I have one question. Is it possible to get some money (a lot of money :) ) by doing software, not games? I know that almost all of you are indie GAME developers, but maybe there are a few peoples who made a good money from software. Is it more harder to get money from software, not from games?

It is certainly possible. There are several ASP members making good money from non-game software. However, just like with games, it takes time to build up the business. You mean to code the software, then start selling/promoting and then there is (usually) a slow process of improving the software, improving your sales technique, improving your marketing and on and on.

A lot of the same problems plague games and software in general:

1) Incredibly tight competition. The PC is a very accessible platform for developers, so you have many people struggling for the same slice of pie.

2) Very difficult to come up with a truly original idea that can also sell well.

3) What obscure said.

If you can make money in games, you can make it in general software as well. There's a lot of successful companies filling a lot of niches. The hard part is being exceptional enough to become the leader in whatever area you choose to fill.

Things are so far so good with CustomBar, but it won't be possible to tell how well it'll do in the long run until a few months have passed at least. It's definitely a hard but fun business to be in.

I know this might be kind of a cheap answer but...

If you do it well, then yes. Most things in this world you can make a decent living at if you do it well and better then others in the field. Or, if you do the research, find a field that isn't full and work there.

If you can write software that does something people need, they'll buy it.

Not sure this was very helpful, it was a simple and kinda cheap answer but also a true one(I believe).

For some reason I have the impression it's easier to live off shareware applications than from shareware games, in part because I think it's much easier to make an application than to make a game. Just my 2 Uruguayan Peso cents, which is about 1/15 of a dollar cent :)

I don't think it's easier to make an app vs. a game. It's just easier to figure out what people want. Games are entertainment, and have all of the problems of regular software, as well as the added problems of figuring out what is compelling enough to make people spend their free time doing it. If I didn't have a preference toward making games, I'd make apps in a heartbeat.

"I don't think it's easier to make an app vs. a game. It's just easier to figure out what people want. Games are entertainment"

Very true.
App = a function.
Game = art(Well, most).

It's easier to make software that does a function and fullfills a need then say make a game with a 15 hour plot and 8 characters interacting.

Yes, it's possible to make money (a lot of money) by doing software, not games.

Having done both, independent software and independent games, starting both at roughly the same time (1996), I don't know that I can say one is significantly "easier" or "harder" than the other. Creating good software, whether its functional or entertainment, takes skill, creativity, and a lot of time and user testing and feedback.

With The Journal (http://www.davidrm.com/thejournal/), growth has been more consistent over the years. However, on the Samu Games side of my life, one year hit heights that The Journal has never seen (yet).

I'm sure, though, that there are others who have seen the opposite result. So don't take this as a general prediction.

-David

Well, considering that "games" covers everything from Minesweeper to MMORPGs, and "apps" covers everything from Calculator to Maya... can anyone say which is easier?

Though personally, I've got a ton of ideas for games, but I can't think of a single useful application that a lot of people might want and can't already get (not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of one).

So games it is, then.

I'm doing both. the only thing i can say is that it's very long to get a mature app compared to a game.

My app Super Sprites (http://www.phelios.net/supersprites.html) ( a tool for artists and programmers ) is just starting to sell after more than 2 years of developpement. The main problem I'm facing is that there's nothing like it, so people don't even know such a tool exist. It has great potential though.

pat.
ps : yes that's a shameless plug :)

Thanks guys! All was very helpful and now I want to comment some answers.

You mean to code the software, then start selling/promoting and then there is (usually) a slow process of improving the software, improving your sales technique, improving your marketing and on and on.
Yeah, I know that. I hope Steve's articles will help me. Also I found a lot of good (I didn't read them yet) articles about shareware business (http://www.davetalks.com/). I think you should read them!

2) Very difficult to come up with a truly original idea that can also sell well.
Yeah, it's true. There are a lot of same programs over the Internet (like same games too). It takes A LOT of time to figure out what program/game to create...

If you can make money in games, you can make it in general software as well.
But I don't know whether I can make money in games because I didn't do any game. I think it's not good to make games... :) (you know, when I see children playing games whole day instead of studying, making their school homework... you know I can't do that... lol).

I know this might be kind of a cheap answer but...
No, there are no cheap answers for me. Thanks!

I think it's much easier to make an application than to make a game.
Yeah, I think you're right. For instance, you don't have to be painter to make a good graphics, you don't have to be musician to create music, you just have to be a good coder to make application. It's easier to be just a programmer than to be everything. :)

It's just easier to figure out what people want.
Umm... I think it's pretty hard to figure out anyway (whether you want to make a game or application).

Well, considering that "games" covers everything from Minesweeper to MMORPGs, and "apps" covers everything from Calculator to Maya... can anyone say which is easier?
Yeah, you right!

The main problem I'm facing is that there's nothing like it, so people don't even know such a tool exist. It has great potential though.


While I admit to knowing *nothing* about the application market, this is what I would expect to be a big problem.

