More like, the iOS app store gold rush ended. The indie dev scene is thriving on PC. Stop throwing your time and money away developing for a platform overwhelmingly used by people that don't really care about your games, that are looking for brief distractions while they wait in the checkout line, and by and large refuse to pay even a dollar for the privilege. Don't blame the industry because you avoided the platform used by people that actually buy games, play them for hours a day, tirelessly promote the good ones on message boards and amongst their friends, and will actually appreciate the effort you put into your work.
Also, Donkey Kong was not created by a "lone game developer." Miyamoto may have designed Donkey Kong by himself, but he had entire team of contract developers at his disposal.
The gold rush was almost over before it started on mobile - it did not take more than a year for things to become extremely competitive. Flash games suffered a similar fate. Consoles have not generally been indie-friendly but Playstation is now making a better effort on that front, although they are still mainly catering to indie devs who have already "made it." Greenlight is becoming quite competitive (there were 17,000+ active games when I was on there). Kickstarter seems to have lost a great deal of its enthusiasm (perhaps rightfully so).
And yet...
There is so much unexplored space in the medium. We might have stripped the surface, but there is gold down there somewhere. :)
Back when I was a console developer at EA, the ambient wisdom was that the money was falling out of (non-online) PC games in large part because of piracy.
Is that not the case? Do you happen to have numbers on what the PC game industry is like? How much of this is because of Steam?
I think you're right. I know I've lost faith in mobile gaming because for every fun game I've played I've deleted 20. I'm sure there are good games out there, but how can you find them in a sea of garbage and flappy clones? On the other hand, Steam has plenty of great Indie games (selling for more than one dollar!) with plenty of reviews around so you know what's good.
Personally, I'd like to think that the good games will still rise to the top. Monument Valley wasn't a fluke; it's a game based entirely about the art and the content, rather than stale one-off game mechanics that could be cloned in an afternoon. It got noticed because it was deep and unique. (Did they even do any marketing?) I've rarely found a game with that same level of quality that got no attention[1].
Most of the time, whenever somebody complains about their games getting no sales and I look at the stuff they've made, I see games that are fun and clever, but very one-note. Like, you can already see how the rest of the game is going to go just by looking at a screenshot. That's not a bad thing, but I don't think it's the kind of stuff that sells anymore. (With obvious viral exceptions that occur unpredictably every so often.) Whereas with a game like Monument Valley, you want to get in and explore it because every single level is unique.
Several years back, the developers of Sword and Sworcery talked about how their business model was entirely about chasing the long tail rather than aiming for the mass market. It paid off wonderfully for them, and I think — I hope! — it still makes sense.
[1]: Hey! If you liked Monument Valley, you should totally check out Windowsill. Short but gorgeous. Listed as an inspiration by MV's developers. Demo in browser: http://windosill.com
Monument Valley is visually gorgeous, and I like a lot about it. However it has zero depth as a game- you can easily move through it by tapping randomly on the screen.
Also it's built by ustwo, and while they're lovely people, they're far from a small one man shop (they have hundreds of employees in several offices worldwide and know what they're doing when it comes to marketing). I don't think Monument Valley is a strong case for your argument (Sword and Sorcery is a better one, but they rode on the original iPad announcement, which is a strategy you can only use once a decade)
One note about Monument Valley though: When they added new levels and charged for it, there was a big backlash at first. Luckily there was a counter backlash but it still shows the expectations of most gamers in the apps store. Especially on Android.
I have made games for almost twenty years and only one thing has been a constant: People always say it is a terrible time to make games, and a terrible time start a game company. I'm not saying it isn't hard now, or the odds are aren't against you. But its easy to look back on past successes of twenty years ago and forget that most people were failing then too.
Systems are small, expectations low, challenges firm.
I very seriously enjoy the retro scene today. It's possible for ordinary people to participate, even make games others will play and pay for. Homebrew.
Completing that experience was one of those life checklist things. I had a great time and have learned a lot and was able to explore games on a technical level in an achievable way.
Personally, I see this being cyclic. The big names and players will always be there. But little scenes pop up regularly, and those are a treat for those who go looking.
Are there good sites for discovering these sorts of games? In the category of retro-style games for mobile platforms, it's an enormous chore to find anything good by just paging through the app stores.
