why do most steam developers have made only one game

[Godly_Aryan]

i came a across A LOT of games that looked interesting but when I looked up the team behind the development of that game to see what have they worked on before or/and working on now i was surprised to see that they only made 1 game, even after years of that game being released and being a successful seller. i just don't get it. don't game companies like to make games after a successful game release or am i just missing somthing?

[crunchyfrog]

It's probably fair to say, comparitively, Steam does have more than it's fair share of one-hit wonder devs.

But that's largely down to Steam allowing the ability for anyone to put out a game here, for good or ill.

It's obvious, but it's important to remember this when you consider questions like the OP asks.

[UCEY]

It also costs $100 to publish a game, at least it did when Dani released Muck

[Spawn of Totoro]

It takes years to make a game. If it is a small team, like most Indi developers are, then after the game is released, they focus on support and adding content for a while. During or after that is done, they may plan out a new game to make and it will take several more years before that is done.

And if they didn't make enough to find it viable to make another game, they may stop after that one.

There are many reasons why an Indi developer may only make a single game. This is just one reason.

[sfnhltb]

Well if they really were successful, and they didn't get headhunted by a large studio, then probably some of them have ended up in development hell because they saw a large chunk of cash from their first successful game and tried to make their dream game and will only have it about 14% complete when the money runs out.

[Start_Running]

Development STudios and teams are very mercurial. People and teams change studio names, get rolled into other studios, split off to form their own stuidios, etc. Also keep in mind that game development is not a short process and some of the smaller devs especially the one man or group of friends teams basically get things done when they have the spare time not taken up by the work they need to eat and pay bills. The game development happens in-between.

[Godly_Aryan]

Andy;3062996278002188987
i actually did not know both games were made by the same team. very interesting.

[Wolfmaron]

because it goes like this:

devs pitch a new game to publisher, publisher said the game looks awesome, funds it, devs start developing the new game, game is released, devs have another game with their name on it

OR

devs pitch a new game to publisher, publisher said the game is trash, doesn't fund it, devs don't developed the new game because no funds

there that's it. money money money

[ReBoot]

What's so bad about a dev having one game under their belt? If it's a great game, then play it. No problem whatsoever.

[UCEY]

Escrito originalmente por ReBoot:

What's so bad about a dev having one game under their belt? If it's a great game, then play it. No problem whatsoever.

People tend to want more of a game they like, and not every game has infinite likablity

[Walach]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Look at some triple A examples in more recent years. Dead Space 3, Resident Evil 6 and quite a few others. Sold gangbusters, but because of the stupid development or promotional costs, even though they sold records amount they still didn't break even.

From what I heard those games earned them money but they wanted some % over "something" to be worth continuing. I also remember enjoying Dead Space 3 a great deal in co op, not a single other game had/have done that *spoilers* thingy what I know! :P

Why does everything I like not earn enough money? >: /

[FatalError]

lots of indie devs just make one game and then go broke, or get tired and give up. Some people have worked on games for years in other studios and just became independent. Some make a game and then get a job working for another studio. In terms of successful, reviews don't really matter, sales and money matter. If a game is rated very positive but only has 50 reviews, the game probably didn't make a profit. Sometimes real life stuff gets in the way and devs just can't make more games. And lots of studios change their names or start from scratch, due to various reasons, for example legal reasons.

[Godly_Aryan]

Escrito originalmente por ReBoot:

What's so bad about a dev having one game under their belt? If it's a great game, then play it. No problem whatsoever.

if the game is good naturally i want more.

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por Walach:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Look at some triple A examples in more recent years. Dead Space 3, Resident Evil 6 and quite a few others. Sold gangbusters, but because of the stupid development or promotional costs, even though they sold records amount they still didn't break even.

From what I heard those games earned them money but they wanted some % over "something" to be worth continuing. I also remember enjoying Dead Space 3 a great deal in co op, not a single other game had/have done that *spoilers* thingy what I know! :P

Why does everything I like not earn enough money? >: /

NO they didn't earn them PROFIT. That's the point.

They had to earn really stupid levels of money because of their budget bloat or obscene marketing budgets.

Taking money? Yes, of course they did. They SOLD that many copies, but it cost MORE than that.

It's obscene that marketing and advertising budgets are often MORE tahn the total development budget. But that's part of the problem.

[Walach]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

NO they didn't earn them PROFIT. That's the point.

They had to earn really stupid levels of money because of their budget bloat or obscene marketing budgets.

Taking money? Yes, of course they did. They SOLD that many copies, but it cost MORE than that.

It's obscene that marketing and advertising budgets are often MORE tahn the total development budget. But that's part of the problem.

Yeah, all that money... The same money that could have made another game in itself :(
Couldn't find the figures, only that it sold more than any other game in the USA at that time. I could have sworn I read somewhere a long time ago that they got their money but they didn't get X% over some figure that I couldn't understand at the time. Heh, ohh well, times be gone anyways.

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por Walach:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

NO they didn't earn them PROFIT. That's the point.

They had to earn really stupid levels of money because of their budget bloat or obscene marketing budgets.

Taking money? Yes, of course they did. They SOLD that many copies, but it cost MORE than that.

It's obscene that marketing and advertising budgets are often MORE tahn the total development budget. But that's part of the problem.

Yeah, all that money... The same money that could have made another game in itself :(
Couldn't find the figures, only that it sold more than any other game in the USA at that time. I could have sworn I read somewhere a long time ago that they got their money but they didn't get X% over some figure that I couldn't understand at the time. Heh, ohh well, times be gone anyways.

Well, to be fair, I could have been clearer, so there's that.

What I meant was that they had projection of their income and that almost always tends to be the sweet spot of what comes in in the first week or so.

They utterly failed, but I think you may be right that one (or more) may well have broke even eventually. I mean I bought RE6 after it was on GamePass once as I found it bloody hilarious. Maybe deep sales helped it go that bit further.