Gunpoint Recouped Its Development Costs in 64 Seconds

[JudgeGame]

SNIP

-snip-

My point is the article glosses over all these issues so it can have celebration at how cheap it is to make a game. It's disingenuous and it gives people the false impression that making games is cheap when it is the exact oposite. In this world only the very richest of the rich can dream of making games and making money off of them. 30$ is a red herring that hides the truth from the reader and reflects poorly on the ethics of the news outlet.

 

[Gregg Johnson]

SNIP

-snip-

My point is the article glosses over all these issues so it can have celebration at how cheap it is to make a game. It's disingenuous and it gives people the false impression that making games is cheap when it is the exact oposite. In this world only the very richest of the rich can dream of making games and making money off of them. 30$ is a red herring that hides the truth from the reader and reflects poorly on the ethics of the news outlet.

Only the "richest of rich" can make games? Um... no. How many people do you think enter the indie market being rich already? Answer, probably none of them. Some of the biggest Indie developers known started out working normal day-to-day jobs. Heck, that's where Notch started, and look at him now. He didn't get rich to afford to make his games, he GOT rich from making his games.

 

[josemlopes]

I understand what he says by having a budget of only 30$ but not taking into account the fact that as a developer you enjoy making games (like most budgets are made) that budget would go a lot higher then 30$.


Imagine that he wasnt a good artist and had trouble doing the art, he would have to hire an artist and right there the budget would rocket sky-high in comparision.

I myself am doing a 3D animation and I havent spended any money on it (and wont) so I guess my budget would be 0$ but budgets dont work like that, its kind of weird.

...English not your first language, friend?

That said, yeah. Speaking personally as someone who can cover level design and game design but not much else, I'm lucky to have the 3D animator/modeller as a partner that I've got. We're presently looking at finally getting a new coder and a replacement concept artist, and everyone understands we aren't getting paid until the project is done because... well... most if not all of us either put our expenses into RL or are broke in terms of money we could genuinely spend on development. I'm glad to see the Gunpoint dev do well, as it's clear he's got some fantastic talent under his belt and is a funny writer to boot. Who knows, maybe he'll be the next Ken Levine. You can never tell until the time has passed.

No... its not, and I think that most of the grammatical errors are in the last sentence (like spended, even I should have known better lol) so you can still get the point without having to endure the pain of reading a poorly written sentence (it was late and I was tired, not exactly an excuse but a justification).

Either way, my original point is that when I was at school I had to show a budget graph or whatever that was to a teacher (that was teaching about budgets) about an animation that we were supposed to do, no one was going to spend any money doing it but we couldnt just put 0$ at the end of it, we had to make it like no one was doing it for free.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm going to say upfront that I have little to no respect for this article.

Where do I even begin?

No one can make a working game on 30$.

Unless he built his PC out of discarded beer cans and powered it with potatoes the cost would be way above 30$.

Unless he sustains himself by sucking the moss off the surface of rocks and saves up rainwater in a bowl made of palm leaves he must have spent more than 30$.

Unless he was born as an all-knowing enlightened being he needed an education which cost more than 30$.

Unless he has the reflexes of a humming bird he must of spent quite a few hours of his life to code this game, hours that were worth more than 30$.

Unless his work as a journalist that he has been doing for many years was in fact volunteer work he wasn't payed for he must have used more than 30$ of the money he earnt towards making his game.

You might think I'm missing the point, that we are supposed to laugh at the absurdity of the statement, but it is a very harmful statement. I don't want kids to think living off of game development is easy. It's hard and it's dangerous and we are in the obligation to make them aware of those risks.

Most people don't have access to all the resources Tom Francis has. Most people can't afford to spend hundreds of hours creating a game. Most people don't have the luxury of a stable, high paying job that allows you to spend your free time designing games. Most people haven't had the chance to be so immersed in the world of gaming for so many years and they haven't learnt what the developer has.

I'm not attacking the developer. I have no idea if he was born into a wealthy family or if he earnt everything he has with sweat and blood. That is completely irrelevant. The reality is that the developer set out to create his game from a very privileged position. As far as making a video game goes, there are a handful of people in the world who had better odds at making a game and earning a living out of it than this man. To gloss over that truth is morally unacceptable in my opinion and not something I would expect from a self-respecting games journalist. I apologize for my bluntness but I feel someone needed to say this.

My impression: He bought a piece of software (programming, basic engine, etc) for thirty bucks and made it in his spare time... for fun.

I don't tend to say that my attempts to learn Russian are costing me thousands of dollars because of all the money I spent on food, life and savings, plus the computer and internet connection I use. I say it cost me $15 for the Russian-English dictionary I bought to supplement it. Same logic.

EDIT:

SNIP

-snip-

My point is the article glosses over all these issues so it can have celebration at how cheap it is to make a game. It's disingenuous and it gives people the false impression that making games is cheap when it is the exact oposite. In this world only the very richest of the rich can dream of making games and making money off of them. 30$ is a red herring that hides the truth from the reader and reflects poorly on the ethics of the news outlet.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

No.

This doesn't reflect poorly on the news outlet, just your understanding of indie gaming. The only particularly expensive first-attempt indie game I can think of was Braid, which cost $200,000. However, other financially successful games like Aveyond were made on a budget of "wow, this RPG engine only costs fifty bucks!"

 

[purf]

snip

My impression: He bought a piece of software (programming, basic engine, etc) for thirty bucks and made it in his spare time... for fun.

I don't tend to say that my attempts to learn Russian are costing me thousands of dollars because of all the money I spent on food, life and savings, plus the computer and internet connection I use. I say it cost me $15 for the Russian-English dictionary I bought to supplement it. Same logic.

