all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 8 points 8 months ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    100k is not enough to pay even a single full time dev, so I wouldn't call this the success threshold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    How? That's over double what I make in a year, living in America too. Are game devs required to like eat something super expensive every day?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Because despite all the LLM slopaganda the laws of supply and demand give software engineers some leverage over prospective employers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    I see there was a fundamental misunderstanding, you see I thought you meant that 100k wasn't enough for someone to survive on, you simply meant that Software engineers have high standards.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Only making 100k for a small indie dev's first game is great.

    Only making 100k for a AAA Electronic Arts or Ubisoft game would be fucking hilarious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Enough for one dev for a year ...such success.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    and considering that there were over 120k games released on steam as of 2025 😵‍💫

    game development is not the goldmine some think it is, i think there’s even a stat that half the games on steam don’t ever make more than 500$

    i’d love to see a graph of the number of steam games VS the money they made. i’d guess that graph would look very exponential

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I feel like you'd have to control for the obvious asset flips or just random, I guess, spam games thrown out on a daily basis. I don't think it'd move the needle that much tho

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Then you'd also need to remove already successful "evergreen" titles in that case, which might land you back into the same. Not a lot of money for new games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    True. Gaming landscape feels weird rn, looking at it from current standing. Tough sledding for aspiring devs. I'm also right about that age where nostalgia tends to make everything new look a bit less shiny, so I may be choosing not to see the best current offerings.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    So 113k released between 2016 and 2025 is about 12600 a year. We have only been told that 5863 games made more than 100k last year, not what their total lifetime revenues are. Bearing in mind games generally make the most money in the first year of release (of course there there is big variation and there is a tail but mostly), then very crudely as much as 46% of new games could be making at least 100K in the first year. That's an overestimate for many reasons but 5% is also a huge underestimate as the figure is using at all games released across 9 years and diluting the the 1 year figure we have. Also we need to bare in mind how much of the Steam library is slop and not an actual fully formed game, or is place holder entries for things like demos and even DLC.

    The real figure will sit between those two extreme limits, it's not going to be as low as 5% but also not as high as 46%.

  • source
  • parent
  • 2 comments in c/gamedev@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Given that they have an infinite number of games on their platform,

    that means that 5863/infinity is one's odds of making that, then.

    ( absurdly-phrased, but I want people seeing the actual-liklihood of making it, on that platform, for their own survival )

    Apparently the actual-numbers are closer to 5863/38000, so 5.8/38

    roughly 15% of currently-listed games, then.

    Not quite as bad as I'd presumed.

    _ /\ _

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment