Tank and Airplane manufacturing in short order. And we are not talking about a physical production line that is a metaphor, we are talking about the digital games engine 'production line' of Unity, which has proven it can make any type of game.

It's early days some have been received poorly but I bet there are also components or assets that are used in the top Unity games, either as production tools or assets within a game.

 

Those components are not the reason those games made it to the top.

 

Actually they probably are, as they make it easier/cheaper for developers to make those games. Allowing more development funds to be allocated on marketing, artwork, polishing, QA, developing unique features for example.

 

If the difference between your game being a success and a failure are the components on the Asset Store then you better find a new line of work and soon.

 

Sure, and look at all the negative reviews they get on Steam Greenlight as people scream "asset flip!". Those games usually don't even pass Greenlight, much less make any money. But in the end, games are a creative entertainment medium, not a mass-produced product like screws or windshields. Some really quick, simple games go viral because people like them, some flop badly even with years of work invested in them. No one can say why "Flappy Bird" made millions despite being so simple, although I've seen people try to analyze it.

 

OK look at EA's Frostbite Game Engine, they have made a host of Battlefield (FPS) games on it as well as Sports and Racing games and a range of FPS games all using and reusing the Frostbite Game Engine and Tools. Do you think that they will re-invent common assets every time a new game is made or delve into their own asset store/library first and adapt from their.

Check out the muddy or sandy battlegrounds used in Star Wars : Battlefront and Battlefield games!

I would be amazed if they start from scratch with each asset in their games, but it could explain the huge budgets.

Also think of the reuse of networking code, weapon/damage systems, humanoid animations, vehicle physics, game modes. You could say that this is chronic asset flipping but with a great 'pimp my game' overlay.

 

You seem to have drawn the conclusion that having access to a powerful engine and a wide range of pre-made assets will allow an amateur to become a game developer yet in the thread you started about failures you mentioned you were an "abject failure as a solo game developer".

You have access to the very same Unity engine, the very same asset store (given sufficient funds of course), the very same learning materials, and so on that these amateurs have yet why haven't you been able to create these successful titles that you're convinced are achieveable? Is it possible that it isn't as easy as having access to those?

 

Naughty Ryiah, your trying to make this personal, which is the opposite of the aim of this topic, the idea is to think about the work needed to make a dollars worth of game and as people who are engaging in the topic it is not a straightforward question at all and you really need to understand what you are asking before you even attempt to answer.

Accepting failure and looking at how to be successful is an important learning step for any venture.

 

Only to the point that is necessary. You did provide an excellent example in the other thread. After all you're not a beginner who is picking the engine up for the first time. You've made a wide range of prototypes. Yet even with that knowledge and all these tools available to use you still claimed to be a failure as a game developer.

Regardless of whether that's actually true or not I don't see how someone just starting could do a better job with access to everything you have sans the knowledge you've accumulated. According to your theory if they've achieved that dollars worth of game there is no reason you haven't either.

 

I don't think she was making it personal, I think she was just making the rhetorical point that access to good assets or engines doesn't automatically lead to success, nor will using a generic formula that worked for a previous game. Some publishers will bluntly tell you that they'll only take your game if it's a clone of a previously successful game (the mass-production mentality), and it's precisely that mentality which led the mobile games market to crash so badly about a year ago, dropping 30% because gamers were sick of playing the same game over and over. People want something different and creative once in awhile. Even those "asset flip" games that did so poorly on Greenlight would have done infinitely better if they'd had at least some sort of creative plot, characters, or nice ambiance rather than just another generic haunted hospital using the same stock haunted hospital assets. Even giving a name to the haunted hospital and giving it a bit of a history (like the large amount of "lore" in Five Nights At Freddy's) would've done wonders for these games. The point: it isn't the tools you use, it's how you put it together. People are still making compelling stuff using just words on paper.

 

Which has in turn led Apple to re-evaluate their policies. They've made their guidelines steeper and are retroactively applying them to existing titles. Games that were merely asset flips and/or clones of existing games are going to be taken down.

https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/app-store-improvements.429256/

 

I believe peter mouleneaux had something nice to say about this. Can't remember the exact quote, but it was along the lines of that "nobody in the industry knows how long it'll take to finish a game". Games are not cars, so Ford wouldn't be very helpful here.

Yes, that's exactly what I expect. They most likely will recreate all their in-game assets from scratch for every sequel of their series. They have enough funds to be able to afford that, and as time marches on, people will expect higher and higher quality.from the games, meaning there will be no significant difference between upgrading an existing asset or making new one from scratch. People in general are not happy to see objects from earlier games, by the way.

