Game Design, Programming and running a one-man games business…

Analyzing game development risks

There is absolutely no guaranteed return on an indie game. You might lose literally everything. Some people obviously cannot afford to take that gamble, and I suspect a lot more people *can* but decide they do not want to risk it.

Would you risk $100,000 if I said you have a 25% chance of losing it all, 25% of getting it back, 40% chance of making a 30% ROI and 10% chance of making a 200% ROI? In theory the expected return for this is…

0.25 * -100k = -25k plus

0.25 * 0 = 0 plus

0.4 * 30k = 12k plus

0.1 * 200k = 20k.

Total expected outcome is $7k profit, 7%, so not bad, better than the banks. But would you risk it before you did the maths? I suspect not. I suspect most people would not. The big problem is the fact that most people do 1 game a year, or even every 2 years. Thus your ‘rolls of the dice’ are pretty limited. If you have 1 roll, and lose it all, you are fucked. If you have 1,000 rolls, the chances are high you will get your 7% return.

This is why publishers are a thing. They spread their bets, and reap the 7% premium. They get that 7% because they are able to risk $100k. The maths are not different for them, just the scale. The same thing applies to movie studios and record companies and TV networks.

Shadowhand or Democracy 3 or my top secret other thing may fail and lose me at least $100k. The chances of all three doing that are really slim, so I’m not worried. But if I was a new indie dev with one roll of the dice, I’d probably be pretty scared.If your $100k of kickstarter and friend-funding is your one chance, you are basically taking a 25% chance of your career imploding with that single dice roll.

BTW Those figures above are pure guesswork, and I suspect the real figures are MUCH more hit-skewed. I wonder if steam spy has the stats…


2 thoughts on Analyzing game development risks

  1. Yes, it’s a bit harsh if you only have $100K, and that skews it somewhat away from 7% success due to the high early casualties. (i.e. once you’re dead, it’s game over and you don’t get any more tries).

    The first round will see 25% exit, and another 25% go nowhere. You’ll lose a quarter of those survivors (just over 8%) in the second round, and so on. Sounds like a job for Monte Carlo.

    I suspect that (actual values aside – I’d put ‘failure’ at least at 90%) this is actually pretty accurate. If you survive releasing one game your odds improve substantially. Survive two or three and you’re doing reasonably. Publishers can skip this by buying their way past the first few failures.

    Of course the other problem is that in the long run you’re going to eventually hit a run of failures and lose.

    This also seems pretty realistic.

    Rational choice in this situation (as a developer) is basically not to quit the day job until you’re doing reasonably well.

  2. Well as an investment, yeah it’s probably a poor one given the risks.

    However you’ve missed out the benefit of “doing something you enjoy for a year” from the financial analysis. And obviously it’s very subjective what that is worth to people.

Comments are currently closed.