Lessons learned from releasing my second game
SNKRX is the second game I’ve released on Steam and in this post I’ll go over my thoughts on its development and how it performed. I made this game in the past 3 months as a dev challenge to start making and releasing games more consistently.
To get it out of the way, first let’s go over financial results. I’m writing this only 1 day after the game has released, but Steam seems to be consistent with how it treats games after how they perform initially so I can extrapolate somewhat safely from here.
Here’s how BYTEPATH, my first game, did for its first day and a half:
And here’s how SNKRX did for its first day:
So roughly about 1/3rd as well. One interesting thing is that both BYTEPATH and SNKRX released with about 200 wishlists. At these low numbers most of how the game performs is related to how much external traffic you can generate for it rather than people who wishlisted it buying it.
BYTEPATH had quite a few popular reddit posts on release day:
Whereas SNKRX had pretty much nothing:
So this explains most of the difference. I’ll go over some of why that difference happened in the rest of the article.
After 3 years on the store BYTEPATH has made $12K and sold 10K units, which means that, should everything remain equal, SNKRX should go on to sell ~3K units and make about $4K.
I end up making half of that, and since I live in Brazil and the local currency is worth less than the dollar I also should multiply it by 5 or so, which ends up being a total of R$10k. For 3 months of work this would be about R$3.3k per month which is somewhat above the average local salary.
Compared to a similar analysis I did for BYTEPATH this is slightly better results, despite being worse in absolute terms. This is mostly due to this game taking only 3 months to make and also due to currency conversion being more favorable now than it was 3 years ago.
Overall I’d say that I’m neutral on this performance. It could have been worse, but it also could definitely have been better. The main thing I’m positive about is that if I can keep this pace up and release a game like this every 2 months or so then technically I’d be making a living off games, which would be nice I guess.
Also, “should everything remain equal” is a big assumption, because I don’t know if SNKRX will progress in the same manner that BYTEPATH did over time. BYTEPATH had quite a strong response on release day and that seems to have shot it up in the algorithm’s eyes for the rest of its existence on Steam.
It’s possible that SNKRX falls down the void of Steam and thus experiences a much more timid increase in sales over time in comparsion, which would decrease the results significantly. I guess I’ll see what happens as time passes.
Since about the middle of last year I’ve made it an explicit goal to change my engine code as little as possible between projects. Before then, whenever jumping around projects I would try to do things a different way to see if I found something that was better. Be it 0% OOP, 100% OOP, ECS, event driven, whatever. I’ve tried lots of different high level concepts for organizing engine code.
This would lead me to rewrite some of the common code between projects in these different ways and that would end up taking some time and effort. I was fine with this because I was mostly exploring but at some point I’d had enough and decided to just settle on one way of doing things.
This settling was helpful as quickly after it I was getting more done faster than ever before, and with each failed project, instead of taking nothing but experience from it, I was also taking artifacts, since each project would require a few different engine level functions or modules, and I would make sure to document those well enough that they could be reused in the future.
This changed my mindset from one of “premature generalization is bad” to one of “artifact accumulation is good”. Everything I code for a project now I’ll try to see if it can be made into reusable code for future projects. The majority of it tends to be very specific so it can’t, but sometimes when building something there’s a very clear path for how that could be a generic system that would work well in other projects.
One good example of this is what I call a Nodemap. BYTEPATH had a really big skill tree in it and the way I developed that was to just have a huge table defining the skill tree. This table is then fed to the game which creates the appropriate objects (nodes and edges) out of it.
For the game before SNKRX (which I dropped because I went over the 2 month limit with no real end in sight), I was doing both a skill tree and an overworld map thing, something like Slay the Spire’s map for choosing the next arena. It turned out that the code for both systems was very similar, since they’re essentially graphs with nodes and edges and rules saying that you can’t go to the next node until you’ve cleared a neighbor.
So I abstracted this out into a more generic Nodemap class that I didn’t quite get to use for that project nor for SNKRX, but that I’ll make use of for a future one for either a skill tree or an overworld map.
