What is the best platform for a wannabe indie developer?

I am an experienced software engineer and I 've been developing software for the last 15 years. I work for a big consultancy with a very good package and really most people would not understand why I am considering to become an indie game developer. I am very passionate about games but never been involved in the games industry. I tried the corporate world, managed to succeed in all the targets I set and now I want to try myself in something new. I also want to simply work for myself and utilise all my creativity.

Anyway I have some new ideas which use heavily AI, however I would like to hear people's views on the different platforms out there. Thousands of new games come out for iOS and Android. There is also the desktop, steam, web, consoles. For a new indie developer what in your opinion is a good place to start?

I do think the games world is too crowded however there is always space for new ideas.

 

Im not sure there is a best platform, however, I will make the following observations...

The best platform for making money (if successful), would be iOS. Being successful is like winning lotto though... low odds (unless your game is amazing and gets noticed - every developer assumes their game is amazing and will get noticed...)

The best platform for getting downloads without making any money would be Android. Not sure what paid app downloads are like, but IAP don't seem to be high on Android users agenda's.

The best platform for potentially getting featured is Windows Phone.

The best platform for making a game you're passionate about, would be steam, but then you'll have to get a community of people passionate about it to get greenlit.

 

Seems to me PC stuff would be the fastest easiest way to get started.
You have a huge advantage over (including my lost self)a lot of people in already being a software engineer also.

 

I recall reading some study like this not long ago which actually suggested casual games on pc as one of the biggest markets that actually make money.

 

haha it's more cut throat in casual.

 

Win/mac/linux would be great because you can develop the game once and then give it to anyone you know who has a computer.

People in casual freemium games go wallet to wallet in battles of economic proportions!

 

Opinions vary but you can be successful anywhere. Casual, Mobile, Steam... anywhere.

Do some homework. Read everything you can get your hands on.

It's true that the "games world is too crowded" but then market saturation never seems to stop people from
selling pizzas or best selling books!

Rather than jumping in is there a way you could ease in?

In any event... Good Luck!

 

It depends a lot on the game too... a game suited to desktop might not play well on an iPad.

 

Well.. selling pizza is very local area business and books usually are regional too and often also partly funded/supported from government art budget (in Euro countries at least).

With games you are nearly always competing against the whole world.

Even with a fresh or unique ideas it's highly likely that it will get buried and forgotten fast in the game markets if you are not prepared to market it enough.

 

Well, a lot of people with zero experience selling games will be quite optimistic that they'll change the world and they're really right but the reality is they're wrong and its very hard to make money in game development. It's massive hubris and pretty typical of armchair heroes.

This is one of the reasons Unity works hard with services - as Unity understands that making money is the biggest challenge in this respect. So you get services for video, for analytics and so forth.

If you want to make money in a reliable form, and don't choose to have odds like winning the lottery, then you need to stack all the odds you can in your favour with choice of market, analytics, clever marketing and more.

It's not enough to have a great game. Simply because the market really is flooded with great games.

 

It doesn't matter where, it doesn't even truly matter what type of game you make.

The key is passion.

niche games, extremely hard games, S*** freemium games, games made in 48 hrs... They have all seen success.

If you are truly passionate about your game, and you take the time and effort to polish it up while still caring for it post-release, then there is a good chance you will find success. Though success really is any effort put towards attaining a goal.
Don't go into gamedev just for attaining society's "success" approval, (AKA money!). Go into it knowing that you are creating something that YOU want to play and that you want to share with the world.

If you are truly passionate, the materialistic success (AKA money!) will come.

 

I'm guessing you've not tried selling much? I don't want to come across as a pig but it sounds very idealistic and not at all grounded in reality.

What you're missing is nearly every dev making a top quality indie title has passion by the bucket load. One single thing in isolation is never enough, period.

Indies don't compete with just indies. They compete with EA, Ubi, Insomniac and every other great development shop large and small. Yes, you compete with GTA 5. You compete with Destiny.

You're really vying not for shelf space on a store, but for gamer time. Gamer time is a currency spent on actually playing games. If a gamer spends 4 hours on Uncharted 4, he doesn't have time to play your game, and so you can have all the passion in the universe but it won't help. For another gamer, he may not like Far Cry 4, but never sees your passionate title because your marketing sucks.

And so on, you can't actually do any shortcuts or rely on any single thing to succeed. It's no longer enough to have passion and a good game.

 

utter rubbish.