Eeexactly.
According to the related Extra Punctation, it was made in Game Maker - $50, though. Let's pick any game you buy for $50 and then spend 300+ hours in it. Do I need to finish this thought?
[sub]I should have an old version of Game Maker somewhere, huh...[/sub]

 

[JudgeGame]

SNIP

-snip-

My point is the article glosses over all these issues so it can have celebration at how cheap it is to make a game. It's disingenuous and it gives people the false impression that making games is cheap when it is the exact oposite. In this world only the very richest of the rich can dream of making games and making money off of them. 30$ is a red herring that hides the truth from the reader and reflects poorly on the ethics of the news outlet.

Only the "richest of rich" can make games? Um... no. How many people do you think enter the indie market being rich already? Answer, probably none of them. Some of the biggest Indie developers known started out working normal day-to-day jobs. Heck, that's where Notch started, and look at him now. He didn't get rich to afford to make his games, he GOT rich from making his games.

It would be nice to believe you are just taking the piss but my faith in humanity is not that strong. I'll let you know Sweden is one of if not the most obcenely rich countries in the world. It's specifically people like Notch that I am referring to when I say the richest of the rich. I have nothing against Notch but it is in no way realistic to compare the resources he has to make a game with the resources an average gamer might have.

 

[Parakeettheprawn]

SNIP

-snip-

My point is the article glosses over all these issues so it can have celebration at how cheap it is to make a game. It's disingenuous and it gives people the false impression that making games is cheap when it is the exact oposite. In this world only the very richest of the rich can dream of making games and making money off of them. 30$ is a red herring that hides the truth from the reader and reflects poorly on the ethics of the news outlet.

Only the "richest of rich" can make games? Um... no. How many people do you think enter the indie market being rich already? Answer, probably none of them. Some of the biggest Indie developers known started out working normal day-to-day jobs. Heck, that's where Notch started, and look at him now. He didn't get rich to afford to make his games, he GOT rich from making his games.

It would be nice to believe you are just taking the piss but my faith in humanity is not that strong. I'll let you know Sweden is one of if not the most obcenely rich countries in the world. It's specifically people like Notch that I am referring to when I say the richest of the rich. I have nothing against Notch but it is in no way realistic to compare the resources he has to make a game with the resources an average gamer might have.

I'm sorry but where is your experience as an indie game developer? Or any kind of game developer? You talk like as if you're all knowing but I'm failing to see how you actually prove your point. If you couldn't make a game on a shoestring or non-existent budget, then why bring up Minecraft? That was literally just a project Markus (Notch) took on in his free time. Becoming a full time developer of the game was sort of an accident for him.

Hell I made a basic proof of concept for a 2D shooter in a week when I was fifteen just using Construct Classic. Game development is not this monolithic monstrosity anymore -- there's a reason things like ModDB/IndieDB exist now.

Another example of a game made with little to no cash: I Get This Call Every Day. Don't you dare tell me that game's developer couldn't have made that game if he didn't put in wads of cash.

 

[Scott Rothman]

Gunpoint was a blast! Even beyond that, it's amazingly written and hilarious. Coming across a dialogue option "Uhh, I lost track of the plot around mission 2. I'm just in this for the money" was fantastic

 

[unindexedsearchengine]

snip

You clearly don't understand the meaning of budget.
Things like his computer, food, etc. are not accounted for in the games budget, because those expenses would have been there even if he didn't make this game. The game's budget is the amount of money allocated for the singular purpose of making the game itself. That 30$ is just the additional expense that added to default expenses on account of making the game. He developed this game in his free time. If you play a game in your free time, and consider your expense on said game, you'r looking at the cost of the game, not the cost of your continued existence.

If I purchase, say, GameMaker, which costs, say, 30$, and then make a game using said software, and nothing else (which is possible), then the budget of the game is 30$. That is if I bought said software for the soul purpose of developing said game. The budget of something entails only, only, the expenses that would not be unless the project would not have been undertook.

OT: It's guys like this that elevate indie titles over the consistent AAA excrement of brown-gray boring over-priced sludge.

Way to go'

 

[Donzacuceron]

That graph is the best laugh I've had all month. Congrats to you, Mr. Francis; you earned it.

How can that be? They didn't even create a new game engine for it!

And no focus testing dammit! And where's the sex scene? Where's Mark Meer voicing the main protagonist in a strangely metrosexual vibe? Where's the QTEs? Why isn't there DLC to have the ability to brutally punch someone -- you can't just have that in there as-is! Mod tools? What is this man thinking!

Never mind all that... he didn't even do a promotional thing with Mountain Dew and Doritos! THIS IS INSANITY!

... And subway don't forget subway.But seriously props to that.

 

[AWAR]

The ol' days of amateur bedroom game designers are back!

 

[shrekfan246]

$30 development costs make perfect sense in the context of a guy who makes games in his spare time. You're being ignorant for no real reason. >_>

Some people like being contrarian for the fun of it. Also, HE IS THE LAW.

OT: Good for him. Gunpoint is a great game, and it's got some legitimately funny writing too. Basically, it's a smaller scale version of everything I wanted Watch Dogs to be and fear that it won't.

I'm definitely interested to see what he does next, to see if this was a lucky chance or if he's really got what it takes to make a splash in the gaming industry.

 

[Li Mu]

Tom Francis, I knew that name sounded familiar. He was a writer for PC Gamer, and a rather good one at that.
Good for him!

 

[thehorror2]

Just don't go crazy and get TOO big, Mr. Francis. That way lies madness.