|
|
|
|
|
|
by x0x0
992 days ago
|
|
|
The articles thesis seems to be this: > So why is it so bad now that games earned $10,000 when 30 years ago it was the norm? Because now there is a slim chance to become super rich because of the indie-utopia. Which is an utter misdiagnosis of the problem. $10k 30 years ago was a decent chunk of an annual salary which included amenities like living indoors. $10k now is, in the bay area, 1 month's salary if you wish to live indoors. |
|
|
> A “middle game” should only take 1 to 9 months to create and can be profitable (or at least not a money sink) because it is expected to earn in the range of $10,000 to $40,000.
$53k/year isn't a great salary, but $120k/year is common outside of big tech and especially in games.
It's also a lot better than working unpaid for 4 years on a game that fails to capture any attention (or sales).
The point is releasing games as a stepping stone from new studio to large projects. How much would a founder earn at a self-funded startup in the first year anyway? $0?
However, very true that it would be foolish to live in the Bay area when not earning a Bay salary.