A long time ago, games are what originally motivated me to learn to program. But some point along the way, I came to believe (whether true or false) that game development was really not a very enticing career path, both in terms of compensation and technical & creative challenges open to solve.
I wonder how many others came into software along the same path.
By the way, if a mod is here: I think I accidentally downvoted the above comment. (More precisely, my cat and Vimium did.) I tried to reverse it but I doubt it worked. Please remove the downvote if it's still there.
This is so true. I developed a space shooter for iOS, and it was quite a challenge. This was my first game, and what I found to be quite interesting is just how much is involved in simply finishing a game. For example, every little detail that it takes to make something commercial-quality, like graphics [1], compelling music, game-play, rock-solid frame-rate, user interface, all of the timers that need to be managed, transitions between levels, and in my case, some interesting mathematics (I implemented a Catmull-Rom algorithm to generate flight paths for the enemy drones on one level)... the list goes on.
[1] Incidentally, the article quoted Daniel Cook. For my game, I used Tyrian graphics that he created. He made them available under a Creative Commons license.
However, searching for companies looking for developers with game development background and familiarity with Unity, I found a few startups who are either using games to fund and solve real user needs or using Unity to create educational/informative visualizations for museums and businesses. This led me to change my mind and return to creating games and hopefully start working with one of these startups
Keeping ourselves entertained on this planet is a very real user problem. It has been a core part of all human cultures for millennia. As we become more productive at producing all the essentials for survival, entertainment will take an ever growing share of our economies.
Entertainment is the one industry that I'm sure will still exist in a 100 years and employing people. I would be very surprised if it were not at least 50% of our economies at that point.
That sounds amazing, I think there is a lot of opportunity in repurposing Game UI for non-game environments. A lot of gameplay UI is optimized for common actions & being intuitive to use
Can you name other "career paths" where are more technical & creative challenges open to solve?
I am working on an indie game project right now and worked for a big corporation in a total different sector before and I must say, that when you talk about compensation, you might be right (at least, when you are working in a company), ...
... but when thinking about technical & creative challenges, game development always wins for me hands-down in my personal experience.
Fair question. Once I was in graduate school (math program), I went down the scientific/large-scale computing path. It isn't a very large field of course, compared to consumer-facing software. It was more of a personal drive.
I mentioned only working in a company, since from that what I saw in my country, compensation for ordinary developers in a company are far less than when working in other sectors as software developer (in deed, I do not know any sector, where payment is less than in the Gaming industry). At least one plus is that the Gaming industry is more likely to take people without formal education (which might also be connected to the lower wages).
Of course, when working in a company, you are less likely to not be able to pay your rent any more.
While financial data is hard to obtain in general, luckily, the Activision lawsuit has made a lot of it available to the public, everything from project budgets to the salaries[1] is now a part of public record.
1. http://gamerant.com/activision-lawsuit-infinity-ward-salarie...
Gamasutra and GDC put together a salary survey every year. I think that's public? I would search for it.
I suspect these two things are related.
It seems that games are one of the top reasons people learn to program, and it seems we have an oversupply of eager game devs because of it.
As for challenges in gaming, I wonder if it is like robotics. I got into electronics inspired by robotics. But it turns out robotics is not really about electronics. It's a lot of things, especially math (control theory), but the electronics part is one of the least important parts of the field, as car as I can tell. Similarly in gaming, it seems greatness has little to do with accomplishment in programming and a lot to do with story, art, music, and user experience.
I went into Waterloo Computer Engineering wanting to work in computer hardware. I quickly found out that hardware was not only insanely complex and difficult to learn, but also really, really boring (just my subjective opinion, I hope nobody takes this personally).
Thankfully, I had the option of specializing in either hardware or software in my program. I ended up choosing the latter and couldn't be happier with my choice.
Having gone through this experience has given me a new appreciation for all the incredibly smart people working on hardware. Without their hard work and innovations, our software industry wouldn't even exist.
Although if I could go back and choose a major again, I'd probably go with either Software Engineering or CompSci, because all the time I spent struggling on hardware courses could have been better spent on building up a better foundation in CompSci theory in a program with more focus.
Think for a bit about your sentence and what it implies :)
(solution: that you've seen 100% of all great games ever submitted to the app store, which seems doubtful)
I'd guess it's more common in mobile and indie, but don't know for sure. I'd be really curious to see an in-depth analysis of it.
Also thanks for your comment, that's the reply I was hoping for. I think a lot of the reasons why and how games fail (commercially) have changed with things like social media and increased usage of stock game engines. Unfortunately most of the post mortems of failed (indie) games I've read are of rather bad games. This is what I've meant when I said I've never heard of a great failed game. The most vocal group are people with a bad game who feel like they're entitled to earn millions (rethoric hyperbole intended).
Okami was rereleased on a newer console at one point wasn't it? I think it probably did a little better.
But yeah, in general, I think that because AAA games cost so much to make and usually cost more to buy, they have to cater to the masses more in order to be successful, whereas indie game devs are more like startups.... lean and mean. So, they don't require the same level of sales to be a success, and they are also free to make more niche and obscure games.
Being "great" (whatever that means) has nothing whatsoever to do with success. There are plenty of "great" things, games included, that fail. The whole idea of "building a better mouse-trap and people will beat a path to your door" is a fantasy. And this is particularly true for any app --game or not-- in something like Apple's App Store.
You can take crap, add great marketing and turn it into solid cash-flow.
In an ecosystem like the app store any app without a solid and aggressive marketing program is almost guaranteed to fail.
Yes, "great" is better than "lame" but they don't succeed or fail on their own.
Regardless, if you're making something special, you're in a much better position to be able to promote it. In business terms, go for the niche that's not currently being served, and execute well.
Do that, and the marketing is easy. Games journalists want to know about unique games that they'll love. They definitely don't want to cover the ten thousandth mediocre clone of whatever's popular at the moment.
Not sure if that's entirely true, but it doesn't seem to support your argument.
Battlecruiser 3000AD, Beyond Good & Evil, Brütal Legend, Grim Fandango, The Last Express, Psychonauts, and Shenmue are often said to be pretty good.
Also, 500 iOS games per day. Mostly, games fail because it's cut-throat. Yeah, a lot are generic, but some are probably pretty good.
What's the standard of "great"? Popular? Well reviewed? In your opinion? Because there's well-reviewed games that flopped, and there's games I've personally liked that didn't make much money. There's even reasonably popular games that are complete commercial failures.
Yes, if you have a AAA company, and a AAA marketing budget, it will drive some sales. But even then, they can flop.
There are tons of cloned games sold well, and there are also many great original games aren't.
The mistake many developers make is that they'll just make a fun game, upload it on the App Store/Play Store with a naive hope that it will get viral, and they'll get money.
The reality is that mobile gaming is extremely competitive right now and you mainly have to work on getting your game known, understand how to monetize it, analyze the behavior of your users to optimize every important metric.
Sadly, this is way less interesting and fun for us, the devs. Unfortunately this is how it works. Look at every big mobile gaming company.
So it's not that it's really hard, it's just not something we like to do.
I'm finishing up my first game now and I'm finding that monetizing and promoting it is going to be much less fun then building it was. This is a side project for me so interesting and fun is more important then money but I think I'm going to put in the effort to try to monetize and promote the game because I think it will be a good learning experience. And because my kids tell me my game is great!
I think it's hard. I think it's REALLY hard - but I'm more than happy to learn, I just don't know what to do. And that's after reading Tim Ferris, signing up to various blog sites and reading as much as possible.
There seams to be plenty of books on marketing theory out there; but very little in the way of practical, actionable advice.