[larsiusprime]

Having worked in games for 10+ years, and having recently joined a more traditional VC-backed startup outside of games, I think you are 100% on the money.

The VC model doesn't make a lot of sense for games. So many outsiders come into games thinking they know what they're doing and they learn some hard (and expensive!) lessons fast. Thanks for writing this.

[monero-xmr]

Games are a hit making business, much more similar to movies than to product businesses. Sequels and spinoffs can reduce the risk by leveraging the existing IP and fan base, but it's still a hit making business.

Indie games are more like self-published novels or youtube creators - you are trying to find a core fan base who will support your artistic endeavors. Sometimes they crossover into mainstream, but 99.99% of the time it remains a niche. At best you can earn a liveble wage that grows over many years.

I have seen many VCs dabble in games and they learn their lesson quick. VR / AR / Metaverse attracted a lot of VC investment, all of which is now burned into nothing.

[LarsDu88]

This is correct. The distribution of successful games just like movies, youtubers and onlyfans creators is extremely skewed towards a power law distribution.

Games are amazingly difficult to make. Much harder than building web services, but the product success rate is even lower and with much lower stickiness amongst users.

What most silicon valley backed successful VC funded companies fundamentally are, are attempts to get software based network monopolies. Things that users won't immediately abandon for the next new shiny thing down the road.

[kyriefh]

thanks for reading and sharing your perspective! i'm arguing against my own interest here as VCs indirectly pay most of my income, but as you also observe the standard playbook doesn't quite seem to copy paste well