Game development is not a lottery

Thinking about the roles of luck, judgement, pessimism and skill in trying times

The gloriously named roulette roguelike Bingle Bingle

In contrast, downloaded and boxed PC games may have only represented 22% of total revenues, but it had the highest growth out of any segment [in 2023] (+8.4% YoY).

Last looks: The global games market in 2023 (Newzoo)

Number of peak concurrent Steam users worldwide from 2015 to 2023 (Statista)

The general picture is ‘high-profile game releases are busier, but not much busier’: looking at ‘size of interest on release’, we’re not seeing 73% more games with 10k followers launching, despite 73% more games being released.

How much busier is Steam for ‘significant’ games? (GameDiscoverCo)

What are we all doing here?

I wrote recently about divergent perspectives on the difficulty of creative work between eras. The current sentiment in games is that things are extremely challenging - everyone from AAA behemoths to solo indies are feeling the pinch from intense competition, increased cost of capital and an ever-more-demanding playerbase.

Game development in any context is hard.  No, it's not digging ditches, cleaning toilets or working on a production line but it is a complicated, time-consuming, financially perilous, culturally precarious, personally resource-intensive process that usually requires an unholy union of rigorous systemic planning and unfettered creative verve.

Frequently, it is also ludicrously unfair - particularly to devs whose efforts are not valued or even acknowledged by the organisation they work for, or to those in small indie teams whose game is torpedoed by some capricious last-minute act of a vengeful god.  Merely shipping a high-quality game is a miracle of sustained effort - one which is tough to systematise or replicate.  Results may vary, investments may go down as well as up, there are no guarantees.

But does this mean that commercial game development is a fool's errand?  Is it - as many devs will tell you - a lottery?

A Rising Tide

I kicked this post off with a number of stats and quotes which paint a picture of a very busy marketplace. However, it’s a marketplace which is still continuing to expand after a significant surge throughout the last decade. Smaller devs in particular don’t tend to look at macro trends - often because they seem irrelevant to them as they try to carve out their particular niche - but it can be reassuring to adopt a broader perspective.

Recently, I listened to this discussion of Fastenel, a company that manufactures and distributes actual nuts and bolts - it has “no unique product and no unique process” but differentiates simply on execution and customer service. I’m not seeking to make a meaningful comparison between the games industry and industrial distribution - I bring this up simply to illustrate that it is possible to achieve outlier success even in a mature, saturated, highly competitive, consolidated, standardised market via nothing more spectacular than a high degree of consistency.

No, consistency won’t always cut it in games but it’s important to stress that the market by comparison is arguably in a great place, even as elements of the games industry struggle.

Luck and Judgement

A lottery is a form of gambling which has zero skill input, some cost of entry and usually astronomically punitive odds. The chance of picking all six numbers and thus winning the jackpot in the UK Lotto is around 1 in 45,057,474.

You can’t make a lottery easier for yourself or mitigate its downsides; lotteries don’t help you answer questions, offer collateral benefits or provide you with an outlet for self-expression.

Obviously “gamedev is just a lottery” is clearly hyperbolic - it is the expression of a feeling. But increasingly, such statements turn into dogma - to push back against them is to immediately other yourself: “Oh, so you must be one of those people who believes everything is about hard work.”

To offer some reassurance to anyone tempted to adopt this interpretation:

• I have already stated that game development is both intrinsically hard and non-meritocratic (whatever that could possibly mean in this context)

• Asserting that success in game development is not purely determined by luck is not an effort to deny the vast contribution of timing, coincidence, privilege, pre-existing advantages and many other external factors

Discussing luck in any human context is - by necessity - a minefield. I’ll avoid offering glib quotes about the probability of being born in the first place (1 in 400 trillion according to my rigorous literature review of inspirational Instagram posts) and I’ll certainly avoid any attempt to audit the multiverse of bonuses and penalties which agglomerate to form a given individual’s chance of success in any venture. Yes, there may well be more reliable ways to make money than video games (more on this later) but implying that other domains, lifestyles or professions require zero luck by comparison is entirely unserious - if you think being a plumber or electrician is “easy mode” then try talking to one sometime.