In games, well, many people like games, and are interested in finding new games, and will cheerfully browse What's-New and other such listings to find games they haven't heard of. May not play them all, but they're open to and even actively looking for new things to play with.

Do you know anyone who regularly looks at the latest-releases of "generic applications"? At least for me, if I'm after a program, I have a specific idea of what I want in mind, and I will search for that and only that. You may have invented the greatest new software ever, but if I haven't heard about it and don't know that I might need it, I'm not going to absently flip through application catalogs waiting for something interesting to catch my eye.

Specific need or word-of-mouth - if someone *tells* me program X is great and would be useful for me, I'll take a look.

There are people out there making a lot of money off games and applications, so it is possible. The question of which one is *easier* is more difficult to answer :). We’ve released a professional application, 010 Editor, which is doing fairly well and seems to be doing better as the word gets out. To find out how the game market is, we’re planning on releasing a small puzzle game called Peepers in the next month. We’ll be able to compare them better after the game is released.

The question of whether games or applications are easier to develop is not simple. For applications (at least the ones people consider buying), I think they are typically more complex to code because they have more input choices than a typical game. 010 Editor has around 40 different forms and over a thousand different controls. 010 Editor also has a huge help file (over 30000 words) that took close to two months to write, but the help file for the game we’re working on took about two days to write. On the other hand, with applications you don’t have to worry about graphics and music that can take a lot of time depending on who does them.

The other question is whether games or applications are easier to sell. No doubt, there is a bigger potential market for games than the average application, but that market is also tougher to reach since there are lots of games out there. Applications tend to be more focused to a smaller set of users. Some people argue that there isn’t really competition between games because each game is different – it only comes down to if a user enjoys the game. In reality, I think all of the games are really competing for the user’s time and attention. Applications do have an advantage because of being able to sell multi-user and site licenses to companies. We’ve had a bunch of companies that have purchased our software, and then come back in another month and purchased more copies.

I guess there’s no easy answer. But if you’re very good at what you do, you can stand out and be successful whether you’re writing a game or application. Cheers!

Graeme

I think both applications and games are NP Hard. :D

Anthony

Though personally, I've got a ton of ideas for games, but I can't think of a single useful application that a lot of people might want and can't already get (not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of one).


Hmmm.... well this doesn't bode well at all for the clay interface word processor I was looking forward to...

applications are much easier than games...

- development time is much less (in most cases)

- you can charge more (29.95 is a decent price for a software product, but not for a shareware puzzle game, etc.)

- possibility of selling multiple licenses (to businesses, etc.)

- you can keep improving the product and making it beter, selling upgrades, etc.

- making applications takes none or very little artistic skill. you don't have to worry about music, graphics, etc. just code.

i have done both, and in my opinion, succeeding in software is much easier than in games (especially with all the competition from the big game studios and their fancy technologies). this statement is in general though, there are always exceptions...

Actually, I've just finished up all my menu and font stuff this past week; I could probably whip up a clay-look word processor pretty quickly. I'm sure the world is crying out for one.

I'm hearing echoes of earlier threads.

Like: "I could design and code a puzzle game in 2 weeks and make money, but I don't because <insert high-falutin' reason here>..."

And: "Game programming is the most difficult type of programming ever because <insert pretension here>..."

Ah, well.

-David

Applications do have an advantage because of being able to sell multi-user and site licenses to companies.
Do not underestimate this! Many companies are more than happy to buy the most expensive multi-user license you offer. A few of these orders a month goes a long way to making the rent. ;) Of course, not all applications are interesting to businesses, but it's really something to keep in mind.

- development time is much less (in most cases)

Since when? The term "manyear" comes from application development. Games have only started matching the development timeframes of serious applications within the last 5 years.


- you can charge more (29.95 is a decent price for a software product, but not for a shareware puzzle game, etc.)

This is true, but I don't see how that makes application development *easier*.

As for the $29.95 price point...that's seriously low, especially if you have an application that is used in business. And I think most indies undersell themselves and underprice their products.


- possibility of selling multiple licenses (to businesses, etc.)

True. But, again, I don't see how this makes application development easier.

I have been pondering how to apply the "site license" approach to independent game sales. If "Game Room" type establishments become as popular in the US as in other countries, there's a possibility for it. I'm sure we'll find other avenues and oppurtunities if we just look.


- you can keep improving the product and making it beter, selling upgrades, etc.

If you don't plan to do this with your independent games, then you're missing out on one of the primary benefits of being an indie. Indie games can't use the "fire-and-forget" approach of retail publishers, and have much to gain by a) listening to their players; b) incorporating player suggestions into the game; which leads to c) improving the game over time (AKA, better sales and a growing player base).


- making applications takes none or very little artistic skill. you don't have to worry about music, graphics, etc. just code.

