If you REALLY want to know:

Try yourself. See how far you get in a month... or, if you got the nerve, in a year. You will be amazed how long EVERYTHING takes as soon as "it works, somehow" is not good enough anymore. Sure, you can kitbash a game in some days, and it will work, somehow.

But hand THAT game out to 5 people and see it fail the test. It will break down because of bugs, and quality issues. THIS is what will take you most of your time, testing, ensuring some quality standarts, testing again, and then, testing once again.

The fact you think that a) developing a small 2D game should be quick and easy, and b) a major in CS makes you a lone wolf indie dev just by sheer awesomeness of the degree makes it look like you never REALLY tried game development... something that takes years to really get into and understand even if you only try to master a single discipline.

A lone wolf needs to be at least competent in many. A CS Degree will not help in creating art. You can outsource it, you still need to have an idea as at the end of the day, there is no one to integrate the art other than you. Similar about sound, game design, marketing, and customer support.

You can bet at least months, maybe years of the devs time were spent for marketing and business.

Now, I have to say I don't know about the game and the dev. But there is a chance the guy didn't work on the game fulltime. If you only work 8 hours per week on a game, that game takes anywhere from 5-10 times longer to develop (seeing how usual game dev weeks can be up to 80 hours of work in cases of bad crunch)... so if he was working on the game in his free time, it might only have taken him 6 months working fulltime.

The second thing is that even with a CS major, the guy might have spent 2-3 years learning the ropes, and not really being all that efficient working on his project. I can tell you that a CS major does NOT make you a senior programmer at all... you are a junior at best (the very best coming out of a CS major might be usable as juniors from day one, the others only as trainees). And that doesn't include all the stuff you need to learn for effectively developing games (not talking about art and sound and all the other stuff yet, just programming).

Studying and getting a degree teaches you some basics, and gives you a degree to find a job with. It does NOT train you as a specialist. That can only be done on the job (and you don't really need a degree to become a specialist, only to have a better chance in the job market).

The last thing to remember is that you don't come up with a project that sells a million copys just like that... not even the game dev stars can do that. If you wake up one day with a brilliant idea, are able to pull it off without any delay, and it happens to work out fine and is fun at the end, that is like winning the lottery. Most of the time this is a process, where 10 projects are consecutively started, 7 of them abandoned in early stages as they just suck, 3 being developed further, and only 1 of it really the big hit everyone is looking for.

Game development is often very experimental, hands on. Creating prototypes, testing them, and throwing them away quickly if they don't work is the usual process of successfull devs. That means a lot of time lost to experiments.

what has took him THAT long? I mean, seriously, the game has a few base game mechanics. The game is 2D pixel art. The code might be thousands of files. What takes 4 years just to develop a 2D game? Answer the most noobish question please.

Software development is a very complicated matter. When we talking about single person working on a game there are lot of factors involved which may stretch development time.

- The developer might not have been working on it all the time, took longer breaks, holiday

- Maybe scrapped the whole things few times being unhappy of the result

- Single person usually doesn't know when to stop improving things. There's always field to improve something. ALWAYS.

- Single person may not be willing to sacrifice all time.

- Game development isn't just programming. It involves lot more other types of work and all of them have to work together to create final product. It's not uncommon that assets go through several iterations, the design may change several time etc. What takes few months for a team may take years for "a single guy"

- Independent developers, especially when one person owns whole game, they are lot more involved and have much stronger feeling of the ownership. They will be polishing the game forever to match their expectations. It pretty much connects with an issue of not being able to say "stop".

Did you know that there was once simple 2D game made just by one guy. The development took 2 years. It's "Another World" by Eric Chahi. Check this GDC post mortem:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014630/Classic-Game-Postmortem-OUT-OF

I know it's old game but looking from point of view of a single-person-studio, only the technology really changed. Plus it's good stuff to watch :)

In my head, i'm trying to figure something. I've seen that Stardew Valley has been sold for more than 1 million copies on steam. It was a game, which was developed by a single guy. That guy, according to Wikipedia, had a major in computer science. That already means he had a strong knowledge about software development in general, unlike us code monkeys who stay on gamedev and stackoverflow, and ask a million questions, just to get a million questions more. Stardew valley is a 2D game, which was developed in 4 years. I've seen the game, and i'm trying to figure, what has took him THAT long? I mean, seriously, the game has a few base game mechanics. The game is 2D pixel art. The code might be thousands of files. What takes 4 years just to develop a 2D game? Answer the most noobish question please.

The artwork takes time to make.... and most of what gets made is thrown away and remade better, during development. What art you see in a game, likely four times more was made and remade before it makes it in the game.