I had a long stint with game development. Started contributing to MUD codebases as a teenager, later invested a lot of time in XNA and web games, although none of that work was particularly successful.
As satisfying as that work was, I get as much satisfaction from writing Enterprise/B2B apps. The thing about game development is that, when you're years into it, it's just another app. Video game lovers especially start out thinking they want to do game dev and game dev only, but a great many of them would benefit from exploring what are thought of as "boring" areas of development. It's only boring if you don't like making software.
>It's only boring if you don't like making software
I think that's at least somewhat dependent on personality, and at least as much dependent on what sort of enterprise apps you're writing.
Personally, there's only so much enjoyment I can extract from writing CRUD code at work, especially when I'm literally handed a multi-page document detailing exactly how the program is going to work, right down to pseudocode.
I think a better comparison would be programming as a hobby versus job. I'm sure many game developers working at development houses like EA get burned out just like the guy working in the salt mines grinding out CRUD code. In both scenarios they lack a vested interest because creativity, in various amounts, is not allowed. Compare that to somebody writing 'boring' apps as a hobby where they have complete creative control.
For me, programming is an art. It's a creative exercise. I'm much more vested when I'm allowed to flex that creative muscle. The kind of application doesn't matter as much as the amount of creativity I'm allowed. Your mileage my indeed vary though.
this 1000 times.. started out wanting to make games, ended up just building everyday apps. I now work on an app used by hundreds of companies and some very big ones. It gives me great satisfaction although I'd still love to build the game I always dreamed of if I found the right group of people to do it with.
The Fantasy Sandbox MMO market is begging for some love. Nothing great since UO or SWG:Pre-CU... Everything after WoW has been just flat out terrible attempts at stealing wow and its really hurt the market.
The whole game development now is just about profit and not about creating original, amazing works of art like the early guys.
Good Article. I'm actively trying to move out of the industry (or into a company that has more opportunity connected with non-games) now after almost 10 years in.
I'm fortunate that my skills are way more transferable than the majority of game developers (I build and lead SaaS teams), but it can be a bit of a slog to actually shift gears.
Games are a place to be if you're really passionate about it or you feel like there's another hill to take. In general tho, there are much more meaningful things you can do with your life (like raise kids). So I'm on the hunt for a job that lets me continue to build awesome products while have the ability to see my kid on a regular basis (not just 6 months out of the year).
I've done what you're attempting to do, and your instincts are right: there are much more interesting and worthwhile things outside of the game industry, including kids. It might be arrogant to say, but game developers are ninjas compared to the rest of the dev world. Doing complex AI/graphics/networking at 60fps is a hell of a lot harder than a typical CRUD app.
I'm glad for my time in the game industry because it sharpened my skills and made the rest of my life a cake walk. But, I wouldn't want to go back due to the exploitation I see in it.
"For the lone game programmer that day has already arrived.
Twice."
If one sees 'the art of lone game programming' as a genre then this might be true. One successful lonely game programmer leads to a gold rush of many lonely game programmers digging the iKlondike for gold.
But I am pretty sure that there is always room for the brilliant idea that no one can grasp when you pitch it. I personally would have talked Notch out of the idea for Minecraft with the usual arguments (blocky graphics, not state-of-the-art, there's no real goal, etc pp). And when I played it, I was like - omg, I could have done that.
There always will be a lonely (game) programmer doing something extraordinary that you didn't think of in the first place or even despised. And then there is the next Notch, and I will again say - omg, not again.
And some of us have big ideas and don't dare to join the art of lonely game programming.
Except that the myth of the one-idea-making-a-fortune is mostly that. A myth. Minecraft, as incredible as it was, wasn't the only game of its kind. People routinely underestimate the role of luck in these things.
There is room for the one great idea. But the point is that the minimum production values on the platforms that sell that idea has risen beyond one person now. As it did in the 16-bit era in the late 80s and early 90s. I thought it was interesting that Monument Valley made it into the list at the end. Made by a graphic design agency, not a bedroom coder.
But I am pretty sure that there is always room for the brilliant idea that no one can grasp when you pitch it.
You're right, but I don't think the author would claim otherwise.
The article is not about the possibility of breakout success, but about lone, reasonably skilled game developers being able to make a consistent living. Not the same thing.
