> I guess the real truth is that one percent are hits and maybe five percent make a profit and the other 95 percent either break even or lose money. That's a tough way to make a living.
So many game developers are saying this... I wonder if there is any validity to it. Anyone run the numbers? Precious few indies are gracious enough to share their numbers but it's curious to me because the games continue to be made.
Like other forms of media content, games are not only made for financial reasons. Some people just love making games.
In fact, the rise of "Early Access" and crowdfunding seems to provide a platform for what could probably best be described as "exploratory" game development.
>but it's curious to me because the games continue to be made.
I think the numbers are more impressive than we assume and the work, especially for an indie-quality game, can be done with a very, very small team. Only a handful of the top played games in Steam are actually AAA games. That leaves a lot of dollars available for smaller shops. 2014's success story? Goat Simulator with 1.4m copies sold. Even at its modest $9.99 pricing, that's pretty decent money for what is essentially a joke game.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/steam-gauge-measuring-...
A coworker had a failed game launch (a Mario Cart clone for Android), he made U$ 25 off it (but he did get some consulting gigs out of it).
I've also met or listened to other hopeful game studios, one with dozens of failures, that eventually pivoted into productivity software.
With mobile, your marketing budget is more important than your game. Anyone can code a ad-driven clone of $popular_game, like your friend did. If anything, mobile is a lesson in attracting the wrong kind of developers (quick cash kiddies making clones) and a lesson in how poorly organized and run the various App stores are. Not to mention, how unsophisticated the mobile buyer is. Its grandma looking for a distraction, not the next Half-Life.