Is it though? 100k isn’t really a lot after Steam’s cut and taxes (unless you live in a cheap CoL country). Even with a 1-person team it probably breaks down to about 50k a year after Steam/taxes and that’s only if you make a top 5 percent game on your own.
Elsewhere in the report it mentions that games have become increasingly winner take all, where in 2016 top games only made up 37% of all revenue, now they take up 61%.
The 700th best game in a single year damn well better be a solo dev. Even saying there are half that released in a year that aren’t shovelware is generous.
If you’re a studio that can’t do better than that you deserve to shut down.
Is it though? 100k isn’t really a lot after Steam’s cut and taxes (unless you live in a cheap CoL country). Even with a 1-person team it probably breaks down to about 50k a year after Steam/taxes and that’s only if you make a top 5 percent game on your own.
Elsewhere in the report it mentions that games have become increasingly winner take all, where in 2016 top games only made up 37% of all revenue, now they take up 61%.
Making enough to live on as the 700th best PC game in a year is a lot. There weren’t anywhere near 700 actually respectable games released last year.
That’s only enough to “live on” if it’s 2-3 devs or if their spouses have good jobs. I don’t think many $100k/yr games have solo devs.
That said, I do think those are good numbers for most teams, and especially new teams on their first or second game.
The 700th best game in a single year damn well better be a solo dev. Even saying there are half that released in a year that aren’t shovelware is generous.
If you’re a studio that can’t do better than that you deserve to shut down.
It’s really hard for small games to get noticed. Even if they are good.
Out of more than 14K.