What I Learned About Failing from My 5 Year Indie Game Dev Project
dylanwilson.net
dylanwilson.net
One thing I've noticed is any passion project that becomes too much like work starts to feel like a chore and the passion for it disappears. I don't think making money off of it would change that.
I've learned that when I do side projects, I need to think of it as having fun and playing. And with that, you accept to stop something and move on to something else as soon as the enjoyment is gone, and maybe come back to it later if the interest shows up again. It's hard, because you can let this feeling of "failure" creep in, like you haven't finished anything, or accomplished any of the projects you were excited about. But if you accept that your goal isn't to actually get anything accomplished, but only to entertain yourself and have fun doing things you're interested in, it helps with that, and makes the whole thing much more healthy.
I don't know if I'd still feel like quitting but I would have more money so that would be nice.
Joking aside, it's really hard to say how I'd feel. 5 years is a long time and if I'd been able to put more money back into the project the story would have been very different.
In any case, I've grown a lot since I started that project and I'm ready to spend the next 5 years on something new. Hopefully more financially sustainable.
So, even though I was making money, I still wanted out. The reasons came down to those listed below:
1) Taxes.
I wonder if it's easier now, but back then, I had to manually pay individual counties in my state, I had to pay individual states, and and then there were countries. I chose not to sell my game in any non-U.S. country just because of this. So, the tax nightmare wasn't something I was interested in, and was a big part of exiting the game selling business.
2) Make updates or create something new?
I originally did well updating my game. It kept people interested, and seemed to spur new sales somehow, but working on the SAME game for months and months and only making minor updates was not fun. It was work. So, I decided to make more games. I had one game make about another $30K, but everything else didn't sell at all. This was incredibly discouraging.
3) Reviews and Customer Support
When you are dependent on game sales, you check your reviews daily, and you freak out about anything less than 5 stars. Every mean comment hits hard. Customers start writing you, and some of them are crazy. I received death threats for removing a small feature for example. I also received CONSTANT questions about getting my game to work on different devices and computers. I couldn't keep up efficiently.
4) Daily Sales Stress
I would watch daily sales like a hawk. If an hour was slow, I'd stress. If a day was slow, I'd panic. It all had to just end. I couldn't market all day every day and work on new features and new games, so I was at the mercy of the app stores and it made me nuts.
5) Sales slowed
Finally, sales started slowing because of all the competition to my game (maybe). Other devs saw it doing well and a bunch of clones started showing up. Some even used my assets. Some Just added an "!" after the name of my game and were somehow using my code. I wasn't getting sales because my game had been out for a while, and then there was pirating and fakes. I know some people have their own opinion about pirating, but I would get emails from people telling me my game gave them a virus, then when we got down to it, they had stolen it from some shady site and still wanted support and to blame me for installing an infected game.
So, all that being said, yeah, making okay money in the game industry just wasn't enough to make me want to continue, but I REALLY like to make games, so part of me wants to try again anyway. Perhaps learning from these experiences will make the next adventure a little easier, who knows?
What taxes are you talking about? You mentioned that you were selling through app stores, which I assume handled sales taxes for you in the few cases when they may be required. Your business income taxes would be the same as any business in your city/county/state/country. What else is there?
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Glad you made the right call and I hope you find another passion project soon!
In comparison, a game that grossed $100k, which I have to pay self-employment taxes on, and perhaps app store fees out of that too, sounds awfully mediocre, at best.
He has a point. But as an entrepreneur, I'll probably go through all of this again and again and again. Can't help myself.
A revenue of 100.000 spread over 2 years wouldn’t be enough to support me and my family. Living in a Western Europe country. I’d prefer freelancing (or a job) for income in that scenario, over making ends meet with a software product and battling off copycats and whatnot. It should grow month over month and if it stalls for a year+ at low revenue, that’s most likely bad and I’d kill it, considering it a mediocre success! Hope that makes sense :)
If they are really senior & in a US tech hubs total comp from a FAANG could be almost 10x that.
