The language does not make a game successful. The gameplay, graphics, and delivery are what make a game successful.

if you can make a game easily with pygame, then make it. The end consumer does not give two craps about what you used to make the game.

The language does not make a game successful. The gameplay, graphics, and delivery are what make a game successful.

if you can make a game easily with pygame, then make it. The end consumer does not give two craps about what you used to make the game.

Yes and no. You're right, the idea is where it's at. However, some platforms

make it easier to make your game in. For example, MultiMedia Fusion 2

allows you to make the game and then export it to XNA, iOS, Android OS,

Xbox, etc. making it easier to bring the idea to the masses. And there are

already financially successful games made using this tool.

Since I didn't see too my financially successful games made in pygame, I'm

hypothesizing that the platform might have some disadvantages that make

it more difficult to bring the product to market, am I wrong?

not at all, i don't disagree that what you use to make the game isn't important. I just want to emphasis that at the end of the day, the consumer doesn't care how you made your game. Your original post makes it sound like you are asking for validation of using pygame, and that validation can only be achieved by demonstrating games that have been financially successful. It's not that pygame can't be used to make games it's just that their are other platforms as you've suggested that gives you a wider range of audience.

Didn't Disney use Pygame, or am I getting confused with something else?

Didn't Disney use Pygame, or am I getting confused with something else?

Didn't Disney use Pygame, or am I getting confused with something else?

IIRC they used Panda3D (also with python though)

Oh well, it was something Python.