So if it’s hard to pin down and essentially just a lament from devs who are having a hard time, why bother to push back at all?

Firstly, it’s hugely discouraging. What would have happened if someone convinced the developer of Balatro, or Vampire Survivors, or The Escapists, or Stardew Valley, or Undertale, or Spelunky to give up because "it's just a lottery"?  Solo or small team dev is fragile and volatile - messaging does matter in that context.

No, gamedevs should not be out here mortgaging their houses, running up credit card debt, blowing up their relationships or ruining their mental health for the sake of video games but do we really want a culture in the games industry that shrugs and says "well, your efforts don't mean anything anyway as it's all just luck"?

Additionally, this sort of language is sometimes wielded to diminish the achievement of devs who have been consistently successful - positioned effectively as “well you didn’t meet my expectations personally so it must have been luck” or “you have some characteristic or perceived advantage which I don’t like, therefore you need taking down a peg”. In my view, this doesn’t benefit anyone or serve any worthwhile cause - again, only absurdly self-possessed people deny any influence of probability on their achievements, and such people are extremely unlikely to change their view due to the scolding of self-appointed external auditors.

Yes, it’s good to push back on asinine nonsense of the “the harder I work, the luckier I get” variety but - conversely - any time focussed on whether someone’s success is “deserved” is likely better spent on putting our own house in order.

Just Walk Out

Let’s do some justice to the other side of this argument though - it’s certainly possible that luck is overweighted in the calculation. Everything might just suck.

What can we do then? Well, one option is to quit.

Also “game development” (not pictured)

If you truly believe that game development is a lottery and you don't want to play any more, then - if at all possible - you should use your time for something else.  Yes, this is both harsh and reductive but there really isn’t another sensible conclusion.

I have experienced what happens when a team decides to go their separate ways. I'm pleased to report in this instance that - five years later - everyone involved is still in touch and doing really well.  While I remained in the industry myself, with a change of role and emphasis, the other members of the team have all been able to leverage aspects of their indie dev experience in their new careers outside games. Luck and probability aside, sometimes things are just not configured in the right way to address the hyper-complex problem of making commercially successful games, and that’s ok.

No, not everybody in every role can do this. Yes, it can be very hard across a load of different dimensions. Yes, there will be sunk costs, sometimes very large ones and sometimes these might seem (or be) insurmountable. Yes, “just quit then” is a little bit crass. Yes, the industry is in a sad state if we’re telling people to leave it. No, not everyone can afford the time or financial cost to train in another technical discipline. Caveats, as always, apply.

If you are someone who has perhaps reached the end of their gamedev road, and you may have the option to quit, then Seth Godin's The Dip is a helpful look at how to make decisions around leaving a role or project.

Remember, you can always come back, you can always find ways to be involved, you can always work on projects in your spare time: nothing is absolute. If you care about such things, your identity as a game developer will be unaffected - nobody can ever take away your past efforts and achievements and you don't need to continue putting yourself through hell to maintain some kind of label or perceived contract with your own ego.

Pessimism

What happens if we can’t or won’t leave? Remaining in the industry with a broadly pessimistic perspective seems to be a route that many devs take, and it’s important to be empathetic as to why. 

There are also wider social factors (some empirical and some synthetic) which drive people towards a broadly pessimistic viewpoint. Life is difficult for many people at the moment, and starting from that basis as a default is fairly common. This is largely out of scope for the purposes of this discussion but it’s important to recognise that ambient pessimism is a very persistent phenomenon.

My feeling is that many people hold on to some shred of optimism with regard to games but don't give themselves the space to codify or articulate this - they don’t want to face that “wow can’t believe you think I should just hustle more?!” pushback if they express it, so it persists as an unacknowledged factor under the surface.

Some devs may not be making work that connects with a significant enough audience to pay the bills.  That, of course, doesn't mean this work is invalid - just that it may not be practical at its current scale.  Blaming "marketing", the audience, wider cultural tastes, platforms or the games industry itself for this doesn't lead anywhere useful.