Maybe I am being a bit naive, but I don't think many of those games in the good old days were made with the intention of making huge profits. Most of the people were hobbyists who just had an itch to create the game they wanted to play - and they lucked out that a lot of other people wanted to play their game too.
I think the state of the game market is good -- let the hobbyists of today create the game they want to play - and maybe it will make them a boat load of money. Or maybe they will be happy because they had their vision come true.
Now the big corporations -- well they will just push whatever makes them money.
> Maybe I am being a bit naive, but I don't think many of those games in the good old days were made with the intention of making huge profits.
They weren't -- but the dream people had was that their games would generate enough profit that they could make a living making them.
I read the post's message as being that they did, for a while, but those days have receded due to the collapse in what people are willing to pay for games. In a world where $0.99 for a game is considered expensive, it's hard to make a living making games unless you come up with some way to consistently make absolutely massive hits -- and that's a nut that nobody has ever cracked.
A great game developed by a lone programmer I seldom see mentioned is "Haven & Hearth". It's developed by a (faux) company called "Seatribe", which actually consists of two people, but only one of them (Fredrik Tolf AKA loftar) does the programming while Björn Johannessen is responsible for the game assets.
It's pretty cool actually and they'll be releasing a 3D version of it at some point[1]. It's basically a survival MMO with permadeath, and hence a lot of cool stuff has emerged, like world wars and geopolitics, complete with player-run and protected trade hubs and so on. In the game there's no official carebear zones though, but if you kill another player you leave a scent that can be tracked, allowing rangers to exact justice. You also leave scents for vandalizing stuff or stealing things within staked "claims".
No game experience can beat the rush of adrenaline one gets when fighting for one's life in H&H, where you might irrevocably lose a character you've been building for a month or more, and where you get to take away that same thing from the person attacking you. It's amazing.
You know, I really want a good new game that actually captures my interest. I mean they happen, I still love those games, but I feel like we're over supplied with junk, and undersupplied with genuinely interesting games. I'm hungry and there's a mcdonalds on every corner, but I can't find a restaurant with a gourmet chef. I have so many unplayed steam games right now. Tossed some money on a hope, and after a few minutes realized it wasn't going to work out.
I think the thing that bothers me about this sort of "woah is the small guy" viewpoint is it's like "oh no the brilliant little artists got crushed by the corporations and the me-too hacks".
You know what, fuck that bullshit. Most games right now are asinine. And I mean even the indie wunderkids and the pretentious art games.
Here's the problem: nobody knows how to do this shit very well yet. It'll happen, eventually. They're learning, but it's not really very good right now. I mean people try really really hard. They deserve some success. But as far as the results go, most of them aren't that interesting. I want good games.
Remove barriers to creating something and the market tends to devolve towards, well, marketing.
Anyone can write a book now - and get it to market. It's never been easier technically to write anything including games. And app markets take away much, if not all, challenges of go to market.
Such markets are destined to get flooded and to (reliably) get noticed in such a market, you need a marketing budget.
Tell me if I missed it, but the chance to make a living as an independent game has increased, didn't?
Companies get as big as their market will allow it.
Saying no one can make a living from games anymore because of the big companies is like saying
there can be no more start-ups because of Google and Facebook.
The gaming market is big and fast.
It's fine if you don't want to run anymore but there are a lot more other people in the race who have a chance of seeing the finishing line.
There is an interesting documentary on Netflix "Indie Game" that chronicles a few indie developers. It does a good job showing the emotional struggles and difficulties in developing and bringing a game to market.
Since the article talks about hobby development, I want to plug Handmade Hero [1], which is a really cool series of youtube videos (still in progress) of a full, production quality game being built from scratch in C by one person. This was my first exposure to game programming and its really fun to watch along with the videos, plus the guy making them is fairly opinionated about best programming practices, so you pick up so more general skills as well.
It's been featured on HN before, so many people have probably seen it, but if you haven't, it is definitely worth checking out.
Part of the reason he can still do it is that he's been doing it for so long, and has a loyal long term audience quite happy to buy a new Spiderweb game because it's a new spiderweb game.