She has a point and it is not personal. If success of your game only depends on quality of art assets, then the game is garbage. There should be some other attractive core feature of the game, that'll remain in the game and will be fun even if you downgrade visuals all the way to 8-bit era. Better graphics are merely polish. For a quality product, you need foundation for that polish.

 

Awesome. Never heard of this before. So much for all of the folks saying a game market crash can't happen again. I knew it had to be only a matter of time. However, it also sounds like the powers that be are reacting to it quickly to try to nip it in the bud before it becomes the Great Mobile Game Crash of 201x.

-----------------------

Anyway, back on topic.

These modern game engines certainly play a big part in people making money from making games because I think a lot of people wouldn't even be making games if it weren't for tools like Unity, GMS, Construct, Fusion, etc. I do think these tools play a big part in recent (last 5 to 7 years) Indie success but only due to making it possible.

The thing is though... that's just a starting point. What these tools do is make game dev accessible to a lot more people than it would be otherwise. And because everyone has access to these things it kind of cancels out the benefit at the same time. If everyone has the same tools available... if everyone has the same advantage... then nobody is gaining an advantage. From the tools.

If you take a look at the normal way to create success then @Arowx is probably very close to getting his breakthrough. Most of the people who are making good money from game dev are the people we don't hear much about. They are not the people hailed as the Indie Super Success Story of the month / year. Those are the exceptions that often cannot repeat their success.

So I throw those out. No sense in considering them if even they don't understand why they found success (can't repeat it).

If you look at the folks who are left.... and it takes a little more digging but they are out there. One thing they have in common is making a lot of games most of us have never heard of before they achieved any financial success.

Take Zachary Barth for example. Some people may be familiar with him but I think most probably don't have a clue who he is. His company is Zachtronics Industries. He made these successful games (available on Steam):

These games made millions of dollars. Something like $10 million or more in sales together. He works full-time and builds games in his spare time. One might wonder why keep working at your job but that is another topic.

Anyway, it is important to realize these two games are at the end of a line of games he made:

• The Codex of Alchemical Engineering
• Magnum Opus Challenge
• Ruckingenur II
• Bureau of Steam Engineering
• KOHCTPYKTOP
• Ironclad Tactics
• Infinifactory
• TIS-100
• Shenzhen I/O[20]
• Ruckingenur CE
• Ruckingenur Editor
• Tex Mechs
• HWND Hunter
• Silicon Foundry
• Pulse
• Ruckingenur
• Manufactoid
• Flight of the Atropos
• Intelligent Destruction
• Infinitron
• Infinifrag, Version 1.1
• Wikipedia Quest
• Notepad Weekend
• Gregor Mendel's Pro-Botanist

That's a lot of games, right? Games that probably the vast majority of people have never heard of and never played.

And you'll find this kind of thing very often out there. People who make a game and make a lot of money and it seems like they just made one game and struck it rich. But if you dig into it a little you'll often find a chain of many games that nobody ever heard of leading up to the successful game.

Another thing you may have noticed is in the previous games he made we see both the naming prefix Infini and what appears to be games similar to the later games that became a great success. Manufactoid and others on the list were sort of first steps leading up to the later games. This may be a strong interest of his. His passion. I'll bounce back to this down below. Niche.

And still another thing you may notice is these devs focus on their strengths. They aren't trying to compete with AAA. If they are not able to create super duper graphics they simply don't build games that require super duper graphics or that require a lot of graphics content.

And yet another thing is these devs focus on a niche. In a sense you could say they create weird games that most wannabe game devs never think about making. Because most of them are too busy trying to make their fancy graphics Skyrim / COD clone.

Finally, these folks often team up with other people on the games that finally succeed. This probably helps to produce an overall better game. And it probably helps because there are more tiny groups of fans readily available.

I believe that what happens is each of these previous games people make gain a tiny audience. There is some very tiny group (like really tiny... dozens or hundreds) of people who love the game for whatever reason. And the more games made the more tiny groups of fans a developer will have. And at some point these tiny groups likely even merge together. A sort of critical mass effect happens.

It's like trying to move a heavy object. Say pushing a car up a hill. And in the beginning you push and push and it doesn't move. Finally it moves extremely slowly. And then gradually picks up speed. You make it to flat land and can stop pushing and it will still move a ways. Make it to the top of the hill and you can let go. It will roll down the other side (and quite possibly crash so don't do that) on its own.

Bottom line is to make money you need an audience who likes what you are offering. There are different ways of building this group of fans / reaching this audience. @Arowx is building these tiny groups of people. They are out there right now scattered around here and there. @Arowx game fans. They don't make much noise and they don't have much clout individually. But eventually there will be enough of them that when he makes a good solid game they will make it succeed.

