“I basically have a game it just needs graphics, sound, and like 20% more game”
Want to know why they say game dev is so hard?
What do New World, Ashes of Creation, EverQuest: Next, and Amazon’s Lord of the Rings all have in common? All looked amazing and incredible - none even launched a v1 to the public. Too many problems that never went away.
Look at a fully launched game like Crimson Desert. It looks absolutely amazing - better than anything any solo dev could do graphically - and yet it’s “a flop” by industry standards.
Highguard - on paper looks very professional, ticks all the boxes - famous flop.
Creative masterpieces with entire staff of artists and designers flop all the time even when the game looks and sometimes even feels great.
It’s like film where it is hard to predict what will work and where energy is being wasted.
I don’t think anyone has a magic formula, so most studios ride trend waves and try low-risk experiments.
But trendwise, games are very out (gen Z does not game like Gen Y), and it’s more difficult than ever to find an audience.
I would try to release something smaller in scope ASAP to see if there’s any interest, and if you don’t have creative - for a game it’s like you’re not even out of the PoC or engine phase.
It might be a good time to just not build it, since you’re at the beginning anyway and have no way to move forward solo.
One of the reasons that has caused hesitation in deploying the idea early is the possibility that the mechanics might be instantly swallowed up by a publisher who could replicate it in a matter of a few months.
However, if player's don't care about the gameplay, no publisher will either. So that's a very practical piece of advice in your comment. Building the audience to validate the idea should take a higher priority.
On the positive side, the studio showed enthusiasm across the team while working on the project (biased as it may be)
Games are fun problems, not optimization problems.
Also, sunk costs are sunk costs. And often the value from spending money is what you learn, not more money.
I could keep building it myself, although it involves much more than just software hours. There is a huge amount of work that includes 2D/3D art, sound, music, networking, UI, onboarding, testing, etc.
There's a reason triple-A games cost billions. When scope exceeds budget, reducing scope is often better. You can build a bicycle much more readily than you can build an airplane.
This sounds like you could look into kickstarting so you can get the money to develop it. You kind of already know what stages and milestones you would need to go through to build the project. It would be a matter of breaking it down into stages and prizes.
If all you need is professional graphics hire someone or generate graphics to finish. Use AI to finish or do it yourself. Open source when you have more.
“I basically have a game it just needs graphics, sound, and like 20% more game”
Want to know why they say game dev is so hard?
What do New World, Ashes of Creation, EverQuest: Next, and Amazon’s Lord of the Rings all have in common? All looked amazing and incredible - none even launched a v1 to the public. Too many problems that never went away.
Look at a fully launched game like Crimson Desert. It looks absolutely amazing - better than anything any solo dev could do graphically - and yet it’s “a flop” by industry standards.
Highguard - on paper looks very professional, ticks all the boxes - famous flop.
Creative masterpieces with entire staff of artists and designers flop all the time even when the game looks and sometimes even feels great.
It’s like film where it is hard to predict what will work and where energy is being wasted.
I don’t think anyone has a magic formula, so most studios ride trend waves and try low-risk experiments.
But trendwise, games are very out (gen Z does not game like Gen Y), and it’s more difficult than ever to find an audience.
I would try to release something smaller in scope ASAP to see if there’s any interest, and if you don’t have creative - for a game it’s like you’re not even out of the PoC or engine phase.
It might be a good time to just not build it, since you’re at the beginning anyway and have no way to move forward solo.
One of the reasons that has caused hesitation in deploying the idea early is the possibility that the mechanics might be instantly swallowed up by a publisher who could replicate it in a matter of a few months.
However, if player's don't care about the gameplay, no publisher will either. So that's a very practical piece of advice in your comment. Building the audience to validate the idea should take a higher priority.
On the positive side, the studio showed enthusiasm across the team while working on the project (biased as it may be)
How should I rethink my problem space
Games are fun problems, not optimization problems.
Also, sunk costs are sunk costs. And often the value from spending money is what you learn, not more money.
I could keep building it myself, although it involves much more than just software hours. There is a huge amount of work that includes 2D/3D art, sound, music, networking, UI, onboarding, testing, etc.
There's a reason triple-A games cost billions. When scope exceeds budget, reducing scope is often better. You can build a bicycle much more readily than you can build an airplane.
This sounds like you could look into kickstarting so you can get the money to develop it. You kind of already know what stages and milestones you would need to go through to build the project. It would be a matter of breaking it down into stages and prizes.
If all you need is professional graphics hire someone or generate graphics to finish. Use AI to finish or do it yourself. Open source when you have more.