 

If that was the case everyone would be multi-millionaires and retired by 30

 

What I took away from @Mikenseer's post is not so much the "passion" being the most important point, but instead the "don't do it just for the money".

I've been successfully making and releasing my own games since 2001 and the only time I ever had a genuine flop is when I tried to do something based on a niche I wasn't interested in or passionate about but I knew there was money in. What I made came out super cool, but because I had no idea about the market for that niche, I realized I was lost. So that one bit the dust. And I never again targeted a niche only because it made money. I make damn sure I have passion for the niche (not for the game alone) before diving in. Without that all is lost.

I bet there's even a hint within this very post about where I think the money is. At least it has been for me. But then again I've almost always followed the road less traveled, so take that as you will.

 

I agree with what hippo is saying here about needing to compete with all games for a gamer's time. I would even take it a step farther and say that you need to compete with all media. Gamers play games. They also watch TV, watch movies, listen to music, etc. Each gamer has 24 hours per day to spend, and a decent chunk of that time is spent on sleeping and eating. The remaining time is up for grabs, and all media sources compete to grab that time. It can be tough for an unknown indie title to grab any time at all when so many well marketed media items are competing.

 

And I will also agree with hippo here that its not just about passion.

I would like to explore some new avenues and build something that I want to play with. If no one else is interested to play the game I want to play fair enough, at least I tried. I see a lot of repetition in games in the way they are designed, their back stories, their gameplay, their everything. What I would love to see is more intelligence and interactivity. My background in AI pushes me that way and can bring some interesting new ideas on the table.

For me the games industry is not dissimilar to the film industry. Back in the late 90s a little film called Blair Witch came out with a minimal budget and competing with all the major films at that point. They succeeded because they had a vision and they were passionate. I have numerous examples of excellent, successful films with small budgets and others with tons of money who couldn't even break even. In my head I understand that marketing is key but for me that is 50% of the game. The other 50% has to be a great product that excites people and keeps them glued on their seats. The games market is overcrowded but it is also what the majority of people want. And no not everyone spends 4 hours a day playing one single game. There are loads of people who play a few games at a time and want to change.

I understand that there have been 1000s of people talking about the same things I talk about. Potentially I might not be able to produce anything worthwhile but I always believed in trying really hard to do my best because I will regret the alternative.

Thanks for all the comments, they have been extremely useful.

 

Ony drives the point home. Hippo twisted my words quite well, but his point still stands.

While the business mindset and the competition for time is all very real and should not be ignored, I would be very interested to meet a game developer who focuses solely on these factors and lives a happy life.

 

I'm not twisting anyone's words. The fact is, passion is not enough. If Ony thinks it is, she is probably one of the luckier ones.

But in general you should aim for everything: analytics, marketing, passion, graphics, sound, playability, something people like and a good dose of luck. The problem starts when people rely only on a couple of those elements. Naturally, and logically that's a lot less chance of success.

If by passion you mean drive to do all that, then sure

 

Give this man a medal.

 

-Unity is good for rapid developing and multi-platform exports. It's best for any game non-AAA.
-UE4 is better at AI since it's controller is comes packaged.

Other than that, I don't see a reason to use any other game engine.

 

No one said passion was enough. That's where you are misinterpreting his (and now my) comments. Passion is not enough, but without passion you're not going to get very far.

And what exactly is passion anyway, when we talk about it in the games industry? Is it the dictionary definition? I don't think so. I think entrepreneurship, which is really what we're talking about here, requires an altered definition of passion. Everyone here likes games. I would guess most people here are passionate about games and want to make them. Is that enough? Is that passion enough? Of course not. People are passionate about all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean they have the drive to do those things with the passion of an entrepreneur.

• Are you passionate enough to quit your "real" job tomorrow and make a game, hoping that it works out?
• Are you passionate enough to work for months or years with little to no income in order to make that game?
• Are you passionate enough that when the going gets tough, you won't head back to your old "real" job until things pick up and THEN you can make your game?
• Are you passionate enough to not quit, no matter what?
• Are you passionate enough to make the game you want to make, and if it fails, you make another one?
• Are you passionate enough to miss out on bill payments, lose friends because you're working so much, and risk losing it all because you just have to make games?
• Again, because this one needs repeating: Are you passionate enough to not quit?

Are you passionate about jumping off cliffs with no parachute?