 

OK let's get back on track the original question is How much work is needed to make a dollars worth of game?

? t = $

So can we find and gather development times (dt) and costs (c) over a range of games compared to their net income ($) over time (rt).

dt + c = $/rt

We can agree that this if the results were graphed they would probably look like this


Where there are a range of outcomes but a tendency for games with more time and effort applied to them to be more profitable.

Of course we probably need to break down the development time 'component' and analyse this further as there are so many aspects to game development: design, programming, engine, platform, sfx, music, art, animations and effects, storyline, marketing and the business itself of making and producing games.

Or what proportion of time do successful games use in each area?

So the question although simple should open the discussion on the pandora's box that is the aspects of game development and lead into discussion on good and bad project and time management approaches.

Or what style of time and production management do successful games use?

My simple question is trying to analyse game development success and ideally failure as well.

 

This seems to indicate someone needs to have a way "in" - a connection or know a sneaky way to manipulate the system, although I doubt this was your intention.
Created success also includes knowing when something can be improved and the time investment will be worth the return in sales/popularity. It also includes nose to the grind stone on polish and proper scope. And polish! And it also includes designing something compelling - that isn't the same as 10 other games released within the same month.
A lot of people are developing quality products every month - but nearly the same amount of games are rehashed versions of other games that already exist, maybe with updated graphics or (changed) visuals. How many fps games are being worked on right now that fundamentally do things different than the handful of triple A fps games that come out every year. I'd guess maybe 2 will be new/different. Those 2 teams developing there games are creating success - via creativity. All the others - aren't.

No Henry Ford stifled creativity - was known to fire anybody on the spot who had a thought about improving his approved process and suggested changing things. He reluctantly improved on his perfect model-T years after sales began to dip into the red.
This would lead to a lot of games that are basically - not fun - because we already played these game before.

 

First, show the connection between the game (input) and the revenue (output).

I think this approach is flawed simply because it doesn't work this way.

Examine Flappy Bird and Axiom Verge. Or the Kardashian app and the latest COD game.

It's not the game that is making the money and certainly not the amount of hours spent on graphics, music, coding, etc that is directly tied to the money.

I mean sure the game is a piece of the puzzle. But it is only one piece. If the Witcher 3 was still sitting on the devs hard drive... same exact game requiring all of the same amount of work.... sitting on their hard drive... how much money would it make?

Another thing to consider... would the Witcher 3 had made the same amount of sales if there had not already been a Witcher 1 and 2?

 

No, we can't agree, because it is oversimplified to the point where it is no longer useful.

Cost of making the game:
Development time * (staff salary + utility bills + rent + cost of subscriptions) + cost of licenses

Revenue:
Total sales, pretty much.

Profit:
Revenue - operational costs - publisher's/store cut - taxes.

If you're operating a studio, then at any point of time you need to have enough money to release at least one (preferably two) more titles.

Meaning, you can continue operation as long as "you're in black" meaning your profit is zero. That's the minimum goal you should aim at. In turn, that means that in order to START making the game you need either enough money to fund entire development process twice OR external source of income.

When your profit is "in the green", then you can accumulate money, and eventually grow and hire more people.

The whole "how much money to earn X" is not very useful, because there are studios that created great titles and shut down afterwards. Meanwhile their games are still being sold (while earning profits for the publishers). One of such studios are creators of Bioshock Infinite.

That's because once you're done developing the game, you will not instantly receive all the money. It'll take a while for sales to accumulate, to be processed, and while your game is still being sold, you'll still have to pay salaries and operational costs.

The best way to earn money in this situation is to be the store or the publisher. As long as you maintain sufficient exposure, and keep attracting developers, you'll be getting the cut from every sale, meaning every developer will bring you more of a more-or-less passive income.

That's just common sense overview of the situation.

 

So they realized - too late - that maybe people didn't like schlock? But how are they going to determine whether a game is an asset flip, because most indie games make extensive use of some type of purchased or free assets.

 

@Arowx :

Here's how the situation looks for a lone warrior indie.

You have some external source of income or enough cash to work on your project for a while.
You spend X amount of hours to release a game, hoping that it'll bring you some cash (or fame or whatever).
Most of those attempts will fail.
By analyzing those attempts you may try to figure out what you did wrong, and then repeat process on another title.
You keep doing that until you become too old or run out of money to fund yoru hobby.

That's it.

No guaranteed success. In the end it is highly recommended for you to do what you like without expecting too much in return.

