I didn't like that article. I haven't launched a successful indie game, but I don't think the author of that article did either.

I have however launched several very successful windows and mac software programs and run a great software company.

I agree with all of the advice he was complaining about.

1. My first game sucked so bad!!!!!!!!! It is normal. Your first game won't be GTA, it will suck. And you get better from there.

Anyone whose first game didn't suck please correct me.

Getting a sponsorship on FGL doesn't mean a game doesn't suck. I love FGL. I think FGL is awesome because it gives the small developer

a chance to get a few bucks for writing a game. The guy who sponsors it basically gets the right to upload it to all the big game

sites, and almost always makes back his money and a profit in ad revenue. Only because new games are always on the top for

a little while and get a bunch of ad views. But Look at the stuff that gets sponsored there. These arcade

sites will buy almost anything the prices starting at $50 and the biggest deal ever there was like $10,000 or $20,000. How is

getting a guy with an arcade site to give you a few hundred or thousand bucks for the rights to your game a measure of not sucking.

I am not the slightest bit interested getting a sponsor on FGL And I don't know of anybody making a living through FGL sponsorships.

2.

Start small is good, everybody here will say the same. But yes if you are 100% sure you can complete it in your timeframe then go for it.

3.

What works for us might not work for you? I see about 1,000 candy crush imitators and only candy crush is making $1 million a day.

4.

Marketing is Important

5.

On this one I really agree with the old standard. Prototype first. Block Out First. make a game that is fun to play with just boxes. That is

the foundation for something great. Graphics won't help you if your gameplay sucks. Start with the foundation. Graphics are the finishing touch.

What I think the problem could be (do note, this is pure speculation from my part) is that those lists were the truth at some point in time.

I see it like this, probably the people that make those lists were the ones that had to dig through piles of rubish, had to overcome 9 failed games and didn't have the information/platforms or whatever is needed that we have available to us now.

It has become significantly easier to make games with lesser effort over the years, large communities have risen from seemingly nowhere, the indie scene has been growing as well and right now, it's just a matter of downloading Unity3D, grab some nice looking assets from one of the many sites providing them, skim through some tutorials or copy paste some code and you can already have a decent game running without that much effort.

I also think many of those posts are meant for people that think "I'll just make my idea and become a millionair, just like notch did" and get bitter when their first game magically doesn't become the next minecraft. They also tend to forget that, taking notch and minecraft as another example, wasn't his first try.

I get where he's coming from and where he's going with this, though I do not fully agree with every point. It's something that is also to be seen from the eye of the beholder and a matter of how you interpret it and like I said, most of those points are probably stated by people that had to go through these points that are not fully valid anymore.

Sure, the failed game part may be wrong but the part about indie devs should not make big games like the pros and forum members feeling like you shouldn't doing that because I was told not to or because I couldn't is right

That is also simply a matter of perspective and aim. There's a difference between doable and feasible.

If for example, your aim is to make a living from game making, you will need to invest money in it and preferably make more money with the game you just made. Taking risks and such into account, it is better to have smaller games/projects where failure will have a lower impact than to start on a big project where failure can result in a lot of debt and perhaps take away your dream.

Doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve, but it's just a matter of accepting the opportunities and risks of your project size.

I know, I know, I need to practice what I preach.

Not mentioning that the "Back in the day things weren't this easy!" thing is kinda the big elephant in the room don't you think?

Besides, "once upon a time" there weren't as many games as they are made today. While many people are "lost" with great tools, there are a lot of motivated people who can jump on the game making train whenever they feel like, something that simply wasn't possible before.

It isn't that "people is lost", its just that right now the barrier of entry is so low even "lost" people can have the cake and eat it too. In exchange the people that do have motivation but that lack the 500 grand to spend on a UnrealEngine 1 licence simply don't exist anymore, today they also can have a slice of the delicious cake (yes! I'm hungry).

I'd rather have a guy that doesn't knows what to do with all the options available than a guy that knows exactly what to do but can't do it because all the doors are closed. Difference is that no matter how high or low the barrier of entry is, the former is hopeless whereas the later isn't.