This kind of artifact accumulation has been happening for me since last year and it’s been generally very useful, especially since I’ve been careful about documenting each of those systems a lot, as I know that I intend on using them for a very long time.
In general I’ve been pretty happy with Lua being my language of choice for making games, as well as with LÖVE as a framework. They both mesh together pretty well with how I like to do things and they give me enough freedom to reach the conclusions I need to reach at my own pace.
I would love for there to be some competition in the “Lua framework” space though, especially one that works well with the web. There are plenty of Lua engines that work well with the web but I’m generally put off by engines because they constrain me too much.
I’ve been very inspired by Amulet lately which is a Lua framework that fits the bill and it has a lot of good ideas, but I’ve never managed to go beyond a few small prototypes with it because it’s lacking quite a few features I’ve grown accostumed to.
It’s the kind of thing where I know what “better” looks like: something that has LÖVE’s API and most of its features, that works 100% on the web, that is also Lua based, and that has easier C/C++ integration so that adding modules in those languages is a workflow supported by the framework itself. LÖVR gets most of these things right, unfortunately it’s very focused on 3D and I haven’t played around with it enough to see how feasible it is to use it for 2D projects.
The framework could also be C/C++ based, since I can just write the Lua bindings myself. There are lots of C frameworks, but their main problem is that because they’re written in C it’s rarely the case that the authors bother to make the API nice and easy to use like LÖVE’s so that idiots like myself can actually use it. In general most of these frameworks will have me dealing with OpenGL type of code directly and I don’t really want any of that, I just wanna draw a square.
In any case, LÖVE works well enough for most things and I’ve gotten used to it for long enough that it would be mostly a waste of time to try to redo it or get used to another framework/engine. LÖVE’s web export is kinda buggy but it mostly works, the features it has are very complete, especially the graphics end of it, and while integrating C/C++ modules can be annoying it’s also not really hard for the most part, and so it just works.
Sticking with what works
In the previous post I made like this I had a lot of really hot opinions about many things, but one of them was pretty much my argument for making my own engine and how it would be great, and how Unity sucked, and all that.
About 2 months after writing that post I managed to make a fairly OK initial version of the engine I wanted, and then 2 months later I realized that everything I wanted to fix about LÖVE was actually fairly doable without having to rewrite most of LÖVE in C, meaning that I could fix most of my problems with LÖVE without having to replace it.
But more importantly, LÖVE actually has a lot of graphics features that I would have to reimplement, and it turns out that I REALLY didn’t like doing low level graphics code at all. So I just decided to go back to it, fix the things I wanted to fix with my new-found knowledge and then move on. It was a very fast and useful lesson about the actual value that the framework was providing me which was somewhat mistated when I wrote that post.
Now 3 years later, after watching the engine vs. no engine debate evolve over the years and noticing how it went for me, I’d say that for the most part I think now people should just stick with what works for them.
Every engine/framework or way of doing things has tons of people constantly complaining about them, nothing is perfect. Even Unity still has to this day people complaining about this or that. Maybe those are valid complaints, maybe they aren’t. But each individual knows better than anyone about if they should switch to something else or just keep at it.
For my part I just think sticking with what I have is better, unless I find another engine/framework that is better and lets me keep using the same workflows for like 90% of the things I do, since I want to have to relearn things as little as possible.
I’ve been very big into doing as much as I can locally. What I mean is code that defines everything about some functionality in the same place, rather than split off in multiple places.
In my view this leads to much clearer code, despite looking somewhat less organized. One of my most useful constructs is the timer/trigger one, and I’ve expanded it significantly to accomodate for this type of local coding. For instance, from SNKRX:
This is almost all of the code needed for handling the enemy spawning behavior in SNKRX, and it’s all defined here. I especially like the parts that start with
self.t:every(function(), because those are uses of an extremely useful abstraction of the form
trigger:every(condition, action), which performs the action every time the condition goes from being false to true.
These allow for extremely local code. They’re also useful for doing enemy behaviors:
This is another example where the main enemy behavior is triggered once a condition is met, and then everything needed for that behavior to happen is also defined locally. Another example:
This one uses normal timers rather than conditional triggers, but the spirit is basically the same. We’re nesting these functions that happen after some duration or every time some duration passes and combining them to build the enemy’s behavior.
Most of the more fundamental changes I intend to make to my engine in the future have to do with changing it so that it supports this kind of coding more easily across the board, as I really like it and it makes me very fast at doing everything.
Like in my last game, this one also suffered from problems regarding objects referencing each other. This time it was less to do with
nil issues, although some of those bugs still happened, but more to do with inconsistencies in how I dealt with referencing objects.
There are 2 main ways in which I do it now, either one object fully contains another and this object will be responsible for updating and drawing it, or it just contains a reference to it but it’s being updated and drawn by a group (which is another type of container of objects).
Some objects are a better fit for one and others for the other, but the main problem that both of those (and others) share is that they’re not very standardized. So in one object I might call the parent
.parent but in another set I might call it
.p for some reason. In some objects the child object kills itself if the parent dies, in others it doesn’t. In some it has to follow the parent and then follow someone else if the parent dies, etc.
All of these little details and differences in what is basically the same set of operations contributed to making it a fairly opaque thing that was the source of a few problems.
Transitions between different states also suffer from the same problem that the parent-child operations do. Essentially they’re all the same operation but I haven’t standardized them to any great degree, meaning that changing states involves setting some variables to true and others to false, and creating/destroying objects manually.
This works and it’s fine, but like in the previous example, there are lots of different types of transitions that I ended up coding over time and they’re all disparate when they should be the same. This adds a significant amount of cognitive overhead whenever I’m working on that kind of code and it’s the kind of thing that slows me down somewhat.
The solution I have for this is one I’ve been thinking about for months and I’ve been putting off working on it because it requires a fairly all-encompassing refactor of my engine code, and as I previously stated I want to avoid these as much as possible. But in this case the gains will probably be so significant that it’s worth it.
The idea is very simple: inspired by Amulet, everything in the codebase can be conceptually simplified if every entity becomes a
Node. A node is an object that has a parent and children. Nodes can be added to other nodes and it will form a tree, or a graph, since nodes should also be able to link back to one another arbitrarily.
Every object in the game is going to be turned into a node, which means that everything will start from a root node and be initialized/updated/drawn from there:
root = Node() root:append(Node():tag'player')
Here a root node is created and a child tagged with the unique identifier
player attached to it. This means that in the root’s
children list, the first node will be this
Tags can be used to refer to nodes in a quicker way. So, for instance, we could refer to the child node by saying
root.player.parent automatically is set to refer back to
This can also be used to make a node a container. For instance, tagging the node above as
enemies will create a node that is not functionally different from the player other than its name, but we can use to act as a container for all enemies, since nodes can contain other nodes. So whenever we want to add an enemy to the game we would go
This simple setup eliminates the need for different types of container objects, or rather, diminishes it, because now they’re all bound by the same underlying node system. I’m 100% sure about this aspect of the system, I’m light on details for everything else.
However I know some things I don’t want. I’m confident that I don’t want to use nodes to build objects themselves, like using them as components or something (like Godot does). And I don’t want to use nodes to build draw operations (like Amulet does). I simply want them as this base conceptual organizing tool that standardizes these types of relationships across the entire codebase.
I’m unsure on how exactly I want to augment nodes. I want to maximize my use of local coding, so something like this might be cool:
root:append(Node() :tag'arena' :init(function() end) :update(function(dt) end) :draw(function() end) )
I can make it a convention that all nodes have these 3 functions,
draw and they can be defined for each node like this.
Defining the entity’s behavior locally like this is useful, but for entities that are created often it’s a waste of both memory and processing power to repeat it this like this every time. So for those cases I still have to support a “normal” way of defining classes, which would be similar to how I do it now, where entities would just inherit from Node.