I think the lone developer, or lone lead developer as it truly is now, is still viable. It is probably better this thinking is out there though. Most games are a small team or require assets of many developers nowadays. The land rush is over but gaming is still the biggest draw.
Most projects we work on are in house or contract and they have a couple or few people on teams. Sponsored games and advergames were also the money makers with flash gaming and will be with WebGL and more. Internal IP or titles also help pad revenues and transitions. Gaming is big in agency promotions. Gaming is bigger still in mobile.
It is very difficult no doubt but even a single developer is more like a team now with things like Unity/Unreal/Cocos2d-x/etc as the engine team, asset stores for many things, contractors for art/audio/design/development and plenty of markets to get into. The age of the from scratch lone developer is over, but there is just as much opportunity as ever for teams of 1-5 or so.
My new years resolution was to participate this year. Naturally, its the 13th and I haven't even started for this month. But I'll try, maybe this weekend.
One person dev will rise every time there is a new viable games platform. Because such platforms will initially have low market penetration, small customer bases, and be high risk for larger developers. But as soon as those platforms are established, one person teams will be eaten alive by others.
VR is primed to be a game tech. You can maybe do some interesting stuff now, when the only hardware out there is a few hundred thousand dev-kits. But if the Oculus launch goes okay, the production values needed to compete will very quickly take it out of one-person territory.
Of course, there are always new tech. But for every platform that turns into money, there are many that are dead ends. Many single person devs who crash and burn because they are early to a party that never starts. I developed WAP games. I know this :)
[+] [-] ANTSANTS|11 years ago|reply
Also, Donkey Kong was not created by a "lone game developer." Miyamoto may have designed Donkey Kong by himself, but he had entire team of contract developers at his disposal.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_hist...
http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Company:Ikegami_Tsus...
[+] [-] gavanwoolery|11 years ago|reply
And yet...
There is so much unexplored space in the medium. We might have stripped the surface, but there is gold down there somewhere. :)
[+] [-] munificent|11 years ago|reply
Back when I was a console developer at EA, the ambient wisdom was that the money was falling out of (non-online) PC games in large part because of piracy.
Is that not the case? Do you happen to have numbers on what the PC game industry is like? How much of this is because of Steam?
[+] [-] barbs|11 years ago|reply
Arguably this market is becoming over-saturated as well.
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-indie-bubble-i...
[+] [-] vlunkr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] speeder|11 years ago|reply
I guess the percentage of successful devs on PC is probably on a historically low point.
On Reddit there was comments from one guy that gives from 10 to 100k to indie devs, he get 9 thousand applications per month.
[+] [-] archagon|11 years ago|reply
Most of the time, whenever somebody complains about their games getting no sales and I look at the stuff they've made, I see games that are fun and clever, but very one-note. Like, you can already see how the rest of the game is going to go just by looking at a screenshot. That's not a bad thing, but I don't think it's the kind of stuff that sells anymore. (With obvious viral exceptions that occur unpredictably every so often.) Whereas with a game like Monument Valley, you want to get in and explore it because every single level is unique.
Several years back, the developers of Sword and Sworcery talked about how their business model was entirely about chasing the long tail rather than aiming for the mass market. It paid off wonderfully for them, and I think — I hope! — it still makes sense.
[1]: Hey! If you liked Monument Valley, you should totally check out Windowsill. Short but gorgeous. Listed as an inspiration by MV's developers. Demo in browser: http://windosill.com
[+] [-] GuiA|11 years ago|reply
Also it's built by ustwo, and while they're lovely people, they're far from a small one man shop (they have hundreds of employees in several offices worldwide and know what they're doing when it comes to marketing). I don't think Monument Valley is a strong case for your argument (Sword and Sorcery is a better one, but they rode on the original iPad announcement, which is a strategy you can only use once a decade)
[+] [-] jonshariat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sevores|11 years ago|reply
It’s like a mashup of Naya’s Quest [1] and Fez [2] (or Crush or Super Paper Mario).
[1]: http://terrycavanaghgames.com/nayasquest/ [2]: http://fezgame.com
[+] [-] smrq|11 years ago|reply
If such a game got no attention... how would you find it?
[+] [-] georgeecollins|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddingus|11 years ago|reply
Systems are small, expectations low, challenges firm.