- a solo indie dev several months in
My second game was more of a golf game, and I knew there was competition, but I put a “play my other games” link in the free version of my most popular game which had about 3 million free downloads and that propelled sales.
No blog or twitter. Just placement in the Google Play Store and having been first of their kind.
That was nightmare. Best to outsource it completely with: Merchant of Record, an app marketplace or resellers.
I don’t think a lot of developers know their actual tax requirements when selling software. A good accountant will surprise a lot of devs :/
Wow, literally crazy
About how many customers did you have, when those things happened? If I may ask.
I wonder how large a group of people tends to be, when such crazies start appearing
(I wonder how those things made you feel and think)
My game was originally designed to work on the G1 phone. Which was an awesome little phone.
Maybe you'd find this article interesting, about crazy people when the group I'd large enough:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tim.blog/2020/02/02/reasons-to-...
(What! That became a Google amp link. The real link is: https://tim.blog/2020/02/02/reasons-to-not-become-famous/ )
It got posted here at HN some months ago
Your project was a success, only the (nonexistent) business strategy failed.
In hindsight I totally agree with you. Unfortunately when I started the project I wasn't in that mindset. It started as a passion project, mostly an experiment in building an audience around something I enjoyed creating.
More recently I've been getting some help to understand the things I did wrong and to start with the business strategy.
That doesn't magically happen. Even in the cases where people do turn their work into side income or a job, there's a huge amount of outreach and effort behind the scenes.
From reading the article author’s failure was failing to ask that question of himself. With no clear objective or milestones, the project ate a huge amount of manpower for no material gain and left him thoroughly burnt out.
It doesn’t matter if your project is for-profit or Free. Identify your deliverables, identify your schedule, and never turn a blind-eye to your failures to meet both.
Oh, and never mistake makework for productivity either. If your product isn’t selling, what it doesn’t need is more features. What it does need is better marketing and sales skills. Quite frankly, building the technology part is the least important part of building a successful Product. Being geeks, it’s awfully easy to work on (i.e. fiddle with) the one bit that you’re naturally good at, when what you should be doing is working on all the parts that you’re not.
Perhaps what happened here is a side project grew into something larger, it's now just a project, and he fell into putting more time and effort into it without making a conscious decision due to popularity - perhaps that's when it can bite you, when you realise you don't enjoy it anymore and it's become one sided.
I think side projects should stay as small as possible unless there looks to be a real potential for both yourself personally and the rest of the world - even then failing fast feels like the best idea.
And +1 for failing fast. It is failing slow that’s the disaster.
When you have people using your stuff, you have to decide whether you care about them or not. It’s ok not to care, you don’t owe anybody anything, but if you lead them on or give them the impression that you do, then they are invested in something because of it and it would be pretty shitty to just disappear. You still can, if you like, but you should at least do it consciously.
If you have people the impression that you would support something then you need to be clear with them that this isn’t actually the case, otherwise you’re a bit of a dick for leading them on. It’s perfectly ok to just throw something out to the world without supporting it in any way and it’s also ok to step back from something you did once support, but you should at least communicate this so people don’t get the wrong impression.
"What are you doing?"
"I'm painting, some people bought my pictures"
"So what's your exit strategy?"If I'm trying to make money off such a side project "quit whenever you want" isn't sustainable. But that isn't one of my goals. I just want to enjoy building things and give the project back to the community, and I'm lucky to have a separate source of income to accomplish that. If nobody cares, then that's fine. The time I spent puzzling over the problems I was facing was a more interesting use of my time for me than sitting around all day watching YouTube, anyway. Also, I at least believe I'm getting somewhere with my project still, so I still have motivation to keep working on it.
Maybe there's some confusion over the term "side project" which could mean "a thing someone developed in off hours that they're intending to bootstrap into a sustainable business," but it could also mean "some person's hobby."