An engine that also draws this distinction between local coding and more conventional coding one is excalibur.js, here describing the difference in terms of “basic actors” vs. “custom actors”.
In any case, to further augment nodes, one idea I had was something like this:
Node constructor can receive any number of arguments which are other nodes, and those other nodes can inject their methods and attributes into the original one, thus extending it with any functionality. The way this is achieved is through the use of mixins, although the details aren’t that important from a high level perspective (it’s basically a lot of Lua specific stuff).
The result though is that if the
State node defines that it expects
on_exit to be defined, and that those methods will be called when
.active becomes true or false respectively, we now have a basic state switching mechanism.
This kind of state switching stuff might not even be necessary now, as maybe removing and adding nodes to the tree is clear and consistent enough that I can do it manually and it’s fine. But you get the idea. I’m looking forward to trying out this idea and when I release my next game I’ll write an update on if it worked or not!
How stats work
Most stats in the game are a combination of character, class and modifier stat multipliers.
For instance, the Dual Gunner is both a Rogue and a Ranger, which means that his final attack speed is calculated by multiplying the attack speed modifiers for each of those classes, which are 1.1 and 1.5, and then multiplying that by any additional modifiers, like a Chronomancer’s global 20% attack speed buff, which would be 1.2, resulting in a final multiplier of 184.108.40.206 which would be 1.98.
This value would then be used to divide how often the Dual Gunner attacks, which is every 2 seconds, resulting in a final attack rate of ~1 attack per second.
Every stat in the game (HP, damage, attack speed, movement speed, AoE damage and size and defense) goes through this process for every character and every enemy. This is how I also did it for BYTEPATH and that roughly worked out, so I saw no reason to change it.
This game has an additional challenge though, which is that instead of having one character, you have several. This means that a generally very noticeable 100% damage increase is not that noticeable anymore if it’s only happening to 1 out of 8 characters, since all other characters are also attacking and the increase to that single one isn’t really going to be seen or felt.
Both this game and BYTEPATH were inspired somewhat by Path of Exile, which has a similar problem. One of the problems all these games that do stats like this have is that the stat system is very opaque, and the only feedback you get is if you’re passing the DPS/defense checks or not. If you are then you can keep playing, if you aren’t then you need to find better gear/passives or try a different build altogether.
This effect is a problem when you’re controlling 1 character but it’s a seriously bigger problem when you’re controlling several. The end result of this is that in SNKRX the build you use ultimately doesn’t really matter except for flavor. It’s a really brutal “you’re either passing the DPS/defense check or not” type of situation and the thing that I was originally going for, which is giving the player lots of build choice, wasn’t really achieved.
I noticed this problem fairly early in development but I thought that I could fix it by just adding more characters and passives, and in a way I guess doing that helped, but it’s such a fundamental issue that eventually I had no way to really escape from it without redoing the game from scratch, which I definitely wouldn’t do.
In the future I want to avoid doing opaque stat systems like this. I’ve been playing a lot of Artifact lately (yes I’m one of the like 50 people that still play it) and I really like the simplicity of its stats. I guess this simplicity is also true of most card games. In any case, I want to do something more like that rather than these complicated opaque systems.
If you have 10 attack it means you do 10 damage, if you have 10 HP and 2 defense and you take that 10 damage attack, it means you take 8 damage.
If you have 1 attack speed it means you attack at a predefined rate that is global and the same for every unit in the game, like say every 2 seconds, if you have 10 attack speed it means you attack at a much faster predefined global rate, like say every 0.2 seconds.
Passives that increase your stats should increase them by integer values, so +1 attack speed or +1 damage, and not +10% attack speed or +10% damage. This will both be simpler to work with and easier to test, while also feeling more impactful and less opaque to players.
This is a very simple mistake to make which is that I made the game without thinking about its control scheme. In general, I want to design games that primarily control really well with either keyboard/gamepad or mouse.