The best strategy in this situation is to make a LOT of very small unique games. Preferably one title per month, because it'll increase your chances of getting successful.

This is, once again, just common sense.

 

You can't analyze it like that, just as the companies who insist on clones are on the wrong track because they forget that the clones are trying to duplicate a game that originally succeeded precisely because it was something new and different at the time it first came out. If you really want to maximize profits over effort, the single best way (theoretically) would be to make the next Flappy Bird (absurdly simple game that made millions), but there's no way to predict what that game will be because Flappy Bird went viral for reasons that can't be predicted or deliberately duplicated very well. It's kind of like these companies that try to figure out what teenagers will perceive as "cool" so they can make loads of money off it. That approach often doesn't work because teenagers can grasp that it's just a company trying to bilk them out of money, and that's the opposite of "cool".

 

I was just making the point that success often comes down to factors that have little to do with how much effort you put into the software itself. Yes, you need to put enough effort so that it's not a complete dud, but there are some wildly successful games that took the author only a few weeks to make, and plenty of games that took years but which earned very little, and plenty which were long labors of love but flopped because the author couldn't get all the bugs out. If hard work translated into certain success, we'd all be millionaires. There were days when I didn't get any sleep at all, but I also didn't many any money to speak of either.

 

But you could class any modern AAA FPS / Racing / Sports games as clones some have novel features and cutting edge graphics but the essence of their gameplay is the same.

There are very few firsts in game development and even sometimes being first does not drive a game to success e.g. block building games as precursors to minecraft.

Let's not focus on the handful of breakaway success games as they are like rare gems found in a coal mine. What about the run of the mill generic games or niche games that are good enough to make some profit?

 

Those AAA clones earn profits off their existing fanbase. A CoD fan will probably buy CoD 127 when it is released. Same applies to sport and racing. The companies accumulated fans/followers, made themselves known in this specific niche and now cashing in their fame. One good example of this is Assassin's Creed. I never liked the series, but apparently there's a very big fanbase there.

You are not those big studios and do not have an established franchise with a big fanbase to do this kind of thing.

 

What kind of games are you looking at? Like the small scope games that make $150k or less?

Or smaller than that like my goal is to be able to make about $8k per game... eventually. $1k at the start.

Anyway are you talking about games like Bit Blaster XL? Or all of the games most folks probably see as a failure that earned less than $10k?

I was not understanding because it is never just make a game and make money. All of the things (including other games) leading up to that point are the big factor. But I think you are saying after a person reaches that point.... where they can make games and sell them how much $ per hour are they getting at that point?

Like jumping straight to the point where you have already established say 10,000 fans. How much is your time ROI then?

 

Indie games made by small studios on a low budget.

Yes.

What would be interesting is how much work to earn that first dollars profit?

Then how much work per dollar (profit) as they role out more games?

 

I think it would help to know what you're hoping to learn by asking this question.

 

Of course, the first success will take a lot to get to. Maybe not literally the first $1 but something reasonable like making your first $1,000. This is where a person either needs to make a lot of games building up their fanbase bit by bit OR do a lot of marketing or do both. Like any start-up it is expensive and slow at the beginning and the reason most fail within the first two years.

Anyway, I guess you can figure it up. You have about 20 or more games released. How much time did you spend on all of these games? Or how much time did you spend on the games before you made $1,000?

And how much is your time worth when you make games now that you release for sale?

I am at the very beginning of this. The whole reason I am making (what I consider to be good quality interesting) tiny games and releasing for free is to build up some rep. Get some fans. To me the best way to do that is to give first. I work. Give away for free. I catch the attention of some people who like my games and / or like me as a person.

Soon though I will be starting on my first game for sale on Steam. My goal is to make $50 per hour for every hour I spend on the game. Reality will likely be very different but that is what I think is reasonable.

Anyway, I can give numbers once I actually have done it. But still it will be different for everyone I think. The same way as one person may need to make 5 games and reach success and another may need to make 150 games before they reach success.

It's just such a complicated thing you are trying to do here and I don't think there is any generic formula for it. Just like any other business out there. For some companies a lead is worth is 50 cents and for others in the same industry a lead is worth $5. For some companies a customer is worth is $50 over their lifetime and for others a customer is worth $500 or more.

I think the only thing you can really focus on is what are visitors to your product landing pages worth to you? What are customers worth to you (will they on average buy only 1 of your games or will they on average buy 3 of your games)? How much does it cost you to get 1 new customer? These kinds of things. Very important for running a business of course. And also very specific to your business. Although there should be industry averages for a given genre I'd think.