But the fact that I currently have no way of monetizing this means I'll have to work on it in my spare time, meaning it will take that much longer to get to a point where I can declare it's shipped. Maybe I'll lose interest before that point. But to me that's perfectly fine and nothing to become gloomy over if it doesn't work out. Though, to be honest I might not be saying this if my project had users who would be frustrated with me for stepping away from working on it, but the reality is that it's so much work for one person to accomplish and at times it's draining to push forward on it every day, despite what I get out of working on it.
Been there, done that, lost the shirt. Lessons learned.
You pretty much nailed it. I went into the project without a clear monetization plan and when I got around to trying to figure it out I didn't know how.
It doesn't really go into detail about whether he offered other direct contracts or work fire hire or other tried other licensing or any other strategy.
Always be wary of any market where someone's willingness to try your product is in itself a negative indicator of ability to pay. Hit-driven markets that attract large numbers of non-serious dabblers are extremely difficult to sell tools profitably to, but it's easy enough to get minor attention that makes you think you might have something worthwhile (music production is another one that scatters corpses all over the place despite seeming large at first glance).
> Hit-driven markets that attract large numbers of non-serious dabblers are extremely difficult to sell tools profitably.
If I'm understanding correctly, do you mean it's easy to overestimate the size of the market? That makes sense to me. And there's certainly an upper-limit to how much dabblers are willing to pay. Still, for a solo founder that can sometimes be more than enough. I can think of a few tools like mine doing over $10k/month.
I agree. But what I've learned in my short time using Godot is embracing Godot's scene system and not fighting it seems to help.
This area in the documentation is helpful: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/getting_started/workf...
You can also bypass the scene system. The scene system is a optional abstraction on top of a seemingly more data-oriented core where everything is just a RID (Resource ID).
More here: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/optimizatio...
> For example if you just straight up write code to add nodes to the scene graph it will create a disconnect between what is displayed in the editor and the actual game
You can solve this to some degree by putting "tool" at the top of your scripts. See https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/misc/runnin...
It also happens in Qt and similar WYSIWYG visual editors where they often cannot render full dynamic content in the editors. But in all those cases you can just write everything in code without using the visual tools, and you can do that with Godot as well.
Fixing the Paypal button issue will be more tricky! I just tried it in Firefox and it's fine, but I'm seeing temperamental issues in Safari. Will look into it further - thanks for the heads up.
I'm not saying you can never make money but as someone else put it, there are a lot more corpses than success stories in this field.
I would with your sentiment if you said helping indie devs wasn’t profitable opposed to a waste of time. There is real value in supporting a community, you just have to know when you are doing charity work.
The whole one mans garbage is another mans treasure taken from another angle.
What is difficult in those kinds of businesses is to identify whether there's a real market there, and to convince enough people to try your product. For a new kind of product, you have to easily show large amounts of value, because people are used to get things done without your product.
So I'd not say that it's a waste of time, but it's just a difficult kind of business to enter.
This is a critical thing to assess in any case where you’re investing time and effort and expecting to get support (either financial or “in kind”) in return. I see this ignored in many “startups” of all kinds (companies, social clubs, workout groups... anything that requires some effort to make happen).
The key test is: “Can this thing continue running without me? Do people care enough to give something if I’m not pushing?” (Pay a fee, volunteer for well defined role, resolve disputes, etc.)
The first one isn't true and the second one is simply not doable for poor people.
Thibaut Duplessis, creator of Lichess, talks about this in a talk he gave (YouTube somewhere). He says that he's very reluctant to add new features due to the huge cost. The feature must be something very special to overcome the cost.
Regarding adding features, I like the approach here: https://www.defmacro.org/2013/09/26/products.html
Free software is philanthropy. Even if you somehow are getting paid to write it, it cannot be done for profit. If your objective is revenue discarding the burgeoning international IP regime as a source of income is foolhardy.