That's the kind of passion I'm talking about. Not just liking something more than other things. Everyone can do that, and everyone has passion like that. Unless you are ready and willing to risk it all with no backup plan in place (because back up plans give excuses not to finish) then you're probably not passionate enough to be successful making indie games.

 

bs... they succeeded because they had clever marketing... I remember when blair witch came out, the webpage, the rumours that it was all based on a true story... they were probably passionate about their project, but its not what made it successful.

Passion gets you no-where unless you can pass your passion on to someone who can and will want do something with it.

Marketing is what gets you noticed if you've created nothing special. Even if youve created the greatest game in the world, there is no gaurantee it will get noticed.

 

The only thing you attain from passion is an idea for an MMO.

Anyways, personally I believe that the best platform is usually Steam. That doesn't mean that it will be easy to get into Steam. Also, you should also decide what platform you have by the kind of game you are making. Let's say you make an RPG. I believe that Steam would be the best option because of the amazing modding community. It will make your game last forever! If you are making a twin stick, I would much rather play it on Vita or a console. I still wouldn't mind playing it on Steam though. Just a thought.

One last thing, I suppose you are going for Steam, especially with all the other comments people gave you. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but contact these people here. Tell them that you have a game on Greenlight and you will give out 100 free copies (or so) of the game when it gets greenlit. What they do is advertise the game. One time, I received a steam notification that these guys were advertising. I check the steam game and within the minute, there were literally hundreds of positive comments on that greenlight page. There were pages of comments. Im sure by now, the game got greenlight, at the cost of only 100 copies of the game (which is nothing). IDK if thats a good idea or not, maybe someone can give their opinions on this.

Good luck

EDIT: look at all the games this website got greenlit. It is pretty amazing.

 

It could just be a cultural thing. You're from britain and ony is from america. In america, we're raised to believe that passion is the key to moving from poverty / the lower middle class to the upper middle class in our capitalist society. We're also told to wait another century to see if trickle down economics has any merit. There's a lot of other funny things I could cite when we get to specific states of the usa, like...

I'm from NJ. If I piss off a cop, he can fine me for frowning at him. It's a stupid law and a very old law, but it exists. Oh and you know this one's coming My personal new favorite. Texas education 2015+... our children will be raised to believe that... wait for it... Moses is a founding father and the american constitution is inspired by the bible! Also, we elected republicans to take just about every position they could this past election. Need I go on?

If anything us 'Murkans say is a little confusing, just consider the circumstances of our environment and upbringing. Then you'll be impressed that we can even use words or afford electricity

--edit

Ony's like confirms no offense taken. Mods, let the thread march on! Behold the iron skin of the internet-capable!

 

Ah yeah. Passion for us means you live and breathe it, you love it and it gets you going in the morning. But, obviously that's just a feeling instead of action.

Dictionary: Passion is a term applied to a very strong feeling about a person or thing. Passion is an intense emotion, compelling enthusiasm or desire for anything.

I guess in america it culturally means actually getting off one's ass and doing all the things as well.

 

Sure, but "success" was also defined as "effort towards attaining a goal". So this benchmark for success doesn't even require getting anything done. It's then followed up by this:

I'm all for people doing what they're passionate about, but hippo is right - passion alone, in isolation, isn't enough. Passion should drive you to figure out how to do things properly, not blindly.

The whole "follow your passion to the exclusion of all else" attitude is a huge part of what leads to Starving Artist Syndrome.

 

Hippocoder is saying that passion isn't enough to move from poverty to success and that you have to work hard at doing things which will actually make it happen. You're right, that is the exact opposite of America. Trickle down economics has never been a thing, no economist has ever put it forth as a policy. The notion of cutting taxes isn't that money will "trickle down" to poor people. The only people who think so are the same ones who claim that the Laffer curve has been discredited. The Laffer curve simply states that if the tax rate is 0%, government makes $0 and if the tax rate is 100%, government also makes $0 because nobody will work for free. The optimal tax rate, not for helping poor people, but for maximizing government revenue, is therefore a bell curve. The same is true of any cost. Too low and you don't make enough, too high and you don't make anything. The argument over tax cuts or tax increases is about where we are at on the curve. You can argue one way or the other, but misrepresenting the argument is intellectually dishonest. This was never a left-right argument until the trickle down straw man was invented. Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and John Meynard Keynes, for example, all advocated lowering tax rates to increase revenue.

