[nicpottier]

I built games full time for about five years, straddling the transition into smartphones.

Building a mobile game that is profitable is a bit like the lottery. You need to build something great to have a chance of winning, but building something great is not a guarantee that you will win. I realize that goes for most business ventures, but I think it is more true for mobile games than most.

What captures the imagination of an audience is in large part a guessing game and a matter of luck. You can look at past successes as a demonstration of that. Flappy Bird was a hit for a bit but it wasn't exactly clear what was so different about it than so many before. Angry Birds started an insane franchise, but I'm not sure if the same game were launched today whether it would capture the same share of the market. It is just really really ephemeral.

But making games is fun, like really fun! I had more fun in those years than I have at any other point in my career. We were banging out a game a month and having a blast doing it. This was very early so we knew there was audience enough for each of those to pay the bills, but I wouldn't count on that these days.

So all of that to say, do it! But don't expect to pay the bills doing it. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but it is very much either rags or riches with very little predictability on where you arrive.

[nicpottier]

I should add that we decided to stop doing this when we realized we were now playing the lottery for a living. We had a few times where we got featured in stores and made thousands a day but didn't take off from there and that was that for that title.

If I can offer any advice it is to focus on simple mechanics and keep production costs way down. Don't spend more than three months on launching your first title.

[markus_zhang]

When reviewing the history of ID Software I came upon an interesting fact: Back in Softdisk, i.e. before ID was a thing, the team managed a product called "Gamer's Edge", which is a bi-monthly subscription service (people nowadays would love the idea) that gave players two full games and a bunch of other smaller tools.

I'm wondering if indie teams should more or less do the same if they are not eyeing big hits, which few managed to pull off. Two months might be too stingy, but with the engine and tools built it might not be impossible to pull off a by quarter subscription?

[tubularhells]

That's anninsane schedule that cannot be pulled off with today's audience expectations.

The main creator of the 10mg collection was on the Eggplant Show recently and talked about releasing games quarterly and how unsustainable that is.

[markus_zhang]

Yeah agreed it's too fast. Back in 90s there was way less demand on resources.

[jmiskovic]

I'm following the Sokpop collective, they are 4 developers that have committed to releasing 2 games per month. The main source of income seems to be Patreon subscriptions, but games also get released on Steam.

Every one game is quirky, vibrant and fun. For few of them I was disappointed that devs moved on instead of continuing working to bring out the potential, but after a while they would return to same concept and release a sequel.

[markus_zhang]

Wow I never heard about them, that's awesome! Immedaitely browsing their webpage...

[jek0]

Funny how "lottery" is the word that comes out the most when we talk about making games for a living.

Big studios solve this by publishing games by the hundreds.

[nicpottier]

Right. Ya, in truth I think the big studios were all built off a single hit. And those hits keep paying out for a long time and they leverage either the brand to build sequels or just start stringing out new titles hoping another will "hit". Cross-marketing is huge too.

You can be successful building mobile games, just like you can win the lottery. :)

[spookybones]

This sounds a lot like book publishing

[taphangum]

While I agree that making games in general is a bit of crapshoot, I think that there is a way that you can increase your chance of success. Based on what I understand from creating businesses in general.

If you target a specific group people initially, and make something 'for them'. As one of them. You place yourself in a much greater position to succeed than if you had simply made a game in the abstract in the terms of who it is for.

A great example of this is the FIFA franchise. And most of the football related franchises for that matter. It seems like if you meet the criteria of making a great game, as the OP has stated, failing within these categories is in some ways, harder than succeeding.