I very seriously enjoy the retro scene today. It's possible for ordinary people to participate, even make games others will play and pay for. Homebrew.
Completing that experience was one of those life checklist things. I had a great time and have learned a lot and was able to explore games on a technical level in an achievable way.
Personally, I see this being cyclic. The big names and players will always be there. But little scenes pop up regularly, and those are a treat for those who go looking.
[+] [-] simmons|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d357r0y3r|11 years ago|reply
As satisfying as that work was, I get as much satisfaction from writing Enterprise/B2B apps. The thing about game development is that, when you're years into it, it's just another app. Video game lovers especially start out thinking they want to do game dev and game dev only, but a great many of them would benefit from exploring what are thought of as "boring" areas of development. It's only boring if you don't like making software.
[+] [-] fooqux|11 years ago|reply
I think that's at least somewhat dependent on personality, and at least as much dependent on what sort of enterprise apps you're writing.
Personally, there's only so much enjoyment I can extract from writing CRUD code at work, especially when I'm literally handed a multi-page document detailing exactly how the program is going to work, right down to pseudocode.
I think a better comparison would be programming as a hobby versus job. I'm sure many game developers working at development houses like EA get burned out just like the guy working in the salt mines grinding out CRUD code. In both scenarios they lack a vested interest because creativity, in various amounts, is not allowed. Compare that to somebody writing 'boring' apps as a hobby where they have complete creative control.
For me, programming is an art. It's a creative exercise. I'm much more vested when I'm allowed to flex that creative muscle. The kind of application doesn't matter as much as the amount of creativity I'm allowed. Your mileage my indeed vary though.
[+] [-] fluffheadsr|11 years ago|reply
The Fantasy Sandbox MMO market is begging for some love. Nothing great since UO or SWG:Pre-CU... Everything after WoW has been just flat out terrible attempts at stealing wow and its really hurt the market.
The whole game development now is just about profit and not about creating original, amazing works of art like the early guys.
[+] [-] nshunter|11 years ago|reply
I'm fortunate that my skills are way more transferable than the majority of game developers (I build and lead SaaS teams), but it can be a bit of a slog to actually shift gears.
Games are a place to be if you're really passionate about it or you feel like there's another hill to take. In general tho, there are much more meaningful things you can do with your life (like raise kids). So I'm on the hunt for a job that lets me continue to build awesome products while have the ability to see my kid on a regular basis (not just 6 months out of the year).
[+] [-] mingmecca|11 years ago|reply
I'm glad for my time in the game industry because it sharpened my skills and made the rest of my life a cake walk. But, I wouldn't want to go back due to the exploitation I see in it.
[+] [-] dirkk0|11 years ago|reply
Twice."
If one sees 'the art of lone game programming' as a genre then this might be true. One successful lonely game programmer leads to a gold rush of many lonely game programmers digging the iKlondike for gold.
But I am pretty sure that there is always room for the brilliant idea that no one can grasp when you pitch it. I personally would have talked Notch out of the idea for Minecraft with the usual arguments (blocky graphics, not state-of-the-art, there's no real goal, etc pp). And when I played it, I was like - omg, I could have done that.
There always will be a lonely (game) programmer doing something extraordinary that you didn't think of in the first place or even despised. And then there is the next Notch, and I will again say - omg, not again.
And some of us have big ideas and don't dare to join the art of lonely game programming.
[+] [-] sago|11 years ago|reply
There is room for the one great idea. But the point is that the minimum production values on the platforms that sell that idea has risen beyond one person now. As it did in the 16-bit era in the late 80s and early 90s. I thought it was interesting that Monument Valley made it into the list at the end. Made by a graphic design agency, not a bedroom coder.
[+] [-] _pius|11 years ago|reply
You're right, but I don't think the author would claim otherwise.
The article is not about the possibility of breakout success, but about lone, reasonably skilled game developers being able to make a consistent living. Not the same thing.
[+] [-] vparikh|11 years ago|reply
I think the state of the game market is good -- let the hobbyists of today create the game they want to play - and maybe it will make them a boat load of money. Or maybe they will be happy because they had their vision come true.
Now the big corporations -- well they will just push whatever makes them money.
[+] [-] smacktoward|11 years ago|reply
They weren't -- but the dream people had was that their games would generate enough profit that they could make a living making them.