That being said, software for profit is hugely contrary to software that is used. Its infinitely harder to see anyone else use your code and you must always be cognizant that your proprietary for sale code is always going to see orders of magnitude less utility and adoption than free code.
So when you write software from day one the objective is going to be to either maximize money or maximize utility. They are contrary to one another. Some would argue that making money == ability to do more work == more utility but no amount of time invested into software used by a few will compare to less software being used by orders of magnitude more people.
And there is also no guarantee of success. Its why proprietary, popular software exists. Making a proprietary or free product does not guarantee money or use. But depending on which you want going for one will hugely limit your ability to obtain the other.
This axis also comes up in free software itself between permissive vs restrictive licensing. If your code is MIT / BSD / Apache / etc you will almost certainly never make money from it. Anyone can just use it however they want with no restrictions and will do so. It will maximize its utilization with no regard for the ethics or objectives of said use.
If you license it restrictively, IE GPL or CC-SA, you will reduce your potential adoption audience to not include those that want to distribute it in propriety without providing their users the same freedoms they got from you. This can, however, be the same exchange of utility vs money, or, more often, time. Infectious free software propagates slowly but does cause the general amount of freeness to increase through permeation. It also lets you sell licenses for proprietary use and is one of the only major ways to monetize free software consistently, see Qt.
Perhaps one can get lucky, and stumble into success - monetary or fame or something. But more often than not, a project that didn't initially define what success looks like would be doomed to fail (and meandering is also a type of failure under this model).
Success can be tons of stars on GitHub - I would feel very good if I had positively benefited that many people. I think a major downside of capitalism is how it attempts to attach a price tag to both the concrete and the ephemeral - how can you put a price tag on the good feelings one gets for creating something useful from the world? But nah every side project has to be a hustle and if it isn't making you money, drop it in a second.
As for support requests, you don't really have to reply to them. You have control over your level of involvement in a project.
How much less enjoyable does your backyard garden become if every weed you pull you think "excellent, I've just increased the value of my house by .12$. Ah shit there goes inflation, hold on, my weed pulling nets me less than a dollar an hour, maybe I should do some contracting with this time instead?"
Same goes for a lot of other things. Sometimes you have no choice but to do stuff that sucks and really isn't helping anyone, yes. Try to keep it to a minimum.
Getting sun (vitamin D, a tan, mood stabilizing effects of sun, sleep cycle stabilizing effects)
Fresh air (dopamine)
Increased backyard beauty (every time you look out your window you get to enjoy it)
Sense of accomplishment
Potentially fresh vegetables
A little bit more post-apocalypse skills lol
Contributing to local bee health
We harvested a bit of our basil again today and put it on a pizza we made, and it tastes amazing. That has made all the effort worth it.
We might try expanding our gardening efforts next year, but I'm not entirely sure of that. We'll at least keep the basil going indefinitely, just bring it inside during the winter, and plant more peppers next year, but not sure if I want to graduate to making a full garden yet.
So nobody, kid or not, wants to fail/lose all the time but after watching my three kids play lots of different sports the pain they feel after a loss is very fleeting and minor. The parents hold onto it for much longer; the kids just want to know if they can get ice cream.
Defense had 0 tryouts. There was literally 2 attempts at being a wide receiver. 0 attempts at being QB or lineman.
I remember catching both passes, but maybe I wasn't fast enough? Whatever the case it was obvious it was hand picked. And our team won 2 of 8 games.
At least no one can dispute how much I sucked at track lol.