BYTEPATH controlled pretty well entirely with the keyboard/gamepad, which means that I didn’t have to support any mouse interactions in any UI elements. In the end I ended up supporting that for that game, but it 100% wasn’t necessary.
In SNKRX the gameplay is keyboard/gamepad oriented, but I did all UI elements to be used with the mouse without thinking about it too much. I could support 100% keyboard/gamepad gameplay but it’s an additional amount of work that I didn’t have time to do. For future games I should think more clearly about their controls before I even code anything.
A general feeling of stretching the game beyond its limits that feels forced
Overall I feel like the game itself wasn’t a bad idea but it also wasn’t a really good one. It’s just a very average type of game that does something slightly different: combining alliance sets with basic snake gameplay. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone do that before and building your set of classes over a run is kind of fun, so on that front it’s good.
But gameplay wise it’s a pretty basic game. Fundamentally it’s the same game as BYTEPATH where you just move left and right and your character auto-attacks.
And I don’t think anyone complained about that aspect of BYTEPATH. Some people really enjoy just relaxing and having minimal input while tons of things happen automatically, and this game captures that pretty well, which is why I made it.
At the same time this simplicity can be quite constraining and it can be hard to have good ideas for what you can do with it. In general I don’t have a problem with generating passive/class/item ideas, and this game was no different, but it still always feels like I’m pushing something way beyond where it can naturally go and it feels forced.
I don’t know. I don’t think I’ve thought about this enough to make my thoughts clear but I’ll leave this here for future reference. Let’s call it “a general feeling of stretching the game beyond its limits that feels forced”.
A game every 2 months
Since the start of 2020 I’ve been trying to make and finish small games consistently. Projects that take between 1-3 months to make from start to finish and that I actually release on Steam. For the entirety of 2020 I failed to do that.
I worked on about maybe ~10 different projects that year and most of them weren’t released for anyone to play:
The only one I managed to release in any shape was a prototype that I made in 3 days at the end of the year. I’ve been inspired by a bunch of people doing this, most prominently Chilla’s Art.
The reasons for me to do this are simple: it seems impossible for me to commit to longer projects. I just don’t have the discipline to do it. Most projects fail in the same way and they’re all due to a general lack of direction mixed with poor scoping. I get way ahead of myself and try making something bigger than I can handle and eventually my motivation drops enough and I just can’t work on the project anymore.
So given that this is the problem, it seems like the solution is just starting small and building my game finishing skills and discipline up over time. However, the reason I failed all this time is also because the kinds of games I want to make naturally tend to be games that are easy to overscope.
I’m particularly interested in games where you can try lots of builds. Be it with a huge skill tree, lots of items, lots of characters, etc. Genre doesn’t really matter, it can be a roguelite, a base-building tower defense deckbuilder, platformer, whatever, as long as you can play it in lots of different ways.
It’s very hard for me to be excited about making small games that don’t have this “lots of builds” component. So over time I’ve found a way to think about this that has helped me at least deliver this game, and I hope it does many more in the future.
Small long games
Essentially, you can think of games as either big or small, and either short or long:
Big vs. small refers to how long the project would take to complete and/or how many people. Short vs. long refers to how long the game lasts to the player. A game that lasts a few minutes or a couple of hours would be short, a game that lasts tens or hundreds of hours would be long.
The space of big games, either short or long is explored by lots of people. The space of small short games is also explored by lots of people, generally indiedevs. But the space of small long games is largely ignored.
Perhaps ignored it too strong a word, but for some reason people assume that projects that last people a long time should also take a long time to make, but to me it seems like this isn’t true. So I’ve set my sights on exploring this space, largely because it aligns well with what I’m interested in making.
Overall this strategy went well for SNKRX but I fell short of making a very long game. I think the game I made before, BYTEPATH, had much more long potential than SNKRX, so this was a failure.
I ended up finishing an initial version of the game 1 month in, and then the next 2 months were spent adding content. But I lost quite a lot of time due to poor decisions made along the way and it just limited my ability to add more long hooks into it.