I don't need those skills to make games either. When a project requires those skills (application or game), I find people who *do* have those skills. So, again, I don't see how this has any bearing on the discussion.


i have done both, and in my opinion, succeeding in software is much easier than in games (especially with all the competition from the big game studios and their fancy technologies).

In independent software development, games or applications, you always face huge competition. In games, you have the big publishers, of course. On the application side of the fence, you face rather huge competitors, as well: Microsoft, IBM, Symantec, et al.

The reason any independent succeeds is because they find a niche that they can defend against the staggeringly huge competitors with their deep pockets. To put it in "Marketing Warfare" terms: the independent succeeds because within the (very) limited battlefield of his niche, he can outnumber Microsoft (or Electronic Arts)--with expertise, intimate customer service, rapid turnaround, and so on.

I just don't see any significant difference twixt the two. Good software is always a challenge, whatever the nature of the application or the purpose of the end user.

If there are more starving, would-be independent game developers than starving, would-be independent application developers, I would say its for the same reason there are more starving, would-be indie movie directors than there are starving, would-be indie documentary makers: the higher profile profession attracts more people.

-David

I used to be of the opinion that games were more difficult to make than apps. Then I got a job, and after working on an app for a while that opinion changed. And no, I don't think apps are more difficult now. :) I would say each has its challenges, but apps tend to be much much bigger than games. For instance at my job I'm working on an app that is used to run various tests on DSL modems. You wouldn't believe how big this thing is. I came on the project a few months ago, and it has already been under development for about a year before that. So from personal experience, I would suggest not underestimating how much work a good, functional, and competitive app can be.

IMO it's easier to make money with applications, because you can produces something there which is actually needed. That's the whole difference. No one needs games - it's just a "nice to have" and not a "must have". A customer always needs a reason. If it makes his/her life easier you'll have a deal. For that reason applications have usually a higher CR.

An application can take a day or more than your life span and the same is true for games. Yes. Really. There are alot of retail games which no one could ever do in his/her entire life.

Making an application also gives you some feeling of security. GUI design for example is already science and not art anymore. Usability tests and redesign (of the GUI) cycles are also somewhat short there. But gameplay tests and changes needs more time because it's not really measurable (and you'll be always a bit uncertain).

IMO it's easier to make money with applications, because you can produces something there which is actually needed. That's the whole difference. No one needs games - it's just a "nice to have" and not a "must have". A customer always needs a reason. If it makes his/her life easier you'll have a deal. For that reason applications have usually a higher CR.

People don't need luxury cars, ipods, jewelry, or designer clothes. But for some reason they buy them. It's not a simple matter of "I need this to survive" or "I need this to make me more productive." Seth Godin ("Purple Cow") did an interview for NPR (http://www.npr.org/) about this stuff actually. I'll try to find it.

>People don't need luxury cars, ipods, jewelry, or designer clothes.

Show off items :)

Oooh look at me... I got a new *gasp* game. Nah... doesn't work ;D

IMO it's easier to make money with applications, because you can produces something there which is actually needed.

That's assuming that you can successfully identify a need which isn't being met...

>People don't need luxury cars, ipods, jewelry, or designer clothes.

Show off items :)

Oooh look at me... I got a new *gasp* game. Nah... doesn't work ;D

Bleh, semantics! :) The point is people buy things they don't "need" regardless of what they are.

That's assuming that you can successfully identify a need which isn't being met...
True. But the questions are easier to answer. Does it make life easier? <j/n> Is there already a programm like this? <j/n> If yes, is there a way to make it much better? <j/n>

With games it's more like... Does it make life easier? <n>...

Well, it's just... y'know... there are alot of fuzzy questions on your way doing a game and you can't demonstrate on a dayly basis how usefull your programm actually is - it's just a game.

What I'm trying to say... it's easier to close the deal (applications), because you can come up with really good reasons. However, the difficulty level of the production process is about the same (I guess).

Bleh, semantics! :) The point is people buy things they don't "need" regardless of what they are.
Yes, that's true. However, it's easier to sell something which people actually need. That's what I ment to say.

There are alot of really ugly VB applications with a CR of 1.5% and the author is actually complaining about the extremely "bad" rate. (Heh. Eventually that's a thing I should try for myself at some point in the future.)

That's assuming that you can successfully identify a need which isn't being met...

Which brings up an interesting question - How many times do we define an "unmet need" as being an application with feature set x, y, and z?

As Gerber points out in "The E-Myth Revisited", the customer is looking for a buying experience, not just a product. If we can then define the unmet need as being an application and an awesome shopping experience, and a superb customer service experience... I think that gives us a lot more room to maneuver.

Anthony... no, the other Anthony ;)

You don't need to make an application that is completely unique, just like you don't need to make a game that has completely unique gameplay. You just have to make something that is in some way better than the competition.

One of the stories from the very fine Shareware Business Blunders (http://www.swb2.com/) ebook was that a competitor stole a large portion of the market mostly because it was easier to buy, even if the program itself was less remarkable than the established competition.