The coding takes time to make... especially when you are learning new tools and game design. Him having a computer science degree may mean he already knows how to program some times of computer applications in one language, but it doesn't mean he knows how to make games in whatever language he eventually decided to use. He likely had to learn entirely different thought processes.

Making a game takes time, in-general... especially when you're also working a job, and can only work on your game after you come home from work (though in this developer's case, it sounds like it was a part-time job).

I've been working on my RPG for nearly six years now - learning as I go. And I've certainly wasted alot of time, partly from inexperience, and partly because that's just how game development goes.

Then there is no reason for me to buy MODO for $1800? Cuz 3D will take a lot more time?

Then there is no reason for me to buy MODO for $1800? Cuz 3D will take a lot more time?

No, you shouldn't buy anything over, say, $50, until you gain enough knowledge and competency to know for certain whether the purchase is actually what you need (and don't be swayed by "testimonies" and marketing controlled by the people who stand to make money from getting you to put your reason to the side). Investing money into tools that you don't even know if you need is stupid.

Even when buying a $50 book, you should till shop around and ask questions read reviews to find out which book is actually worth getting. There are two costs: The money-cost of the book, and the time-cost of reading it. Neither should be spent haphazardly.

Depending on the size of your bank account, it may not be worth spending an hour to decide whether to spend $60 on a book (I don't know about you, but I don't make $60 an hour), but it absolutely is worth spending an hour to prevent 10 hours of wasted time reading a book that's not any good.

The same with 3D modelling tools. You don't need to spend $1800 for a tool that you don't yet need, and you don't need to spend 30-50 hours learning to be proficient at that tool, when you don't need that tool.

Even if you need to make 3D assets, why waste $1800 + 50 hours to learn MODO, when you can waste $0 + 50 hours to learn Blender (which is super widely used, even by pros, and also free)? MODO might be a better tool for professionals (I have no clue), but you aren't yet at professional level, and by the time you become professional (years down the road), MODO may not be the tool the professionals still use.

Obviously I don't know your current skill level in 3D modelling, but usually the people who are competent already know which tools they should buy next, so I'm making what I feel is a safe assumption.

Well, i will order the next month a $2000 PC specifically for 3D render and thought about spending another $1800 for a superb software. Blender 3D feels like it was made by aliens. From the UI to the key bindings, it all is quite hard to get into. And all the worth tutorials cost money, so it still requires investment just like MODO, but not at that scale. Btw, MODO has been since the beginning of 2000s. So it will not go anywhere. The biggest concern i got with it is that for $1800 you pay for a software that won't ever get updated, and by some years, it will be outdated.

I'm not sure, but are there gamedev books that describe the basic game algorithms? It would help.

Well, i will order the next month a $2000 PC specifically for 3D render

Why? Are you making an animated movie? I thought you were making a game - why are you buying a PC that specializes in the wrong areas? Ofcourse, computers are general-purpose devices, so it'd still definitely be usable for game development, but it seems the wrong area to begin looking.

My computer costs $700 + $120 for a SSD + $120 for a monitor, and it serves my development needs perfectly fine. I'd spend another ~$200 if I was doing 3D work.

My computer is not currently limiting my work. If it were, I'd selectively and intelligently spend money to focus on the parts that are slowing me down.

This sounds like someone who is wanting to learn carpentry and then goes and buys twenty different kinds of expensive hammers, not even knowing which of those hammers he needs in what situation.

Or someone who is wanting to be an artist and goes and buys expensive paints. Beginner artists should use cheaper paints, because they don't know what they need or how to bring out it's full potential until several years later, meaning the money gets wasted.

I personally know several artists who work with very cheap materials, and make art better than most professionals with professional tools. Those same artists I know then carefully invest to upgrade exactly the materials they find hindering them, rather than just upgrading everything willy-nilly.

Average tools won't limit beginners,until they reach above-average skill levels. That's when they should invest in better tools, as they find themselves no longer limited by skill, but limited by tool capabilities. Better tools don't make beginners automatically become experts.

If you have $4000 dollars to waste, it's not going to go anywhere. I'd put it somewhere safe (i.e. a bank), and in six months or a year, you'll be able to make much more informed purchasing decisions.

It's your money, obviously you spend it how you want, but since you came here posting in the For Beginners section, that's my advice: Don't be swayed to spend money just because you have it, you'd just make poor purchases because they look shiny and flashy and cool.

I'm not experienced in 3D modelling, so experienced 3D modelers can give you better advice about what to buy. My advice is more of when to buy, and it applies to almost every discipline.