In the future I should probably take less than a month to finish the initial version of the game. It would be really cool to finish it in 1 week, for instance, and then have the next 6-7 weeks just for adding content + long hooks.
I think on the whole the strategy of focusing on something small and then expanding on it with more stuff over time seems solid, I just need to execute it better and execute on ideas that have more potential to last longer too.
A consequence of doing a game every 2 months and releasing each game on Steam is that I can take advantage of the Steam follower feature.
I got this idea from seeing a random dev called L. Stotch on Steam. I have no idea who this is and he doesn’t seem to have a presence anywhere else, still he has about 4k Steam followers and quite a lot of games released since about 2016.
From my own experience with BYTEPATH, I got about 100 followers from it before I mistakenly decided to delete my profile and change my Steam name and lost them all. But if each game I release gets around that many then it’s quite feasible to build a few thousand followers over the years which should help somewhat.
And for SNKRX I got about 20 followers on day 1. If followers also trickle in over time just like sales do then I should get a total of maybe 50-60 followers out of this game, which isn’t a lot but it’s also not bad.
The specific way in which followers help is that everyone who follows you on Steam gets sent an e-mail whenever you release a new game. So essentially it’s as if every game you released automatically had as many wishlists as you have followers by default. This means that L. Stotch, for instance, has about 4K wishlists per game he releases.
This kind of wishlist is probably weaker than a normal wishlist, since people might follow you but not be interested in the next games you make, but it’s still a pretty good and solid amount of consistency that you can add to your results, as e-mails are a fairly strong form of marketing.
This is also something that most indie developers are just not paying attention to. I said that I’m inspired by a group of indie devs called Chilla’s Art. These guys are very consistent about their release schedule, what kinds of games they’re releasing and the overall quality you should expect. Yet they simply don’t have a Steam developer page.
I’d guess that most devs aren’t interested in focusing on this too much because it’s essentially locking yourself to Steam in a fairly unhealthy way. Most indie devs these days seem more interested in looking for alternative sources of income, which is the correct thing to do, and so tying yourself to Steam even more will naturally be seen as a mistake. Personally I have a fairly positive opinion of Valve so I don’t see a big problem with doing this.
Either way, I have no idea if this is a good thing to do or not, because I’ve found no indiedev business oriented articles talking about how useful Steam followers are or not. But since I’m going to be releasing lots of games it doesn’t hurt to focus on it as a sort of long term goal too.
Having a plan
At some point I was playing A LOT of PUBG and it was the first BR game I had played. It was a really fun period but I also learned a fairly solid lesson from playing that game so much. In a game like that you’re often put into very uncomfortable spots and whenever you die and try to figure out what went wrong it’s very easy to reach the conclusion of “I got unlucky” in a moment of heated gamer anger.
In general I prefer believing that luck isn’t real, or that it doesn’t affect any of my outcomes significantly, so as soon as I noticed myself reaching for that conclusion while playing PUBG I’d take note of it and try to stop it.
I’ve found that the most consistent way of stopping it was to have committed to a high level plan before doing things. For instance: “I’m gonna stay here until the circle comes and then move over there” or “I’m gonna roam around this area in that direction since my back is covered by the circle” or “I know there are 3 guys in that direction and they have to come through here because of the circle so I’m gonna ambush them”.
As soon as I started thinking these plans out loud and trying to stick to them, whenever I looked back on what went wrong, because I actually had a plan, I could clearly point out where I went wrong and then improve from there. Whereas if I had no plan it was very easy to reach for the “oh I just got unlucky!” and other similar excuses.
The same logic applies to indiedev. Looking back at my failures and wondering why they happened it’s easy to reach the conclusion of “because I had no plan”.
Most games that failed failed because they had no clear vision or north, I was just doing whatever I felt was cool aimlessly. And when the “cool” part was over I simply jumped to the next thing. And I simultaneously also had no higher level plan, my goal was just “doing games” because that’s what I like doing. But that wasn’t attached to any real long term goal.