I read the post's message as being that they did, for a while, but those days have receded due to the collapse in what people are willing to pay for games. In a world where $0.99 for a game is considered expensive, it's hard to make a living making games unless you come up with some way to consistently make absolutely massive hits -- and that's a nut that nobody has ever cracked.
[+] [-] arvinjoar|11 years ago|reply
It's pretty cool actually and they'll be releasing a 3D version of it at some point[1]. It's basically a survival MMO with permadeath, and hence a lot of cool stuff has emerged, like world wars and geopolitics, complete with player-run and protected trade hubs and so on. In the game there's no official carebear zones though, but if you kill another player you leave a scent that can be tracked, allowing rangers to exact justice. You also leave scents for vandalizing stuff or stealing things within staked "claims".
No game experience can beat the rush of adrenaline one gets when fighting for one's life in H&H, where you might irrevocably lose a character you've been building for a month or more, and where you get to take away that same thing from the person attacking you. It's amazing.
[1] = http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3797...
[+] [-] Raphmedia|11 years ago|reply
That game actually looks like fun, and the graphics are great... !
[+] [-] overgard|11 years ago|reply
I think the thing that bothers me about this sort of "woah is the small guy" viewpoint is it's like "oh no the brilliant little artists got crushed by the corporations and the me-too hacks".
You know what, fuck that bullshit. Most games right now are asinine. And I mean even the indie wunderkids and the pretentious art games.
Here's the problem: nobody knows how to do this shit very well yet. It'll happen, eventually. They're learning, but it's not really very good right now. I mean people try really really hard. They deserve some success. But as far as the results go, most of them aren't that interesting. I want good games.
[+] [-] zinxq|11 years ago|reply
Anyone can write a book now - and get it to market. It's never been easier technically to write anything including games. And app markets take away much, if not all, challenges of go to market.
Such markets are destined to get flooded and to (reliably) get noticed in such a market, you need a marketing budget.
[+] [-] jkscm|11 years ago|reply
The gaming market is big and fast. It's fine if you don't want to run anymore but there are a lot more other people in the race who have a chance of seeing the finishing line.
[+] [-] neovive|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JetSpiegel|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jeffreyrogers|11 years ago|reply
It's been featured on HN before, so many people have probably seen it, but if you haven't, it is definitely worth checking out.
[1]: http://handmadehero.org/
[+] [-] graspee|11 years ago|reply
http://store.steampowered.com/app/337850/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_...
A remake of a remake; all games made by one man.
The second era of the bedroom coder is far from over and you can still make money from it without resorting to cheap, nasty, free2play tactics.
[+] [-] HolyHaddock|11 years ago|reply
Part of the reason he can still do it is that he's been doing it for so long, and has a loyal long term audience quite happy to buy a new Spiderweb game because it's a new spiderweb game.
[+] [-] Kiro|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teamonkey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drawkbox|11 years ago|reply
Most projects we work on are in house or contract and they have a couple or few people on teams. Sponsored games and advergames were also the money makers with flash gaming and will be with WebGL and more. Internal IP or titles also help pad revenues and transitions. Gaming is big in agency promotions. Gaming is bigger still in mobile.
It is very difficult no doubt but even a single developer is more like a team now with things like Unity/Unreal/Cocos2d-x/etc as the engine team, asset stores for many things, contractors for art/audio/design/development and plenty of markets to get into. The age of the from scratch lone developer is over, but there is just as much opportunity as ever for teams of 1-5 or so.
[+] [-] VLM|11 years ago|reply
http://www.onegameamonth.com/
My new years resolution was to participate this year. Naturally, its the 13th and I haven't even started for this month. But I'll try, maybe this weekend.
[+] [-] danmaz74|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archagon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omg_ketchup|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sago|11 years ago|reply
VR is primed to be a game tech. You can maybe do some interesting stuff now, when the only hardware out there is a few hundred thousand dev-kits. But if the Oculus launch goes okay, the production values needed to compete will very quickly take it out of one-person territory.
Of course, there are always new tech. But for every platform that turns into money, there are many that are dead ends. Many single person devs who crash and burn because they are early to a party that never starts. I developed WAP games. I know this :)
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _random_|11 years ago|reply