That being said, both Ony and Hippocoder are correct, and I don't think they are disagreeing. Passion is important. Too many people have jumped on the mobile app or games bandwagon thinking that it is easy money. Without any actual passion for the art, they are just spinning wheels and putting out the type of crap that led to the first video game crash. But, as Hippocoder said, passion isn't the only thing you need. You have to work hard, and when people say that, they mean work hard AT something. Picking up boulders and putting them down all day is hard work, but nobody is going to pay you to do it. Perfecting your game with all the passion in the world is hard work, but if you want commercial success then you need to work towards that goal. Doing so requires more than just working hard on making the game. People often mistake working hard on something with working hard toward something. The two are different, and only that latter is likely to bring success.

 

The beauty of unity is that you can pretty much do all of these at the same time.

 

@HemiMG Agreed. I don't know why it keeps coming back as a suggestion from the far right. HOWEVER - the far right is in office now just about everywhere. We'll probably have a republican president, our presidency has shown the extent of conservative republican policies of the current congress and the democrats were voted out of office in a majority of states. We might see a nation wide implementation of rich-people-trickling-down-on-poor-people-golden-shower-reference any day now. I like your bell curve statement, it makes sense. Move here and or run for office, pls.

I also agree about the second bit. What people tend to disagree on is usually because of the definition of the terms being used

Also while staring at that heart warming application icon that shows UT agrees that Cube is the best movie series ever!

 

It really depends on your game and your skills.

I don't think there is a "best platform". However if you can create something that is cool enough i think its easier to do 'cheap' marketing on your own for a niche PC game, and get a small following cult! This is all based on nothing so take it with a huge pile of salt

 

Hey, there's that word again. I like it. (Bold underline mine)

 

You can, but I think there are different expectations on the mobile space vs the desktop space. So that effects game design. For a beginner, I think mobile is the more attractive option because you can get away with simpler games that desktop gamers would scoff at. But I wouldn't expect to make a killing doing mobile games (or desktop games). It's just an easier platform to hone your skills on I think.

I don't care who is in office. They are the same to me. Senator Obama correctly called the Ex-Im bank "little more than a fund for corporate welfare." He was right. Most of their money goes to companies like Boeing. But when Republicans wanted to end it, President Obama objected and Elizabeth Warren accused them of hating small business, and her followers believed it. I guess Boeing is a small business now.
A partial audit of the Federal Reserve showed that they gave $16 Trillion in bailouts to bankers without the knowledge of congress. But it's Republicans pushing hardest for a full audit and Democrats opposing. Meanwhile, the Fed is printing $85 billion a month (more than a year of the Bush tax cuts) to give to Wall Street in order to keep interest rates artificially low. How's that for trickle down?
Neither side actually cares about ending cronyism. And as long as they keep spouting lies and vitriol about the other side to divide us, the fat cats will keep winning. It's not capitalism that is the problem, it's cronyism (or corporatism, if you prefer). Both parties are firmly entrenched in keeping that alive. That they target opposite sides with their false dichotomy of rich vs poor means nothing when the end goal is the same.
If you are so inclined, you should watch Jon Gruber's (yes, Obamacare's Jon Gruber) free economics lectures from MIT. He opens the class talking about how you can be a "good little liberal", he is most assuredly not a right winger. But quote anything he teaches in that class and you'll get called one. The American public doesn't understand issues, because our politicians and pundits don't want them to. It's easier to say Republicans hate poor people and Democrats are communists. Then you don't have to actually think about things like bell curves. You can just shout "More taxes!" or "Less Taxes!" and accuse anyone who disagrees of hating puppies without ever bothering to understand why they disagree.

 

@HemiMG I missed that small-business-boeing bit. That is hilarious! I'm gradually picking up that both sides are involved in crony-capitalism, but I'd rather be on the side that isn't trying to put moses in history books as a founding father. Lesser of two evils, I guess.

I liked watching Ron Paul in the election debates for some of those things you mentioned. When ever people tried to go completely off topic or slander one another, he [tried] to bring things back to the original question. I've heard a lot of his policies wouldn't play out well in practice, but he's good as an arbiter.

Let's just all agree that capitalism is a system of distributing our limited resources, and it's presence is nothing more than an indication of our futile efforts to exist before the heat death of the universe / overpopulation D: If resources were unlimited and robots could handle labor, why put a percentage of the population through poverty? Why deny some people health care?

Let's watch the Hardon Collider in 2015 and hope it leads us a step closer to pulling new matter and energy out of empty space