My mindset recently changed and I actually feel like I have a plan now. And it’s simple: make a game every 2 months, build out my engine while doing so, and accumulate followers over time.
The short time frame helps with a lot of things, as with each game:
- I can focus on a specific type of game;
- I can focus on a specific aspect of my engine that I want to improve;
- I can focus on a specific visual style that I want try out;
- I can focus on a specific tech that I want to learn;
Or I can also do all of those things at once. Regardless, each project becomes this massive multipurpose endeavor where on top of just making a game, I’m also building up to something larger and more consistent over time.
It seems dumb but this change in mindset and having these things as real high level goals really helped push through this project and actually finish it. And I hope that this continues for the next projects.
Most of the time I wasted while making SNKRX was wasted when I didn’t know what to do next. I would finish a set of tasks and then the next set wasn’t immediately clear. I could X or I could do Y, and they’d generally both be these fairly large tasks that I hadn’t broken down yet in any way.
That break in continuity would often take me a few days to recover from, but it happened very consistently. I noticed it eventually because I kept a daily devlog for this project and after a point it was obvious that that was the issue.
Then I started looking back at my previous projects and sort of realizing that they all had the same problem essentially. Just a general lack of direction and I would always quit when that lack of direction was at its highest.
So in the future I will simply try to plan each project out more. Spend more time thinking about it and perhaps even visually mocking parts of it up so that I have something solid to work from from the start.
Demo and wishlist building
As previously stated, having a plan is good because you can clearly figure out what went wrong. So going into this game I had a fairly developed plan for how things would go: I’d make a playable web demo of the game, release it on itch.io and at the same time also release the game’s Steam page. If the game’s demo was well received then I’d get a boost in wishlists which would boost my game’s page on Steam and I’d get tons of algorithm wishlists as a result.
After about 1 month of development I managed to finish the demo, but upon testing it was clear that there were a few bugs that I couldn’t fix. Namely the sounds weren’t playing properly. In my view sounds are really important and add a lot to this game, so while I could release a demo with buggy sounds I’d only do so if that really was the only problem the game had.
But it was also clear that within a few hours of having a few people playtest the game that it just wasn’t something I could release in good conscience. Most problems people pointed out from the demo were things that I knew were problems and that I knew I was going to fix before the game released, but the game just didn’t work without those things being there.
This was a clear case of the game in my head being one thing, and me thinking that even if I implemented half of it people would understand that the other half is missing because it’s a demo. But it just didn’t work out this way.
Due to the very fast nature of development on a game like this, the half that was missing was fairly important to making the game work at all and playtesters made it clear to me that essentially what I had was garbage.
So I pretty quickly decided to not release a demo at all and just release a Steam page. I spent quite a lot of effort making a trailer for it which in retrospect wasn’t entirely necessary. I made a complete trailer with tons of cuts, the kind you expect from a game release, when a way easier one to make with fewer cuts and more gameplay being showcased would have worked just as well.
This article goes over this a little. The main reason why looking back I would have done an easier trailer was because the effort was pointless. I released my Steam page, posted it everywhere I could and my game didn’t really get any traction anywhere, which I should have predicted and assumed would happen.
With my previous game, BYTEPATH, the same happened, and before release basically no one cared about the game and trying to get people to care was pretty pointless. Only after release did I manage to get traction with it anywhere.
So for future games, especially these games that I’m making in 1-3 months, as soon as I have like 1-2 minutes of gameplay that can be recorded and be somewhat coherent (it doesn’t even have to be a complete gameplay loop), I’m going to grab that, record it a little, cut it up into a trailer in a very minimal way, and then make the game’s Steam page. This should probably be done in week 1 or so of development, since I want the page to be up for as long as possible.
At the same time, I shouldn’t worry at all about trying to build up my wishlist count once the page is up. For these small releases all that matters is driving traffic to the store page on release day, and while wishlists help, I shouldn’t assume I’ll be able to get a significant number of them for it to matter, and I certainly shouldn’t spend time trying to make that happen.