That said, consider Alfie Kohn's writing, such as "No Contest: The Case Against Competition": https://www.alfiekohn.org/contest/
"No Contest, which has been stirring up controversy since its publication in 1986, stands as the definitive critique of competition. Drawing from hundreds of studies, Alfie Kohn eloquently argues that our struggle to defeat each other -- at work, at school, at play, and at home -- turns all of us into losers. ... No Contest makes a powerful case that "healthy competition" is a contradiction in terms. Because any win/lose arrangement is undesirable, we will have to restructure our institutions for the benefit of ourselves, our children, and our society. For this [1992] revised edition, Kohn adds a comprehensive account of how students can learn more effectively by working cooperatively in the classroom instead of struggling to be Number One. He also offers a pointed and personal afterword, assessing shifts in American thinking on competition and describing reactions to his provocative message."
From the book: "If competitiveness is inherently compensatory, if it is an effort to prove oneself and stave off feelings of worthlessness, it follows that the healthier the individual (in the sense of having a more solid, unconditional sense of self-esteem), the less need there is to compete. The implication, we might say, is that the real alternative to being number one is not being number two but being psychologically free enough to dispense with rankings altogether. Interestingly, two sports psychologists have found a number of excellent athletes with "immense character strengths who don't make it in sports. They seem to be so well put together emotionally that there is no neurotic tie to sport." Since recreation almost always involves competition in our culture, those who are healthy enough not to need to compete may simply end up turning down those activities. ... Each culture provides its own mechanisms for dealing with self-doubt. ... Low self-esteem, then, is a necessary but not sufficient cause of competition. The ingredients include an aching need to prove oneself and the approved mechanism for doing so at other people's expense. ... I do not want to shy away from the incendiary implications of all of this. To suggest in effect that many of our heroes (entrepreneurs and athletes, movie stars and politicians) may be motivated by low self-esteem, to argue that our "state religion" is a sign of psychological ill-health -- this will not sit well with many people.(Page 103)"From business side, I don't think it has anything to do with you. Quite often it is down to luck, ability to predict where market is going next and execution.
It is tough for Monogame C# framework to compete with Unity. Your tool is basically build on top of their Monogame funnel, so if their funnel is tiny, then you screwed. But at the time it is hard to see how it was going to go, because Unity has so many problems and closed source didn't really help.
Number of problems increased exponentially on the Unity side, but it became industry standard, so today if you making games and not using Unity/Unreal and not AAA studio, it is super risky to get funded.
It's true, having this project under my belt has already helped my career in many ways. I'm pretty sure it was a big factor in landing my last job. Not to mention the many hours of practice I put into coding outside my day job.
I never really wanted to compete with Unity but in hindsight I may have been better off piggybacking my library on Unity rather than MonoGame.
In the meantime, I got to write a couple of VSCode extensions that are used at least by some people and React dependencies that I personally find cool.
I never really thought about it, but my open-source projects usually end up having 15-40 stars and that means 1 or 2 support tickets every 6 months. I guess not being popular has its upsides.
All that I can personally say is that, more than passion towards my current project, I feel as if I didn't make it, I would regret it deeply. So I wake up early every day to advance a little bit each day. I deeply enjoy the process.
I hope you someday look back at your project and see it as a success. A failure commercially, maybe, but a success in many other ways.
Anyways, thanks for the link to https://www.indiehackers.com/.
The Silicon Valley version of this is raising a lot of money when you don't have product-market fit or the right co-founder or both. Getting other people to commit millions of dollars to a bad idea or the wrong team is a great way to waste years of your life. It leads to what I call perverse persistence -- not letting go until long after you should have.
Thanks for reading.
The only mistake you seem to have made is that you didn't quit soon enough which is a story as old as the idea of collaborative project itself and I think people will continue making it.
Goals change over time. Even now I'm making new goals that will no doubt be a bit different in years to come.
It also makes being unprofitable and living in your parents basement harder.
(Obviously GP missed that this was a side gig)
I also can do routine coding while the TV is on (doesn't require a lot of thinking, just typing it up and testing for minor bugs), so I can still make some progress during that, but it's less.
Granted I do have to spend more time on the relationship/taking care of dogs than when I just lived by myself, so I'm less productive than I used to be, but I still get to work on things.
Thanks for reading!