Pessimism is very seductive - it allows for a diminishment of personal responsibility and provides a compelling and insurmountable reason for inactivity. On a personal note, I’ve come to recognise a spike in career-related pessimism as a direct symptom of a dip in mental health and taking steps to address the latter seems to change the dynamics of the former for the better.

Pragmatism

Pragmatism says “yes, there’s a lot of luck involved but maybe there are some things we can do right now to make the best of it.” I have seen devs at various scales move from very challenging situations into more favourable waters over time by adjusting their strategy, listening to the audience and continuing to experiment. It's difficult to do any of those things if you adopt a pessimistic outlook, so finding ways to progress into a pragmatic stance without chasing trends or pivoting every three months is likely going to serve you better.

Audience

Understanding the audience is critical for games businesses who position themselves as pragmatic.  This should be accomplished in both a quantitative and qualitative sense - there is now a high availability of data from Steam in particular from various services if you seek it out.

I still believe the qualitative side of this equation is underweighted - reading Steam reviews, Reddit threads, YouTube comments and other gamer reactions can be both tedious and excruciating, but it certainly reveals a whole host of information about behaviours, sentiments and values.  Pairing what gamers say with what they actually do is the required synthesis.

Learning to embrace testing and understanding that the real work of creation is filtering can be revelatory in some situations. Devs who have struggled to connect in the past can sometimes enter a new phase once they come to terms with when and how to test.

Virtually anything is valid in game design if you can attract and retain an audience. Discovering new ways of doing that are how genres are born, and players will never tire of being approached on those terms.

Budget

It's fair to say that game budgets have gone crazy in recent years, swinging from the private equity bloated moonshots of a few years ago to the caution of our current phase.  Constantly requiring outlier success is a maximal risk strategy that will probably come back to bite you later on.  Budgeting for what you want (and yes, what you "need to support your business" is what you want), rather than what you think your game can feasibly achieve is a constant pitfall. Budgets must align with reality.

Production

Your budget is immaterial if you don't know how to deploy it.  Keeping a team focussed on a common goal throughout the process, allowing the right flexibility for iteration as well as prioritising features and issues correctly is a true artform and production continues to be one of the most underrated roles in games.  Many teams could hugely improve their chances of success by improving their overall efficiency, and that starts with clarity and accountability driven by production.

Affinities

People are into weird stuff.  If there is a demonstrable audience there, and a team is uniquely positioned to understand it, they should consider going in that direction even if it is currently unpopular.

Insights and Tactics

Steam page design, tagging, community engagement, demos, festival participation, discounting cadence…all of this stuff matters and is worth researching.  Be careful of rabbit holes, however - the game and its interface with the audience is all that matters.

Optimism

Beyond pessimism and pragmatism lies optimism. Frustratingly, it's often associated with either naivety or self-interest but it certainly has a place in game development.

Pragmatism is always useful - certainly at a tactical level - but in terms of galvanising support, it can put the brakes on too early.  Sometimes creatively you have to completely ignore the current climate, ditch the sensible advice and take a big swing at something wildly ambitious - it may be that building support around it actually becomes easier as other stakeholders buy into the dream.  It always needs to be tempered with care and accountability - big talk needs big action. It must be executed by a committed group who focus on day-to-day realities. Despite the need for grounding, many great games have been instigated by intense curiosity and a desire to say "fuck it, let's go".

One of the most effective ways to execute a moonshot is in a partnership or with a close-knit diverse senior team - a vast amount of potential energy is created in respectful, reciprocal relationships between "big picture" visionaries and detail-focussed perfectionists.

Skill Dimensions

Whether taking a pragmatic or optimistic perspective, I believe there are always areas that are worth improving.

Design

Conceptual Design

Truly great conceptual design is actually rarer than it seems in games. Balancing the weird and familiar is real skill that can be developed over time - a great concept (or a terrible one) isn’t just about being struck by lightning. Quirky horror like Choo Choo Charles, FPS design that emphasises a particular nuance such as Ultrakill or Strange Scaffold’s forthcoming I Am Your Beast, the comedy picture book stylings of Thank Goodness You’re Here…popular games can be anything and nailing down a genuinely attractive concept is an underrated discipline.