The main thing I can improve on currently to make these games be received better is improving their visual quality. I know from projects before BYTEPATH that if a game has proper art it just makes everything easier marketing wise, but I want to hold off on pairing up with artists for a while until I can release games more consistently, so until then I should try to find a visual style that I can do by myself but that people respond to better than they did for SNKRX.
One very positive thing about this game’s development was that I kept a devlog of it. So after every day or every week I’d write what I did in that time frame and after a while of doing this it became pretty easy to see what was holding me back and what wasn’t.
I already went over these, but mainly it was that whenever I didn’t have the next thing to do planned it would take me quite a while to get back to being productive on the project since I’d need to spend some time thinking about what to do next and for some reason that tended to consume a few days.
Maybe on top of that devlog I should also have some kind of planning document. On the devlog it was often the case that I would write something like “and what I’m gonna do tomorrow is this”.
Maybe I should try to develop that spirit of “what I’m gonna do tomorrow” more and have it in a more organized manner elsewhere. The main problem with organizing things like this is that these games change a lot and I know myself well enough to know that I won’t keep these things updated…
Workload & Post-Release Depression
Overall I’m fairly happy with how much I worked on this project. I definitely didn’t overwork myself at all, but I also wasn’t super omega lazy.
Nothing felt rushed and I felt very in control of what I was doing. The only thing I felt consistently was that my will to work on the project decreased as time went on, but I think that’s to be expected.
With BYTEPATH I also had somewhat of a “post-release depression” period, which I think is something that happens commonly with developers. With this game this doesn’t seem to be happening and I think it’s largely because I already know what I have to do next but also because I’ve changed my mindset considerably since 3 years ago when it comes to posting things online in general.
Social media posting
One of the first things I learned from releasing my very first game online like 7 years ago was that there can often be a real disconnect between what you think of your game and what other people will think of it. This is a common thing that everyone knows about, but I was shocked to first learn about it.
This game was that first game I just mentioned, and I distinctly remember unironically thinking it was going to be Minecraft levels of popular before releasing it. Embarrassing, but that’s what I actually thought. So the shock of releasing it, and it being played by maybe a few hundred people, was pretty big.
So since then I’ve always cared a lot about making sure that my view of what I was doing was aligned with other people’s view of it, and that largely happens through social media. You post something, see how well it does, and it helps you readjust your expectations.
There’s a negative side of social media posting for me though, which I only started noticing recently (since about 2 years ago I’d say). Sometimes I’ll post something, and it will do really well, and then my motivation to work on it will decrease dramatically.
This happens quite consistently, so adding this on top of whatever other issues I have that prevent me from finishing games made it significantly less likely that I would finish anything.
The reason why this happens is fairly simple: I’m a human being looking to increase my status, and so everything I do is about having that number go up. Making games? A 100% status seeking activity. But why go through the trouble of making an entire game when I can just post like 5% of it on twitter and get a billion likes and have my status go up in the same way as if I released the full game?
This is essentially what’s going on. Whenever I post something and it gets popular, I get the dopamine kick from that thing already due to the status number going up. Now the thing has already been dopamined and stripped bare of all it can give, so there’s no more reason to work on it, and thus there’s a motivation drop.
It seems simplistic and maybe even crude to think of myself in these terms but I think this analysis is pretty much correct. I went into it in more detail here. And I’m not the only one to come up with similar thoughts either, I think this post is talking about the same thing and reaching similar conclusions.
And these feelings are echoed by many other indiedevs as well. In the end we’re all made of meat and bone and at the basest level we’re all driven by the same things. Being aware of this is the first step towards avoiding falling down these status traps that don’t actually help with your goals.
So over these couple of years I’ve been developing a pretty detached view of posting things online in general. I now tend to care way less than I used to about how something I post does, I mainly care about if I did my best given the constraints present.
I feel this is a much more healthy way of approaching things and it feels more true to myself too. Ironically, this view has helped me reach the results I want much better so far, but that’s how things go sometimes.
In the immortal words of Abbacchio’s partner: