This kind of reasoning is worrying. On one hand, based on the high failure rates, it can be argued that start-up founders are insane. On the other hand, rationality shouldn’t automatically preclude you from taking high-risk, high-payoff bets. Another rational way to approach this would be to actually figure out what separates successful start-ups from the failures and then just do that.
Start-up founders are hardly insane. From my perspective, it’s the intersection between video games and start-ups that is the problem.
The things that make video games good (good writing, good graphics, good sound effects, good gameplay, etc.) are easier to accomplish when you have a decent amount of staff and enough money to throw at the problem. The video game market is horrendously saturated, with a large segment of the population not even finishing games once. (I don’t have any hard statistics for this, but it’s a trope that is well-attested on r/gaming and the game blogosphere, e.g. “You Gonna Finish That?”).
To make matters worse, the market is also infamously critical of everything—fail in one category, and you basically get panned. For example, Mass Effect 3 is getting a lot of flack for having a “bad” ending, despite being otherwise a well-polished game with a budget the size of Missouri.
One could subvert some of this by developing for phones, but the iOS market has notoriously finicky gatekeepers. Android, perhaps—I don’t know much about them.
I don’t see why Alexei should be concerned about most of your points, because they’re based off of several unexamined conditions.
Not finishing the game only matters if he plans to implement DLC or microtransactions, the customer has already paid for the game, why should the seller worry then? Of course, the main point is that if the customer hasn’t finished the games he has, why should he pay for more games? While this seems like a reasonable assumption, I don’t quite think it’s quite clear cut. Anecdotally, I’ve seen people with 50+ game backlogs continue to purchase new games. On top of that, I don’t think it’s clear to think a backlog of any amount game precludes or even dissuades a consumer from all games; just because I have a 80 hour long jRPG unfinished on my PS3 doesn’t mean I won’t purchase a cheap iPhone game like Angry birds. So we need to look at rapidly growing sections of the industry where relatively few startups have been formed.
I don’t view criticism as a major problem. You can’t criticize a game until you’ve purchased it for one, and considering that most video game sales take place within a narrow timeframe of release (two weeks I believe), large amounts of criticism on forums appears to be a mark of successful video games! Of course, this isn’t including hits that become successful after a long period of time due to word of mouth—Disgaea coming to mind, but Alexei is aiming for a more short term strategy rather than a long term series so word of mouth is not a strategy he would want to employ.
Mass Effect 3 in particular is a bad example, because Bioware is likely going to profit off of the complaints (Read: We made a mistake, now you’re going to give us money, I’ll admit I’m simplifying this because I’m ignoring opportunity costs incurred for working on other products.) This isn’t including other cases like the outcry against Left4Dead2, where most of the complainers signed a boycott petition and brought the game anyway! In light of this information, I see no reason to suppose complaints have a strong correlation with reduced consumer spending.
The videogame industry still remains resilient and profitable despite hits to other entertainment industries, indicating that if saturation is a problem it hasn’t been enough of one to stop the industry’s growth. Of course, you can claim that it’s a few large companies such as Nintendo, Blizzard and Valve expanding the industry (and they have been aggressively expanding) but in the end we still need to look at how well VG startups do.
Just to mention, tc would need to look for distribution channels other than the traditional ‘send it to a brick and mortar store and hope it sells’. That would be the place where first movers have the greatest advantage relative to him and where the profit margins all lie within a exceedingly short timeframe. Microtransactions for a free or nearly free game, a la Riotgames, would be a good distribution model to investigate (I confess to availability bias on this one; I haven’t looked at other companies who have tried the model and failed).
MinoMonsters runs a pokemon clone with four stars on the App Store. Koduco Games made two clones and an iPad port in two years. OMGPop seems to be a reasonably successful arcade portal. Of the three, none have very high PageRank. None of the three have exited. Now it’s true, none of them have completely failed either. But I would be very surprised if any of them except possibly OMGPop has really made it. They also have been around for six years and have a comparatively large staff.
Of course, this is a really small sample.
The most charitable way I can interpret this is that if the OP wants a startup incubator and a short-term exit strategy, they shouldn’t try Y Combinator. The most charitable explanation for the dearth of YComb video game startups is some internal bias in their screening process.
I agree. While I have all respect in the world for YC, it’s just not the place for game startups. I was thinking more along the lines of Joystick Labs.
You’re correct. Doing the ‘send it to a brick and mortar store and hope it sells’ stategy doesn’t work. You need a lot of developing and publishing muscle to pull it off. Not to say you don’t need the publishing muscle even if you go with free-to-play, but it’s certainly a lot easier to develop, and a lot easier to publish. It’s certainly a nice entry point for a startup, and one I’ll be taking a close look at.
By the way, using my name in your comment makes it feel very nice and personal. Well done. :)
The few sane people that make startups usually succeed, the less sane people make startups and usually fail, that’s my theory.
Basically, there are the sane people who have a good reason to think they succeed, and they make startups, and they succeed (usually), and there’s also much larger number of people who don’t have any good reason they’d succeed, and out of those people, those who are less sane, try to make startups, and fail.
You can’t generalize the sanity of two vastly different populations (those who fail and those who succeed) from average.
Reading reasons off a list may not help the less sane (or simply a small fraction of decision mistakes in a large population) from proceeding anyway, and i’m very biased towards my approach.
Basically, technical excellence, having previously created a profitable product as spin off from a hobby, having positive feedback on products of the hobby, if that is present, the success is much more likely than average, especially if you stick to the customers whom you understand.
I’d be very skeptical about practical ways to apply explicit rationality to anything but ordering of the todo list, sorry. There isn’t a lot of data, and even though Bayesian statistics looks like garbage-in-best-conclusions-out process, it is still a garbage-in-garbage-out process.
This kind of reasoning is worrying. On one hand, based on the high failure rates, it can be argued that start-up founders are insane. On the other hand, rationality shouldn’t automatically preclude you from taking high-risk, high-payoff bets. Another rational way to approach this would be to actually figure out what separates successful start-ups from the failures and then just do that.
Start-up founders are hardly insane. From my perspective, it’s the intersection between video games and start-ups that is the problem.
The things that make video games good (good writing, good graphics, good sound effects, good gameplay, etc.) are easier to accomplish when you have a decent amount of staff and enough money to throw at the problem. The video game market is horrendously saturated, with a large segment of the population not even finishing games once. (I don’t have any hard statistics for this, but it’s a trope that is well-attested on r/gaming and the game blogosphere, e.g. “You Gonna Finish That?”).
To make matters worse, the market is also infamously critical of everything—fail in one category, and you basically get panned. For example, Mass Effect 3 is getting a lot of flack for having a “bad” ending, despite being otherwise a well-polished game with a budget the size of Missouri.
One could subvert some of this by developing for phones, but the iOS market has notoriously finicky gatekeepers. Android, perhaps—I don’t know much about them.
I don’t see why Alexei should be concerned about most of your points, because they’re based off of several unexamined conditions.
Not finishing the game only matters if he plans to implement DLC or microtransactions, the customer has already paid for the game, why should the seller worry then? Of course, the main point is that if the customer hasn’t finished the games he has, why should he pay for more games? While this seems like a reasonable assumption, I don’t quite think it’s quite clear cut. Anecdotally, I’ve seen people with 50+ game backlogs continue to purchase new games. On top of that, I don’t think it’s clear to think a backlog of any amount game precludes or even dissuades a consumer from all games; just because I have a 80 hour long jRPG unfinished on my PS3 doesn’t mean I won’t purchase a cheap iPhone game like Angry birds. So we need to look at rapidly growing sections of the industry where relatively few startups have been formed.
I don’t view criticism as a major problem. You can’t criticize a game until you’ve purchased it for one, and considering that most video game sales take place within a narrow timeframe of release (two weeks I believe), large amounts of criticism on forums appears to be a mark of successful video games! Of course, this isn’t including hits that become successful after a long period of time due to word of mouth—Disgaea coming to mind, but Alexei is aiming for a more short term strategy rather than a long term series so word of mouth is not a strategy he would want to employ.
Mass Effect 3 in particular is a bad example, because Bioware is likely going to profit off of the complaints (Read: We made a mistake, now you’re going to give us money, I’ll admit I’m simplifying this because I’m ignoring opportunity costs incurred for working on other products.) This isn’t including other cases like the outcry against Left4Dead2, where most of the complainers signed a boycott petition and brought the game anyway! In light of this information, I see no reason to suppose complaints have a strong correlation with reduced consumer spending.
The videogame industry still remains resilient and profitable despite hits to other entertainment industries, indicating that if saturation is a problem it hasn’t been enough of one to stop the industry’s growth. Of course, you can claim that it’s a few large companies such as Nintendo, Blizzard and Valve expanding the industry (and they have been aggressively expanding) but in the end we still need to look at how well VG startups do.
Just to mention, tc would need to look for distribution channels other than the traditional ‘send it to a brick and mortar store and hope it sells’. That would be the place where first movers have the greatest advantage relative to him and where the profit margins all lie within a exceedingly short timeframe. Microtransactions for a free or nearly free game, a la Riotgames, would be a good distribution model to investigate (I confess to availability bias on this one; I haven’t looked at other companies who have tried the model and failed).
Granted, he’s only considering a short term strategy.
As far as I can tell from the Unofficial YComb list, there have only been three video game startups through them: MinoMonsters, Koduco Games, and OMGPop.
MinoMonsters runs a pokemon clone with four stars on the App Store. Koduco Games made two clones and an iPad port in two years. OMGPop seems to be a reasonably successful arcade portal. Of the three, none have very high PageRank. None of the three have exited. Now it’s true, none of them have completely failed either. But I would be very surprised if any of them except possibly OMGPop has really made it. They also have been around for six years and have a comparatively large staff.
Of course, this is a really small sample.
The most charitable way I can interpret this is that if the OP wants a startup incubator and a short-term exit strategy, they shouldn’t try Y Combinator. The most charitable explanation for the dearth of YComb video game startups is some internal bias in their screening process.
I agree. While I have all respect in the world for YC, it’s just not the place for game startups. I was thinking more along the lines of Joystick Labs.
You’re correct.
Doing the ‘send it to a brick and mortar store and hope it sells’ stategy doesn’t work. You need a lot of developing and publishing muscle to pull it off. Not to say you don’t need the publishing muscle even if you go with free-to-play, but it’s certainly a lot easier to develop, and a lot easier to publish. It’s certainly a nice entry point for a startup, and one I’ll be taking a close look at.
By the way, using my name in your comment makes it feel very nice and personal. Well done. :)
The few sane people that make startups usually succeed, the less sane people make startups and usually fail, that’s my theory.
Basically, there are the sane people who have a good reason to think they succeed, and they make startups, and they succeed (usually), and there’s also much larger number of people who don’t have any good reason they’d succeed, and out of those people, those who are less sane, try to make startups, and fail.
You can’t generalize the sanity of two vastly different populations (those who fail and those who succeed) from average.
What would you say are good reasons to think you’ll succeed?
Reading reasons off a list may not help the less sane (or simply a small fraction of decision mistakes in a large population) from proceeding anyway, and i’m very biased towards my approach.
Basically, technical excellence, having previously created a profitable product as spin off from a hobby, having positive feedback on products of the hobby, if that is present, the success is much more likely than average, especially if you stick to the customers whom you understand.
I’d be very skeptical about practical ways to apply explicit rationality to anything but ordering of the todo list, sorry. There isn’t a lot of data, and even though Bayesian statistics looks like garbage-in-best-conclusions-out process, it is still a garbage-in-garbage-out process.