Core Design

Tweaking and perfecting mechanics, “gamefeel” and the moment-to-moment micro actions won’t help a game to sell more units if the concept isn’t there, but it certainly can make a huge difference once players get through the door. All too often, great ideas are let down by a lack of attention to these details - it is astonishing to hear from publishers how frequently they feel disappointed after getting hands on with a prototype. This isn’t luck - it is taste, judgement and skill - all of these can be improved with time.

Systemic Design

Great system designers who are able to take an economy through from spreadsheet to in-game interaction are surprisingly rare in an industry which prides itself on systematisation. I think it’s the weird alchemical combination of abstract mathematical thinking and hands-on game-specific practical skills which creates the barrier to entry. Great systems make all the difference to retention, and retention is where it’s at.

Technical

Innovation

Games are a form of entertainment technology and the homogenisation of tech over recent years had led to some interesting opportunities to buck the trend. Innovating on a specific tech outside the usual bounds, like Noita or Teardown’s voxel approach for example, can provide an “unfair” advantage. If the novelty element of a game is something players have never really seen before, that takes things into a new dimension and often the regular competitive rules do not apply. It certainly worked for Minecraft.

Execution

Yes, a lot of people are making games now but how many are making them efficiently? Great, clean technical execution is still a highly desirable skill - and to clarify I’m not talking about code which adheres to some hypothetical abstract standard of merit here. Getting ideas down quickly, then refining them into robust functional systems is still a challenge that many devs struggle with - there is always room for improvement.

Architecture

Games which are set up to allow for easy and straightforward content creation often have a better chance of longer-term success. Making sequels and adding content becomes a much more straightforward decision.

Visuals

“You need great art” is about as asinine as it gets but much of mainstream game art is stuck in a rut due to the specificities of player expectations and conventional industry pipelines. Just as a wild concept or out-there new tech can provide a spark, so too can highly innovative or unconventionally attractive visuals. This is one area where stepping outside the norm can make a huge difference.

Business Development

“How did they get that opportunity?” is something you hear a lot in gamedev circles - the answer is bizdev. Design or technical focussed devs often diminish this role as it can feel foreign to them - it’s something that can be learned and practised with intentional effort.

Many teams turn to contract work as a means of support and survival but creativity in your business development can be very powerful here.  There are still many opportunities for this within games but education, training, film, TV, theatre, health and wellbeing, government, enterprise and many other sectors all commission projects which can benefit from game development expertise - it is a matter of getting out there and making the connections.  Yes, there is always luck involved, but if "make your own luck" holds true anywhere it is certainly business development.

It Could Be You

Just before we decided to commit ourselves to cosmetics full-time, our accountant and lawyer took us out to dinner. They had something grave to tell us. "Don't do it." That was the advice.

The mortality rate in the cosmetics industry is high, and you'll rue the day that you invested your savings and your time into this impossible business.

Estée: A Success Story by Estée Lauder (via Founders podcast)

Estee Lauder Companies Inc market cap 30/08/2024 via Google Finance

I’ve certainly felt swayed at times by arguments that the challenges of making indie games are so immense as to be ridiculous. It’s easy to fall into the trap of “why bother”, particularly when everything feels like it’s against you. The gaming public can be unbelievably closed-minded and judgemental at times; the ever-shifting platform landscape can feel like an impossible moving target.

It’s not possible to force a hit or engineer a perfect strategy to make profitable games. For some developers, their work may simply be better as a non-commercial effort and culturally we should be doing more to support that - increasingly, we should make the case for public value. Additionally, we should be continuing to look at ways to address systemic inequalities which prevent talented developers from accessing both careers and entrepreneurial resources - countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK have taken a lead on this with state support and the overall economic benefits are clear.

I think the right response to this is to focus on agency rather than misery - as long as there are valid creative ideas, the energy to fulfil them, a receptive audience and a thriving community of developers, there will always be a chance.